Fair Play or Foul? (Lilly Ledbetter Act)

[ParanoiA]

False analogy - those jobs that depend upon the gender or other innate characters of a person aren't being forced to hire people who cannot do the job. No laws require that. No laws require me to hire a blind guy as a crocodile handler. But if the person's blindness does not interfere with his/her job (such as telemarketing), then I should not be able to discriminate.

 

I realize you draw a line there, but I don't. Basically, this is interference by the state. They are analyzing my business and determining what they think I need, in order to establish a referent to measure any discrimination. I am entirely insulted and offended by that reasoning. A blatant violation of rights, subjectively justified with intellectual acrobats. How dare the government come to my business and decide what kind of people I should need.

 

What if I want to open a hardware store with bikini babes walking around the store? If the state decides I don't need that particular dynamic in my business, then I don't get to discriminate to hire only women AND I can't negotiate their terms to include wearing bikini's. How is that fair? How is that consistent with individual liberty? There's no telling how many possibilities in the market we're losing out on because of this lack of respect for individuality. The dynamics are inherently limited with these weird ideas of "fairness" instituted by government.

 

Government is a road block to our advancement. Government keeps the human condition from progessing, by cementing subjective moral codes with law. Free society is much quicker to change and respond to upgrades in morality and ethics.

 

For the same reason an employer shouldn't be able to screen out black employees "because they're less intelligent".

 

Both positions are equally bigoted' date=' and equally inaccurate. That a woman should be denied a job based not on her ACTUAL traits, but rather traits that are simply assumed by the sexist in charge of hiring is utterly reprehensible.

 

And you act like there's *choice*. There isn't. If you freed employers like you wish, there would be almost no chance of most women ever getting a good job, period. Sexism is so deeply ingrained in our culture that without someone forcing their hands, nothing will change.[/quote']

 

Reprehensible? What about an employer that thinks teenagers are undependable? What about an employer who thinks an ex-car wash empoyee would make a good cashier? How about if they think waiting tables is terrific background for selling plumbing supplies, while a plumber would be terrible at it?

 

There's no way to even pretend as if they're being hired by their actual traits, nor that their not being hired for stupid, ridiculous reasons. I think employers should be free to be as stupid and whimsical as they want - they don't owe anyone anything. Even if that includes being an outright prejudice bigot.

 

I simply don't agree with your analysis. You seem to think women aren't worth anything to others, so they won't hire them. You seem to view the country as 300 million bigots that are only fair because of the laws we dreamed up to make them. I don't agree. I see 300 million people that are losing their rights to be stupid, brilliant, ignorant or knowledgable.

 

They cause no harm - at best, they only limit the good (providing jobs). Good that no one has any RIGHT to. When you can demonstrate actual harm - a restriction of someone's right - then I'll sign on. But jobs are not a right. Doing business is about discrimination. You discriminate the forces that comprise your business hoping to edge out the other guy. That's competition. I love it.

 

Strawman/false analogy. These refer to traits that people CANNOT change (or should not be expected to, such as religion), not some trivial detail that can be altered at a moment's whim.

 

So you're cool with discriminating against active homosexuality then? That can be altered at a moment's whim.

 

Personally, I find that absolutely offensive. The notion I should be cool with someone discriminating against me as long as I can just change it. Only the permanent stuff is off limits? yeah, I don't get this.

 

Not until these inequities are solved, no. We're making a good attempt, but we aren't there yet.

 

That's certainly fair. I admire where you're setting the bar, but I think you'd achieve it faster if you focused your efforts on society rather than waiting on government. To pass a law making people behave how you want and sacrificing the dynamics of individual freedom takes two legislative houses, committees and subcommitties, perhaps the president's approval - but changing someone's mind is instant. The persuasion required for both solutions is similar, just channeled differently. And laws don't change their hearts and minds. Persuasion does. The will to be right always trumps the performance of being forced to be right.

