Quantcast

Senate Republicans block pay equity bill

YouSirName 2012/06/06 00:06:32
The bill closes loopholes in the 1963 Equal Pay Act. It would require employers to prove that differences in pay were related to job performance, not gender; would prevent employers from forbidding employees from sharing salary information with each other; and would allow women who believe they were discriminated against to sue for damages.

And not a single Republican voted for this bill. Thanks GUYS.

(Out of 435 members of the House, just 17 are Republican women. Of 99 sitting senators, just four are Republican women.)

The ratio of women’s to men’s median weekly full-time earnings rose by one percentage point since 2010 and reached a historical high of 82.2 percent. The narrowing of the weekly gender earnings gap from 18.8% to 17.8%, however, is solely due to real wages falling further for men than for women. Both men and women’s real earnings have declined since 2010; men’s real earnings declined by 2.1 percent (from $850 to $832 in 2011 dollars), women’s by 0.9 percent (from $690 to $684 in 2011 dollars).

Progress in closing the gender earnings gap has slowed considerably since the early 1990s, as measured by both data series. Since 2001 the annual gender earnings gap narrowed by only about one percentage point. In the previous decade, from 1991 to 2000, it closed by almost four, and in the decade prior to that, 1981 to 1990, by over ten percentage points. The weekly gender earnings gap has narrowed at a more steady pace, at 7.6 percentage points during the 1980s, 2.7 percentage points during the 1990s, and by 5.8 percentage points since 2001. If the pace of change in the annual earnings ratio continued at the same rate as it has since 1960, it will take another 45 years, until 2056, for men and women to reach parity.

http://www.iwpr.org/initiatives/pay-equity-and-discrimination
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • chaoskitty123 2012/06/09 23:22:49
    chaoskitty123
    http://politics.nytimes.com/c...

    you forgot to mention that one notable Democrat voted with the Republicans... Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid.

    For all your chatter and blame... the very leader of the Democrats in the Senate voted against this and with all the attacks against Republicans by people like yourself... what did you really expect as if you are against something, Republicans support it and if you support it, they're against it... it's not just them, it's you too and by not addressing Harry Reid voting against his own party, you actually present a lie as with Reids vote against it, it never stood a chance.
  • ComeOnNow 2012/06/07 11:48:05
    ComeOnNow
    This is nothing but more made up nonsense by the democrats to try to divert attention from the democrats horribly failed economic policies and massive new debt. If women were doing the same job as men, with the same experience and performance, employers would never higher men. That is the busty of capitalism.

    The fact is that there are discrimination laws in place already that prevent discrimination against anyone but white straight males. Women can sue if they match the qualifications and performance. This is nothing but the democrats yet again destroying businesses and jobs, drastically increasing compliance and litigation costs that hurt small businesses the most, feeding fodder to corrupt trial lawyers, and democrats thinking that women are too dumb to know any better. Just as the democrats think women are dumb enough to ignore the democrats horrible policies to simply be bought off with birth control. It is clear that in reality, democrats do not think highly of women at all.
  • YouSirName ComeOnNow 2012/06/07 18:32:39
    YouSirName
    +1
    Your answer is so confused it is difficult to know where to start. What "horribly failed economic policies?" themassive debt was created by Bush and the republicans in Congress who have given away the store to their corporate masters and to line their own pockets. You argue that women can't be getting paid less because if they were, employers would never hire men?? That has got to be the craziest argument I have heard in a long time. That is like saying that no one ever cheats on their taxes because not everyone does.

    The fact is that employers continue to discriminate against women and the republican men in the senate (a) don't give a crap, and (b) don't want to offend their lobbyists and corporate donors.
  • ComeOnNow YouSirName 2012/06/10 22:18:34
    ComeOnNow
    The fact is that democrats policies are so horrible that they are resorting to

    When you compare apples to apples, the so-called wage gap disappears. Young, childless, single urban women earn 8 percent more than their male counterparts. Women who have never had a child earn 113 percent of what men earn. Unmarried college-educated males between the ages of 40 and 64 earn nearly 15 percent less than their female counterparts.
    making things up to try to distract women from saying, hey, Obama is burring our children in debt, destroying jobs, and stripping us of our freedom. Democrats think that women are dumb and can be fooled or bought off with $9 per month birth control.


