Comments on: McCain Against Equal Pay

By: Elina

Elina — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:51:16 +0000

What really gets me mad is that I’m only 14 and by the time its time for me to get a job, they still wont have anything to prevent employers from paying women less. I mean, this is the decade of change…of breaking all steryotypes! How are women supposed to support themselves and/or their families if our nation is going into a depression and women are still being paid less?
You tell me, McCain. You IDIOT!

By: Tracee Sioux

Tracee Sioux — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:50:34 +0000

Whether it’s illogical or not employers pay women less than they do males doing the same job. Mainly because women are willing to do it and they save a quarter for ever dollar they pay them. (Which is kind of logical if your interest is entirely monetary.)

Everyone should be blind. But no one is. This has negative monetary consequences for women.

Because no one is gender blind or color blind the need for laws and lawsuits arise. If they were color or gender blind – there would be no need for such things.

By: Jay

Jay — Mon, 12 May 2008 20:50:45 +0000

I’d have to read the entire bill, but it doesn’t sound like something I would support.
What if someone has lots of training and experience, yet they sleep on the job or just plain old don’t perform? Do they deserve more pay than someone who who may have less training and experience yet works much harder and accomplishes more? (regardless of sex)
Its illogical for employers to pay someone less just because of their sex (or their training or their experience)., This bill will cause more injustice than it attempts to solve.
Employers should be hiring, firing, and setting pay without regard to the sex, color, national origin, sexual orientation of their employees. Instead an employee treatment should be judged solely on the worth of that employee to the employer. Government should also be blind to a persons sex, etc. However, this is something that no piece of legislation will fix without causing other injustices.

By: Tracee

Tracee — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:06:56 +0000

Thank Goodness someone else understands that you can’t hate women on welfare AND be against equal pay because pay inequity causes higher welfare rates. Duh.

I love you – please stay.

By: ding

ding — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:03:18 +0000

frankly, businesses are always compelled to adhere to certain standards that don’t support their bottom line. this is why we have safety standards, established working hours, some of us have health benefits and we enjoy weekends and holidays.

so to require a company to pay their employees equally might make the accountants shudder but it’s not a crazy idea and not unthought of.

further, if private and public firms aren’t also, theoretically, allowed to discriminate against their employees based on race, religion and orientation then they shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate based on gender.

and pay equity is *all* about gender. it’s not about salaries or putting a company in the red; it’s about the fact that someone has a uterus and someone doesn’t think she deserves to be paid for her labor.

until we start thinking of gender as within the same classes as race, religion and sexual orientation, achieving pay equity is that much more difficult.

and, frankly, supporting pay equity is a step in the right direction if anyone was interested in eliminating poverty. if every woman was paid the same as her male counterpart (this is what ‘comparable’ means) then poverty rates would decrease by half for single mothers and married women.

(Source: Mid America Institute on Poverty, Heartland Alliance)

a good book to read about the depth of pay inequity and the different ways that women are systematically discriminated against is ‘Getting Even: Why Women Don’t Get Paid Like Men and What They Can Do About It’ by Evelyn Murphy.

sorry for the long comment; i totally stumbled here and i liked it.

By: Ashley

Ashley — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:21:06 +0000

I love that flattering picture you found of him..Nice

By: Tracee

Tracee — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:17:42 +0000

True That.

By: Violet

Violet — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:06:35 +0000

If there is no inequality, then passing a law to ensure it should be no problem.

By: Tracee

Tracee — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:29:14 +0000

Same – look it up. This bill was about same education, training, hours, experience.

The reason an employer would do it is sexism Liz. It’s not logical or rational it’s prejudice.

My source is http:www.momsrising.org.

By: Liz

Liz — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 00:27:06 +0000

Just a thought… but if I were a business leader, why would I hire a man at $40,000 when I could hire a woman for $30,000? I mean, it is just not cost effective strategy to pay someone higher based on gender. Second… these statistics, believe it or not, group secretaries with lawyers and doctors and engineers. There are more men in the higher paying fields then women, so therefore their wage would be higher. Third… women trade pay for other lifestyle benefits where it is hard to measure an economic cost… such as flex time, a more generous leave or health benefit package, better hours, the ability to work at home… show us what “statistical fact” you are citing, though I’m guessing you’re citing the US Dept of Labor, Bureau of Labor Stats CPS survey, (which follows the parameters I just laid out) and you are grossly misinterpreting data.