Edited January 30, 2009 by ParanoiA

[Mr Skeptic]

Since it's impossible to know whether you're being treated fairly (since salaries are secret), there's no way to avoid it *or* to use it to your advantage in hiring,

 

Wouldn't it be better to make wages not be secret so that people can know when they are being discriminated against? After all, discrimination being illegal doesn't matter if no one can report it because they don't know they are being discriminated against. And wages aren't even secret -- they must be reported to the government.

 

Why not go an extra step and at least allow employees to tell others their wages without fear of reprisal from their employers?

[D H]

The issue here is that FOR THE SAME EXACT work ...

For now, that is. The next bill in the hopper, HR 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, starts opening the nasty can of worms "equal pay for comparable worth".

[waitforufo]

As a manager who determines raises and promotions, a couple of things to perhaps consider.

 

People are motivated to become more productive because they believe increased productivity will lead to:

 

1) A better job title

2) Better pay

 

People generally consider that the two go hand in hand but they often don't. In my experience, they don't based on the employee. Some employees are vary motivated by title. Title motivation can be so great for some that if they had to choose, they would choose a better title over better pay. I have had several employees directly tell me this.

 

Managers are under pressure to keep salaries under control. Promotions are therefore often used to provide motivation without increasing salaries.

 

In my experience, people who make it known that they are pay motivated are paid more. This is particularly true if those people are talented and express a willingness to change jobs for better pay.

 

Now I don't know Lilly Ledbetter. But if she was a title motivated person who expressed a desire for company loyalty and job stability, it would not be surprising for her management to pay her less than others working at the same title. Under such circumstances, why would her lower pay be discriminatory? In fact, isn't it possible that her former employers are being punished for giving her what she wanted?

Edited January 30, 2009 by waitforufo

[Saryctos]

Your right to discriminate is superceded by both the rights of an individual to a job and the broader rights of minority groups not to be persecuted for their differences.

 

Jobs are not a right. I hate seeing this entitlement bullshit propagate through such a large % of the population.

 

 

Take for instance a company employing plenty of racists. Sure, being racist is their problem, not the potential new hire. However, when all your employees threaten to quit if you hire a black person are you going to risk having to lose your workforce because the law demands you hire them? That's crap.

 

What is it about a "now hiring" sign implies that now you no longer own your business, and that it's now some civil entity that is hiring instead of you?

 

What if you're racist and own a small shop with employees you know and like and work in a good atmosphere. Should the new hire be subjected to your bigotry? What if you specifically don't hire them to avoid making their day miserable because you know that you're a prejudice bastard, but would rather not have an outlet for that bigotry? What if you don't hire them because you know you're just hiring a lawsuit waiting to happen?

 

Then there's the other side, what if you want a specific minority? Lets say you've been having getting asian customers to buy your products because they feel alienated by your all (insert race here) staff. So you throw out the now hiring sign, and fish through the applications for an asian to improve sales. Racist? Hell yes. But there is a valid business decision here. Why should a business be forced into doing something that they don't want?

[iNow]

It seems to me that everyone is speaking around the issue anyway. This is not about hiring issues. The females ALREADY have the jobs. The issue is that once they have the job, and they are performing the SAME work, at the same quality, they are being paid less.

 

All this stuff about strippers and hooters and gynocologists and civil hiring practices misses the point. The women already have the job. That's behind us. Now that they have the job, and perform at the same level, there is no reason they should be paid differently if performance and other similar factors are equal.

[waitforufo]

I don't believe that most "equal opportunity" or anti-discrimination laws apply to small businesses or individuals. If I recall correctly, most such laws do not apply to companies with fewer than 50 employees.

 

So Hooters, a national chain, may have a problem with only hiring young, female wait staff, but your local bar or tavern generally will not.

 

The same would apply to a small local machine shop. If they want to only employ white males I believe that they will not run into problems with law.

 

Also, if you sell your home yourself, you can be as discriminatory as you choose to be, but if you hire a real estate broker, they cannot be discriminatory even at your request.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It seems to me that everyone is speaking around the issue anyway. This is not about hiring issues. The females ALREADY have the jobs. The issue is that once they have the job, and they are performing the SAME work, at the same quality, they are being paid less.

