Skip to main content

All we hear nowadays is about the Republican War on Women.....finally a little truth to set the record straight.  And this even comes from CNN, a MSM mogul who is not known to go against the Democrat grain.

 

CNN) -- 2014 is an election year. We know this because, once again, the Democrats are out in force with voices raised, full of outrage, trying to convince women that new laws are needed to ensure that they receive equal pay for equal work.

Equal pay for equal work. Sounds pretty simple, right? We all agree that a woman doing the same job as a man should not be paid less just because she's a woman.

Unfortunately, the broader issue is not that simple. What if one employee has more education? What if that employee has been with the company longer or has more experience?

These are questions that courts have been mediating since 1963 as companies have faced lawsuits over gender discrimination with regard to wages.

Katie Packer Gage
Katie Packer Gage

Why 1963? Because that is when the Equal Pay Act was signed into law by President John F. Kennedy. The law says that "no employer shall discriminate between employees on the basis of sex." And it passed the House that year by a 362-9 vote. That's right, nine Democrats voted against it.

Democrats highlight equal pay in political push

For the past two election cycles, Democrats have tried to paint Republicans as backward cavemen on this issue as part of their so-called "War on Women," claiming that Republicans don't care about women because they opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Never mind that the Ledbetter Act had little to do with the premise of equal pay for equal work and everything to do with the time limit for trial lawyers looking to exploit a potential claim.

Democrats consistently ignore data from neutral sources that indicates that when you actually compare men and women with the same background and education doing the same job, equality of pay has been largely achieved. PayScale, a compensation data company, has shown that in careers from software developer to nursing to construction project manager to human resources administrator, women are within 1% to 4% of men in terms of pay equity.

Obama to strengthen equal pay protections

However, much of the research on women voters in recent years supports the notion that women believe that men get paid more for the same job than women do. There are several reasons for this: 1) personal experience, 2) friend to friend examples and 3) Democrat politicians with manufactured data perpetuating it.

 
<cite class="expCaption">GOP pushes back on 'war on women' notion</cite>

 
<cite class="expCaption">Do women in power face a double standard?</cite>

 
<cite class="expCaption">Equal pay trending on Facebook</cite>

So what is a Republican candidate to do?

First, every Republican should affirm, without hesitation, support for the concept of equal pay for equal work. There should be no perceived daylight between Republicans and Democrats on this basic value.

Democrats seize on equal pay as midterm issue

Second, every Republican should remind voters that they support the Equal Pay Act. They should affirm that, had they been in Congress at the time, they would have voted to pass it and that the only "nay" votes recorded that day came from Democrats. And Republicans should remind women that if they are not receiving the equal pay that they deserve, the law is on their side and that bad actors should be vigorously prosecuted.

Third, all Republicans should know their facts. Be prepared to challenge the media and their opponents when they try to claim that some new piece of legislation is necessary to ensure equal pay. Not every problem in America can be fixed by Washington. Every disparity that exists in the workplace is not an opportunity for a new piece of legislation.

Fourth, every Republican should celebrate companies that have decided it is good business to have a diverse workplace. We should applaud those that have gone out of their way to attract women and give them a rich and robust work experience.

And there are plenty of great examples in the Forbes list, "The 10 Best Companies for Women in 2014":

-- IBM, which has a Reconnections Initiative that tries to bring women who left to have children back to IBM.

-- Marriott, which has an impressive 55% female workforce and 58% female management team.

-- Ernst & Young, which has a mentorship program where senior level women pursue opportunities on behalf of younger women within the company.

As we celebrate these success stories and condemn bad actors, workplace experiences for all women will improve.

Finally, all Republicans should support initiatives to encourage young girls to enter traditionally male-dominated fields such as science, technology, engineering and math. These important STEM fields are crucial to our country's future and provide incredible opportunities for women to achieve high earnings.

As of last month, there were 4.7 million unemployed women in this country. What is sad indeed is the willingness by Democrat candidates to use the issue of pay equity as a political football to change the subject from that sobering statistic and the fact that women can't keep their insurance plans or their doctors because the promise of Obamacare turned out to be a lie. These are the real challenges facing women today.

But the truth can be inconvenient when it doesn't fit into the Democrats' narrative of a trumped up "War on Women."

Hillary in 2016?  Why not?  We've already had one "girly man" serving in office for the past 7 years, we might as well give her chance as well!

