Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker vetoed a bill which would make it easier for victims of wage discrimination to file lawsuits against employers. http://www.laborradio.org/Channels/S...spx?ID=1683122 Well, at least he's consistent. I sure hope they recall him from office. Thread started at Forum 4 Politics on 04-09-2012 12:30 AM
With a citation to Laborradio.org given I assume you would want Governor Walker recalled. And, the blurb you cited is hilarious but it's upsetting to think union thugs actually believe that nonsense. The "women earn $.78 cents for every $1" has been debunked so often it's embarrassing but for nitwits it still works. Now, something to really frighten you. Women live much longer than men. It's a conspiracy. We must act on this now. So, best of luck to Gov. Walker and I hope the thugs and crooks lose. Not that I don't feel sorry for teachers who had to start paying a little bit for health care. At least they don't have to pay what the private sector pays.
You'd have to control for human capital and also bias created by differentials in promotion chances. Has your debunking at least achieved that?
You have to take into account that many women exit and re-enter the workplace due to taking time out for children, which decreases their chances of continued promotion. The women that forego having children do much better in the workplace in the long run. Another bill trying to tell business how to run is just another move toward totalitarian democracy.
Already mentioned that via the reference to human capital. Note, however, that the standard reference to 'statistical discrimination' (where, for example, we refer to female sprog raising) has been found to be incapable of explaining differentials in compensation performance. For example, the probability of job turnover is often found to be higher for males.
I'm outraged everytime I hear this, especially if it's true. If it is true, I think that women are way overpaid. Given their inferiority in every aspect of life, as a male I am insulted that women earn more than 50 cents for every $1 I make.
Most of the differences in pay and promotion come from the very simple fact that most women take a few years off when they have kids. Gaps in employment lower your pay, and diminish your chances of getting promoted. I don't see discrimination except in the fat that Woman want more pay for doing less actual work. One of the big things that actually holds women back is the FMLA act -- it says that an employee can suddenly take a year off to care for a sick relative. Problem is that most of the people who use FMLA are women, and it gives employers a bit of pause when choosing a woman to run a business critical office. You simply cannot promote a woman because if she goes out on FMLA, you lose the leader of that department, the money you spent training the woman, and the money that you now must spend to train someone else. Of course once you do that, you must replace the new manager with the manager who hasn't set foot in the office for 12 months and waste yet more time and money getting her up to speed. Or you can hire a man whose wife will do all the FMLA stuff and not have to worry that he'll take 12 months off suddenly. Women have it all handed to them on a golden platter, and then they want to sue because a man working full time makes more money than she makes working part time.
You'd have to show that all wage (and promotion) differentials are the result of efficiency (i.e.reflecting human capital differences). Can you do that?
It seems to me that if one wants to undercut one's competitors, one can gain a *huge* advantage on labor costs by hiring only women. Right?
Only if you assume that discrimination can be understood via Becker's "taste for discrimination" approach. For example, if we take the Marxist approach then both males and females can be weakened by discriminatory practices (i.e. divide & conquer)
I know this is a blow to the trial lawyers but they'll recover. I'm sure the Democrats will pass some other laws they can use to sue. Isn't paying women less than men in the same job already illegal by federal law, if you're not the President of the U.S.?
Like most Marxist propaganda, the title of the bill usually has nothing to do with the goal Take this one for example where auto manufacturers will be mandated to put a black box in every vehicle only to be used by the federal government pushed by Reid and Pelosi and will also revoke passports if you own taxes, something that will be challenged in court since it is unconstitutional.
No kidding. The Employee Free Choice Act was really the Card Check Act. It's actually insulting to have an act designed to promote union thuggery called "Employee Free Choice Act".
Are you really that stupid? First, when the baby is born, who takes that maternity leave (hint: it ain't the man) When the kid gets sick and needs to be picked up early from school, who does it? When the kid is too sick to go to school or daycare, but too young to stay home alone, who else stays home? Which children are more likely to take in their parents? So at every turn, the WOMAN is the one taking time off of work to care for the family. Which means time not working, or part time hours to take care of family issues, things men never do -- at least not very often. So when wages are given out, women are taking home about the same as a man would if he was constantly calling in sick and leaving early and demanding special hours -- which is to say 25% less. When you don't make work a priority, the boss doesn't make you a priority. If you call in sick a lot, you don't get promoted. DEAL WITH IT. Either put in the same hours as a man does, without taking time off when the kids get sick, or put up with the lesser pay you've earned. Just don't work less than a man does and then cry discrimination when your part time labor doesn't make as much money as a man's full time employment. you want rewards? EARN THEM.
I'm not interested in the foot stamping. I said: You'd have to show that all wage (and promotion) differentials are the result of efficiency (i.e.reflecting human capital differences). Can you do that? That requires reference to empirical evidence (particularly as the standard statistical discrimination story, based on perceived average differences across gender, is often rejected). Achieve that and we can avoid the tantrum stuff!