DiscussMormonism.com

From govtrak.us -

Paycheck Fairness Act

Much has been made in recent years of the gender-based wage gap, with the oft-cited number from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that full-time female workers make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. (Although some studies have indicated that the gap is negligible or virtually nonexistent after controlling for certain variables.) The main bill in this Congress to close the gap is the Paycheck Fairness Act, S. 862 and H.R. 1619, introduced by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) in the Senate and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT3) in the House.

This bill contains several proposed changes to federal law. It would amend the Equal Pay Act of 1963, currently the primary law governing this issue, to limit when employers can pay differently to “bona fide factors, such as education, training, or experience.” It would require the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to collect data on compensation, hiring, termination, and promotion sorted by sex.

It would also prevent employers from retaliating against employees for inquiring about or disclosing wage information at a company — perhaps the main method employees have of discovering such a gap in the first place. And it would “make employers who violate sex discrimination prohibitions liable in a civil action for damages.”

What supporters say

Virtually every congressional Democrat has signed on has a co-sponsor.

Mikulski said, ““Equal pay is not just for our pocketbooks, it’s about family checkbooks and getting it right in the law books. The Paycheck Fairness Act ensures that women will no longer be fighting on their own for equal pay for equal work.” President Obama has also endorsed the legislation, saying “When women succeed here in America then the whole country succeeds… I’ve got two daughters, I expect them to be treated the same as somebody’s sons who are on the job.”

What opponents say

However, not everybody agrees. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA5), the highest-ranking woman in Republican leadership, said “Many ladies I know feel like they are being used as pawns and find it condescending that Democrats are trying to use this issue as a political distraction from the failures of their economic policies.” In fact, notably, not even a single Republican woman has signed on or signaled her support.

The bill faces a steep uphill climb in the Republican-controlled Congress. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI1) has voted against the House version multiple times. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has accused the legislation of being a “‘messaging bill… These are bills designed intentionally to fail so that Democrats can make campaign ads about them failing.” He also mocked the bills as being introduced by Democrats to “blow a few kisses to their powerful pals on the left” and that its main goal was so “The Democrats are doing everything they can to change the subject from the nightmare of Obamacare.” Republicans also warn that the bills would increase lawsuits, which in turn would raise the cost of doing business in America.

One Republican supporter

Only one Republican in either chamber has cosponsored the bill: Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ4). Smith was one of only three Republicans to vote for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first piece of legislation President Obama signed during his presidency in 2009, which extended the length of time women had to file wage discrimination lawsuits. The other two Republicans who voted in favor are both still serving — Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY1) and Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ7) — but neither have signed on as a co-sponsor to this bill.

What to expect

Both the House and Senate version have not received consideration since being introduced in March 2015 to their respective committees: Education and the Workforce Committee in the House; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in the Senate.

The bill (or a close variation of it) has been introduced in every Congress since 1997, with current Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) the lead sponsor of its 2005–06 and 2007–08 incarnations. The closest it came to enactment was passage by the then-Democratic House in 2009, but although the Senate voted in favor with 58 votes, that wasn’t enough to overcome the 60-vote barrier needed to dispel a filibuster.

I'm curious what the arguments against are in more detail? How is it basically designed to fail in order to be useful to Democrats in elections when it seems so straight forward?

Voting against your own interests isn't a good idea. While politics isn't destiny. In the long rung demographics is.

SEE http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/upsho ... o-few.html

Paycheck Fairness Act

Much has been made in recent years of the gender-based wage gap, with the oft-cited number from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that full-time female workers make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. (Although some studies have indicated that the gap is negligible or virtually nonexistent after controlling for certain variables.)

Yep, when you "control" for variables such as women being home, children, work experience, time in experience with work, kind of work women do, other related skills/qualifications that women may not have or have as much, etc. there is no actual "wage gap".

- Further, hourly pay is hourly pay, you get what the job pays, thus no pay gap is possible there.
- Salary is also 90% of the time set pay for the job, thus no pay gap possible there.
- There are very few salary jobs that actually "negotiate" pay, again it all depends on amount of experience, related skills, etc.

In the end, I don't know the percentage off hand, but a very low percentage of jobs maybe 5% of the workforce if even that could even potentially qualify for having anything to do with being a "wage gap" and yet as said, control for other things, and the wage gap simply doesn't exist or is so low it's irrelevant. I think I remember seeing stats saying it's actually 97% instead of 78% as liberals claim, which is within the margin of error and/or not enough to call home about.

The CCC wrote:Voting against your own interests isn't a good idea. While politics isn't destiny. In the long rung demographics is.

SEE http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/upsho ... o-few.html

Interesting. Both for it's implications for the future of the GOP as well as what it says about the mindset of the ultra-conservative movement. Thanks for sharing.

ldsfaqs wrote:

Paycheck Fairness Act

Much has been made in recent years of the gender-based wage gap, with the oft-cited number from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that full-time female workers make 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. (Although some studies have indicated that the gap is negligible or virtually nonexistent after controlling for certain variables.)

Yep, when you "control" for variables such as women being home, children, work experience, time in experience with work, kind of work women do, other related skills/qualifications that women may not have or have as much, etc. there is no actual "wage gap".

- Further, hourly pay is hourly pay, you get what the job pays, thus no pay gap is possible there.
- Salary is also 90% of the time set pay for the job, thus no pay gap possible there.
- The very few salary jobs that actually "negotiate" pay, again it all depends on amount of experience, related skills, etc.

In the end, I don't know the percentage off hand, but a very low percentage of jobs maybe 5% of the workforce if even that could even potentially qualify for having anything to do with being a "wage gap" and yet as said, control for other things, and the wage gap simply doesn't exist or is so low it's irrelevant. I think I remember seeing stats saying it's actually 97% instead of 78% as liberals claim, which is within the margin of error and/or not enough to call home about.

If this is true, then why is there resistance to the bill, faqs? If real earnings and bona fide factors can be demonstrated to be equal between individuals regardless of gender, there's no downside to enacting a law that would basically require reporting that supports this.