Last edited by teyates
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

women work 15 months , on averge, to make what a man makes in 12 months.. fact

house republicans killed the effort by a vote of 226 to 192... fact

the bill would also require employers to show that pay disparities between their male and female employees are related to job performance, not gender... fact

what part of that is a 'liberal plot'?

 

 

 

Obviously, you did not read the article, the sources say neutral parties have confirmed otherwise.  you can't spout your Lib talking points with some reputable source.  The fact that this is a "liberal plot" stems from the article where they mention that every time there is an election the Dems raise this issue, and there is no data to support it. If there is a minimal difference, according to the article of 1-2%, then the statement thatit requires a woman to work 15 months to make the same as a man is not true.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

women work 15 months , on averge, to make what a man makes in 12 months.. fact

house republicans killed the effort by a vote of 226 to 192... fact

 

Simply saying something is a fact does not make it so, provide a reputable source that shows this to be true.  That is like saying 87.6% of all statistics are made up on the fly....fact.....or Cookie Monster is a diabetic....fact.

 

Simple statements, made with a period at the end, do not make them facts, contrary to popular Common Core training.

 the first article pulled up by a 'google search'.. shows half the 'talking points' by the republicans are just made up. exactly what teyates accuses the democrats of doing! projecting much?
 
______________________________________

House GOP leadership is not likely to bring the Paycheck Fairness Act up for a vote any time soon, but House Democrats used a procedural move to force them to go on record opposing the bill on Thursday.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the sponsor of the equal pay legislation, filed a discharge petition on the bill Thursday morning that would immediately force a vote on it if she could collect 218 signatures. Democrats also put forth a motion on Thursday known as the "Previous Question," which would have enabled them to put the Paycheck Fairness Act up for a vote, but Republicans killed the effort by a vote of 226 to 192.

Recent Census Bureau data shows that full-time working women make 77 cents for every dollar men make per year. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which DeLauro has introduced in eight consecutive Congresses, would expand the Equal Pay Act to close certain loopholes and allow employees to share salary information with their coworkers. It would also require employers to show that pay disparities between their male and female employees are related to job performance, not gender.

Most Republicans oppose the bill, and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said on the House Floor Thursday afternoon that the bill is a "liberal plot" to perpetuate the narrative that Republicans are anti-woman. DeLauro countered that she has yet to hear a reasonable excuse for Republicans to oppose the bill.

"I think we're looking at a group of people who either don't believe there is a pay gap or who just want to be contrary," DeLauro told HuffPost in a phone interview. "This bill isn't a liberal plot. We have enough statistical information to demonstrate that no matter what the job is, whether you're a waitress or bus driver or civil engineer, women are paid less money."

Every Republican that was present for the vote on Thursday voted against the motion to bring the bill up for a vote, so DeLauro is unlikely to get the number of signatures she needs for her discharge petition. But she said she has managed to drum up bipartisan support for the bill in the past, and she is going to continue to work on her Republican colleagues this session.

"I say to my Republican colleagues, take a hard look at who voted in the last election," she said. "They were mostly women. And they're looking at who's doing what."

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...s-act_n_3063804.html

Last edited by Crash.Override

I don't think they own anything.  I wish every politician, whether they be Dem, Repub, Lib, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, or Yabba-Dabba-Dontist, would stay the hell out of the bedroom. That includes trying to bring up what some want to do in the bedroom, and including asking me to contribute tax dollars to either promote it, support it, or abort it.

Oh well, that settles it Crash, your opinion writer from the huffungton Post, trumps my opinion writer from the Women's Think Tank.

Agiain, there is no substantive proof of this inequality.  Most jobs I see listed specify the pay, or salary per hours and the specifications in terms of education and experience.  You are paid commiserate to those factors.  Of course we could also bring up Affirmative Action, which is a whole different can of worms.

That tired old "it's my body" line. OK, here's an idea, be responsible for that body and stop thinking everybody should pay for what you do with it. Again, want people out of your bedroom? Then stop trying to drag them into it, shut the heck up about it, keep it to yourself and, again, take care of your own business and stop telling us we're responsible for your decisions.

Originally Posted by teyates:

Oh well, that settles it Crash, your opinion writer from the huffungton Post, trumps my opinion writer from the Women's Think Tank.