 

All this stuff about strippers and hooters and gynocologists and civil hiring practices misses the point. The women already have the job. That's behind us. Now that they have the job, and perform at the same level, there is no reason they should be paid differently if performance and other similar factors are equal.

 

Agreed, further discussion about strippers, hooters, etc. should stop. The case in question is also not involving a small business, so perhaps discussion about small businesses should also stop, particularly since I don't believe such laws generally apply to small business.

 

The problem is that people are always paid differently. Discrimination is only one possible reason. (See my post #29) In a nation that prides it self in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should consider those other reasons.

 

Those that do prove their case should be entitled recompense as provided by law.

[Mr Skeptic]

The issue is that once they have the job, and they are performing the SAME work, at the same quality, they are being paid less.

 

Even if they perform the same work of the same quality, and there were some way to verify this, that does not mean that they provide the same value. A female stripper might provide more value because people like naked females better than naked males. A female gynecologist might provide more value because her customers might be more comfortable with her. A black waiter might provide more value if it would get them more customers than a customer of a different race. Why should a business be forced to pay people who provide different value the same wage? Maybe we should outlaw individual prejudice?

[swansont]

Does anyone know if there's an example from any nation where a business discloses all its employees wages?

 

It'd be good to start with a comparison of businesses that have opposing policies, and the similarities or resulting differences with issues of fair pay.

 

Businesses? I don't know. But (in the US at least) military pay can be inferred from rate or rank, and civilian government salary is almost as transparent.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Ambiguous. While I think people should be paid equally for equal value provided, this bill will put a large burden of proof on the company and be great for lawyers. Suppose you have a small company where, due entirely to statistical fluctuations, it turns out that the middle aged white males provide significantly more value to the company and accordingly get paid more. Then the other folks find out and assume that the company is being unfair (or that they can convince a jury that the company is being unfair). Then the company loses money for no fault of their own. In addition, this kind of law could result in discrimination in favor of crappy workers, due simply to the company being afraid of paying them less because they might get sued.

 

For many jobs it's not all that hard to document productivity or similar metrics that would provide justification for unequal pay. Some businesses do this kind of thing already — performance reviews for salary and bonuses.

[ParanoiA]

Heh..at least outlawing individual prejudice would finally make this moral judgement equitable.

 

iNow, I understand your point. So, let me ask you, how is this not the fault of the women in wage negotiation? Isn't that part of business? If I'm working a job for less money than the guy next to me, and I think that's unfair, then I deliver an ultimatum and make my case with my employer. I've done this twice - once I had to leave, the other I got a raise. I realize in Lilly's case, this was after the fact, so she had no chance to apply leverage and demand a higher price for her business.

 

Another something to consider is the dynamic of females. Albeit anecdotal, I've noticed females are less confrontational. They're far more likely to agree and move on. This is actually one of the things I like about working with women. They're generally more cooperative and agreeable while all the guys are bitching and moaning about the company. So, I wonder if this plays out similarly when negotiating salaries.

[Sisyphus]

Again, though, that situation assumes you know how much money the guy next to you is making. And yes, I'm sure a lot of the disparity is due to women generally complaining less about their salaries and being less aggressive in negotiation. Among the many side effects of higher testosterone, we men tend to have a greater sense of self-importance. (As usual, I'm talking about statistics, not generalizations.)

[iNow]

I don't know where you guys work, but the women where I am are powerful and competitive as hell. Be careful with the generalizations. They hurt the foundation of your position, especially when you're talking with someone who knows how plainly false they are in terms of universality.

[Pangloss]

Does anyone know if there's an example from any nation where a business discloses all its employees wages?

 

As far as I know this bill does not require businesses to disclose employee wages.

 

Nor do I support such a measure.

[Baby Astronaut]

As far as I know this bill does not require businesses to disclose employee wages.

 

Nor do I support such a measure.