Agiain, there is no substantive proof of this inequality.  Most jobs I see listed specify the pay, or salary per hours and the specifications in terms of education and experience.  You are paid commiserate to those factors.  Of course we could also bring up Affirmative Action, which is a whole different can of worms.

_______________

and .. after you called BOTH pieces of information 'opinion writers'.. you still portray your position as fact? really?  i can find a dozen articles to compete directly with your dozen articles... the items i marked as "fact'.. are supported by the math.. yet, you still hold to your 'opinion piece'. how can one argue with such great intellect.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

That tired old "it's my body" line. OK, here's an idea, be responsible for that body and stop thinking everybody should pay for what you do with it. Again, want people out of your bedroom? Then stop trying to drag them into it, shut the heck up about it, keep it to yourself and, again, take care of your own business and stop telling us we're responsible for your decisions.

______________

but, what about 'smaller government'.. or 'less government interference'? i guess those things go out the window, if they don't support the facts in bizarro world.

Last edited by Crash.Override

BW, are you talking about the women that want taxpayers to feed, clothe, doctor, or pay kill their children?  According to what I understand from the left they want American tax payers to subsidize some folks deviant behaviour.  What people do in their bedroom is their business, taxpayers should not have to pay for the consequences, whether it's a child or terminal social illness. 

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

That tired old "it's my body" line. OK, here's an idea, be responsible for that body and stop thinking everybody should pay for what you do with it. Again, want people out of your bedroom? Then stop trying to drag them into it, shut the heck up about it, keep it to yourself and, again, take care of your own business and stop telling us we're responsible for your decisions.

______________

but, what about 'smaller government'.. or 'less government interference'? i guess those things go out the window, if they don't support the facts in bizarro world.


Only one living in bizarro world could construe the original statement as causing more government interference.  I would explain, but you still would not comprehend it.

bahahahah! hoob.. i'd LOVE for the entire forums to see your 'explanation'! there would be more entertainment value in your explanation than 20 movie tickets. you are living proof why the rest of the country believes alabama, and the south,  to be 'low information voters' and not worthy of their 'campaign dollars'.  you wouldn't know facts if they bit you on the nose.

Obama, GOP trade sharp rhetoric in equal pay debate

WASHINGTON -- President Obama on Tuesday touted executive action he was taking to help narrow the gender pay gap, while pressing Republican lawmakers to get behind the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act.

Obama charged that Republicans are "gumming up the works" on the issue of pay equity, and called on Americans to put pressure on lawmakers to pass the legislation. It would impose new regulations on how companies pay employees in an effort to ensure women are not unfairly earning less than their male counterparts.

The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation on Wednesday, but it has little chance in the GOP-controlled House.

"This isn't just about treating women fairly," Obama said. "This is about Republicans seemingly opposing any efforts to even the playing field for working families. I don't know why you would resist the idea that women should be paid the same as men and then deny that that's not always happening out there."

He added, "If Republicans in Congress want to prove me wrong, if they want to show that they do care about women being paid the same as men, then show me. They can start tomorrow. They can join us, in this, the 21st century and vote yes on the Paycheck Fairness Act."

The sharp barbs against GOP lawmakers came during remarks by Obama before he signed an executive order and presidential memorandum to mark National Equal Pay Day --the day on the calendar that marks the extra time the average American woman would need to work to earn as much as her average male counterpart did in the previous year.

Obama signed an executive order banning federal contractors from retaliating against employees who discuss their compensation. He also signed a presidential memorandum instructing Labor Secretary Tom Perez to establish new regulations requiring federal contractors to submit to the Department of Labor summary data on compensation paid to their employees, including data by sex and race.

The Department of Labor will use the data to encourage voluntary compliance with equal pay laws and allow more targeted enforcement by focusing efforts where there are discrepancies, according to the White House.

Before Obama spoke, the Republicans dismissed Obama's executive action and Senate Democrats' push on the Paycheck Fairness Act as a "desperate political ploy."

"First, it is already illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. It's been against the law to pay a woman less than a man with comparable experience in the same job since the Equal Pay Act of 1963," GOP officials said in a memo distributed to reporters. "The 'fix' that Democrats propose, then, won't change that. It would, however, tightly regulate how employers can pay their employees. This law will not create "equal" pay, but it will make it nearly impossible for employers to tie compensation to work quality, productivity and experience, reduce flexibility in the workplace, and make it far easier to file frivolous lawsuits that line the pockets of trial lawyers."

Obama was introduced at the White House signing ceremony by Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff in a landmark discrimination case and the namesake for the first bill Obama signed into law. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Act makes clear that pay discrimination claims on the basis of sex, race, national origin, age, religion and disability "accrue" whenever an employee receives a discriminatory paycheck.

Democrats, including Obama, have repeatedly highlighted census figures that show women on average make 77 cents for every dollar that men earn.

But Republicans insist that the figure doesn't tell the whole story.

To make their point, Republicans have noted that the White House has its own gender pay gap. A recent study by the conservative American Enterprise Institute showed that female White House staff members make on average 88 cents for every dollar a male staff member earns.

"There's a disparity not because female engineers are making less than male engineers at the same company with comparable experience," the GOP memo said. "The disparity exists because a female social worker makes less than a male engineer — just as a female engineer would out-earn a male social worker. The difference isn't because of their genders; it's because of their jobs. The Paycheck Fairness Act wouldn't change that."

Tuesday's executive action on federal contractors by Obama follows his announcement in February that he was signing an order in February requiring federal contractors to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $10.10 per hour on new contracts starting next year.

A push to raise the federal minimum wage for all workers is also facing stiff GOP opposition and appears unlikely to be passed.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...tive-orders/7461035/

 

Originally Posted by teyates:

Good ole Obama....trying to create a fire where there's not one, and using wet wood to boot.  Hopefully the rest of the country, much like some of the media, are catching on to his tactics.  They are getting old.....haha

_____________________________________

 

your comments make it sound like you don't even know what the 'bill' says. do you?

I don't have to read the bill, I am reading what he said, and what he said does not correspond with the facts....there is no huge disparity in pay between male and females of equal education and experience.  Yet, he would want there to be equal pay, regardless of education and experience, right?  Similar to what we have now with Affirmative Action, where race is used to sometimes put the lesser experienced and educated into an open position....fair?

Crash, I went back and skimmed through it.

So if this bill passes in addition to all their other responsibilities a business owner will have to justify to big brother any pay disparity between a man and woman? So if they want to give a man a merit based pay raise and not a women will they have to have to justify it in advance or will they have to wait until after and try to justify it then risk running afoul of this bill?

How much time and money will this cost a business owner when they could be doing productive things like driving business?

This is a prime example of govt regulation impeding growth. It sounds like nothing but a big giveaway to the trial lawyers that own all of the democrat politicians.

Right....ike I said, why a law to require something that is non-existent?  Why drag this up near election time, he's had 6 years, and now it becomes a point of interest?

Face it, Crash, you drank too much of the Obama-Kool-Aid, and are spending way to much of your time trying to justify his actions. Create a crisis where there's not one!!! First rule in the book.

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers:
All of you dems want to control a business owner's boardroom and all of you repubs want to control what happens in a person's bedroom.

Did any of you ever think that that maybe govt should stay out of both??

====================

How do I want to control what goes on in someone's bedroom? I think I've posted about a hundred times, what goes on between two CONSENTING/ABLE TO CONSENT, ADULTS is their business, and someone's bedroom is the last place I want to be, so they should stop trying to drag everyone into them.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by mad American:

BW, are you talking about the women that want taxpayers to feed, clothe, doctor, or pay kill their children?  According to what I understand from the left they want American tax payers to subsidize some folks deviant behaviour.  What people do in their bedroom is their business, taxpayers should not have to pay for the consequences, whether it's a child or terminal social illness. 

---------------

What do you mean by deviant behavior?

This bill isn't a liberal plot. We have enough statistical information to demonstrate that no matter what the job is, whether you're a waitress or bus driver or civil engineer, women are paid less money."

 

I spent the last 40 years working a construction trade.  It was always union work.  The women were paid the same hourly rate as the men.  Be it journeyman, foreman or supervisor, it paid the same for male and female.

Well dayumm JT, there is the answer....your answer for everything....let's just unionize 'em, that will settle it...

Like I said before, the proof from neutral parties have shown there is no statistical difference in pay between men and women of equal education and experience, much like JT's union already demonstrates.

what part of 'Recent Census Bureau data shows that full-time working women make 77 cents for every dollar men make per year.' is a half truth? what part of that is a 'liberal lie'? as i said.. willfully ignore or too blind to see.. it's ok teyates.. i understand you've invested lots of time and money into being a republican.. no way to back out of the argument, now... and you can't let those pesky facts stop you, either! 