I certainly didn't suggest one, just figured if people are saying that openly being able to discuss wages is a possible solution, then why not make a comparison to real life, if any exists? Tests it against reality.

 

 

I don't believe that most "equal opportunity" or anti-discrimination laws apply to small businesses or individuals. If I recall correctly, most such laws do not apply to companies with fewer than 50 employees.

The government tends to apply regulations based on how many people would be affected, and the severity. It's pretty obvious to anyone not part of the right wing media. Actually, it's probably obvious to them as well. It's just political scheming for them to say otherwise.

[waitforufo]

I don't know where you guys work, but the women where I am are powerful and competitive as hell. Be careful with the generalizations. They hurt the foundation of your position, especially when you're talking with someone who knows how plainly false they are in terms of universality.

 

I couldn't agree more with the above comment.

 

Often times however discrimination laws suffer from a similar fault. We are to consider "affected groups" as a class instead of as individuals. So when we say women are not paid equally for equal work, true as that may be, what does it have to do with the individual Lilly Ledbetter and her discrimination case?

 

Was Lilly Ledbetter a powerful and competitive person? Was she aggressive about her compensation? As aggressive as those with the same job title? Perhaps she was more concerned with job stability. During periods of layoffs, management is more likely to keep lower paid well performing employees. Knowing this, perhaps she was less aggressive about her salary than others. This is all speculation on my part but it is at least plausible. Perhaps Lilly Ledbetter was simply not as attentive as she should have been about her compensation. Squeaky wheels get oiled. Perhaps she simply did not squeak enough. Why is that her employers fault?

[iNow]

Was Lilly Ledbetter a powerful and competitive person? Was she aggressive about her compensation? As aggressive as those with the same job title? Perhaps she was more concerned with job stability. During periods of layoffs, management is more likely to keep lower paid well performing employees. Knowing this, perhaps she was less aggressive about her salary than others. This is all speculation on my part but it is at least plausible. Perhaps Lilly Ledbetter was simply not as attentive as she should have been about her compensation. Squeaky wheels get oiled. Perhaps she simply did not squeak enough. Why is that her employers fault?

 

You know, in researching your question ("history of the lily ledbetter case"), I realized that while I charged that others were "talking around the issue" when discussing hiring, I realize that I, too, was talking around the issue when discussing equal pay for equal work.

 

The bill simply closes the loophole on the statute of limitations. Basically, in the past, unless the employee took action on the discriminatory pay discovery within 180 days of receiving the paycheck where said discrimination took place, they were not allowed to collect lost wages. This bill simply closes that loophole, saying that past wages can be collected at any time the discovery is made, regardless of how long it's been since the paycheck was collected.

 

So, despite all of our abstract and academic pontifications, it seems we're all pretty much off point. The law is not about guaranteeing equal pay, nor is it about stopping discrimination in hiring practices. The law is about allowing one to take actions when they discover they have been discriminated against in their wages, regardless of how long it has been since that discrimination took place (since the paycheck was cut).

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which states that the 180-day statute of limitations for pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck, was signed into U.S. law on January 29, 2009, by U.S. President Barack Obama.

 

The law was enacted in response to Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that the statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit begins at the date the pay was agreed upon, not at the date of the most recent paycheck, as a lower court had ruled. This precluded lawsuits by plaintiffs who alleged ongoing pay discrimination but who did not discover it until years after the discrimination began.

 

 

 

Maybe this will help get us all out of the muck a bit.

[ParanoiA]

So, despite all of our abstract and academic pontifications, it seems we're all pretty much off point.

 

Well, I did address the OP in post # 19.

 

As far as the OP is concerned, I do agree with this restructuring on the statute of limitations, that seems quite fair to me.

 

So I guess I spent one sentence to the OP with paragraphs on other stuff. Maybe we all went off point because there's not really much to expand or pontificate about in regards to this statute of limitations. Well, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. Besides, I love this kind of discussion, if I may be so heliocentric about it.

[iNow]

I love this kind of discussion

 

As do I, my man. Just offering a reminder to keep our feet on the ground while our heads are in the clouds.