Crash, the data varies from state to state. Women in Arkansas do better than women in the liberal hotbed of New york.

Meanwhile in Vermont, another liberal stronghold, you have legislation such as this...

Vermont recently adopted a sweeping package that requires state contractors to prove they are complying with Vermont’s equal pay law, which says employers must pay equal wages, regardless of sex, for jobs that require ``substantially equal, but not identical, skill, effort and responsibility.’’ The law also bans retaliation against employees who disclose their salaries (specialists say women are more likely to demand and get higher salaries if they know what others are being paid).

 

What does that even mean?  how can you have a job that is the same but different?  and how do you justify to the government why you are paying someone differently? This is more of the type of program Obama wants to enforce.

 

 

The jobs also dictate the difference i wages, which are looked at in a consensus, not individually...

Explaining the Pay Gap

Why such disparity between states? “It depends on the job structure and the industry’’ in each state, said Claudia Williams, a research analyst at the Institute for Women's Policy Research in Washington, D.C. Wyoming, for example, has a lot of mining and cattle industry jobs dominated by men, Williams said, noting that some are family businesses in which some of the women are unpaid or paid low salaries.

The same holds true for West Virginia, where mining is a dominant industry, said Anne York, a business professor and gender equity specialist at Meredith College in Raleigh, N.C. ``Anytime you have a (predominance) of something like heavy industry, you’re going to see men congregated in good-paying jobs. And if a state or locality has an abundance of those types of jobs, you’re going to see a greater pay disparity,” she said. Women earn 72.6 percent of what men do in West Virginia.

In Arizona, meanwhile, women make 86.8 percent of what men earn. The state has large numbers of population-growth driven jobs like construction or maintenance that are male-dominated but not well paid, said Dennis Hoffman, professor at the W. P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University. ``Women dominate financial services, education, medical services, etc., which likely are jobs that pay a bit more. So it is likely industrial mix coupled with occupational choice,’’ Hoffman said.  

Unionization is also a factor – though it can cut both ways. The District of Columbia leads the nation in gender parity on pay, and that is largely due to the preponderance of government jobs, where salaries are tied to a union-negotiated pay scale, said Catherine Hill of the American Association of University Women, which tracks the gender gap on an ongoing basis. The BLS report showed that women in unions make 88 percent of what men earn, compared to 80.8 percent for women not represented by organized labor.

Government jobs are more likely than private-sector jobs to pay men and women equally, she said. But while union membership tends to raise the pay of low-income workers, ``it also tends to flatten wages, so (while) we don’t see as much difference (in pay) in the unionized workforce,’’ incomes are lower overall than in many non-unionized fields, Hill said.

For example, Nevada women make an average of 80.7 cents to a male worker’s dollar, close to the national average. That is in part due to the impact of the Culinary Workers Union, which represents casino employees. But Nevada women, many of whom work in the lower-paid, service-sector jobs in Las Vegas, still earn a median of $620 a week, less than the $691 national average.

 

But wait, accoding to jt, the union would fix the discrepancy in pay between men and women, so why are members of the Union, who pay the same union dues, being pimped out for differnet wages if this were true?So in essence, if the women are working the exact same job as the male, with the same experience, then I totally agree they should be paid the same, BUT a woman or a man working in an indoor job, should not have their wages compared to those working heavy manual or demanding labor.

 

"However, women in higher-paying fields don’t necessarily fare better compared to men, even though their paychecks are higher than those of minimum wage workers, Goss Graves said. For example, Connecticut women make just 77 cents for every dollar a male resident makes, and that may be because well-paid men commuting to law or financial services jobs in New York City make a lot more than their (still well-paid) female counterparts.  The BLS backs her up, reporting that women in management and professional fields make 71.6 cents for every dollar men in the same fields make."

 

So now we are comparing people who travel somewhere to work to those who get the benefits of working close to home?  Say it ain't so Barney?

"Some of the disparity might be due to women’s own choices, said Emily Goff, an analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation. If women choose to go into lower-paying fields (like secretarial work), they will logically make less than men, she said. And for women who leave the workforce temporarily to raise families, they miss out on the seniority and job continuity that make for higher pay, Goff said."

 

or perhaps it could be life choices?  Want to stay at home part time to be with kids?  Wanna not have to commute to work?

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×