    1. A greater number of women than men work part time. Nearly 25% of all female workers are classified as part time, meaning less than 35 hours of work per week. Most people would agree that part time jobs do not carry the same wage levels that full time jobs do. Only 10% of all male employees are classified as part time.

    As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, they naturally earn...













    The fact is that democrats policies are so horrible that they are resorting to

    When you compare apples to apples, the so-called wage gap disappears. Young, childless, single urban women earn 8 percent more than their male counterparts. Women who have never had a child earn 113 percent of what men earn. Unmarried college-educated males between the ages of 40 and 64 earn nearly 15 percent less than their female counterparts.
    making things up to try to distract women from saying, hey, Obama is burring our children in debt, destroying jobs, and stripping us of our freedom. Democrats think that women are dumb and can be fooled or bought off with $9 per month birth control.


    1. A greater number of women than men work part time. Nearly 25% of all female workers are classified as part time, meaning less than 35 hours of work per week. Most people would agree that part time jobs do not carry the same wage levels that full time jobs do. Only 10% of all male employees are classified as part time.

    As they get older, many women elect to work less so they can spend time with their children. A decade after graduation, 39 percent of women are out of the work force or working part time -- compared with only 3 percent of men. When these mothers return to full-time jobs, they naturally earn less than they would have if they had never left.

    2. A greater number of women leave work to take care of their children often meaning large gaps in employment and less experience.

    3. Women are far less likely to work overtime and value spending more time with their families. This not only means that they earn less because of working less overtime, but they are also less likely to get promoted or accept promotions that would require them to work more hours. Men are twice as likely to work over fifty hours a week than women. As promotions and raises tend to go to those who put in the most overtime this dramatically effects the disparity of wages between men and women.

    4. Women are more likely to take jobs that have greater flexibility in hours.


    5. A study of the job negotiations of graduating professional school students found that male students were eight times more likely to negotiate starting salaries and pay than female students. A survey by the same researchers found that more than twice as many women than men said they felt "a great deal of apprehension" about "negotiating". Some studies of simulated salary negotiations have also found that men on average negotiated more aggressively than women.

    6. Men are more likely to prioritize jobs that make higher money, while women are more likely to gravitate towards jobs that they like better or have some other sort of fulfillment factor. Men are more likely to major in engineering, mathematics, and computer science in college. These overwhelmingly male-dominated majors are highly profitable. Conversely, the top college majors for women are education, English, and psychology. Women tend to be interested in the social sciences which normally pay less money. More women than men are enrolled in college and all of them are free to major in whatever they please.


    Harvard economist Claudia Goldin if there is sufficient evidence to conclude that women experience systematic pay discrimination. "No," she replied. There are certainly instances of discrimination, she says, but most of the gap is the result of different choices. Other hard-to-measure factors, Goldin thinks, largely account for the remaining gap -- "probably not all, but most of it."
    (more)
  • chaoski... ComeOnNow 2012/06/09 23:24:08
    chaoskitty123
    http://politics.nytimes.com/c...

    Harry Reid voted with the Republicans against the bill... YouSirName left that part out as the leader of the Senate Democrats himself took the side of the Republicans.
  • YouSirName chaoski... 2012/06/14 20:50:43
    YouSirName
    It's a parliamentary procedure to allow reintroduction of the bill at a later time. Nice try though.
  • Schläue~© 2012/06/06 00:44:20
    Schläue~©
    Most companies have rules against employees discussing salary for a reason and it's not limited to only women.
    There are already mechanisms in place for ALL employees to sue a company if they feel they have been discriminated against in a number of ways..... salary and promotions being just a few.

    The number of females in Congress is irrelevant. Campaign harder.

    Just as the Affirmative Action laws of the past have kept the most qualified out of certain jobs due to quotas and manipulation, this bill would create the same issues of reverse discrimination.
  • YouSirName Schläue~© 2012/06/07 18:36:40
    YouSirName
    +1
    The number of females among republicans in Congress IS relevant. These people are protecting their own. The congress is a millionaires boy's club and republicans especially don't want to let women in.

    There is nothing in this bill that would create a reverse discrimination situation. Point to the language.
  • Schläue~© YouSirName 2012/06/07 18:44:41
    Schläue~©
    ANYTIME a bill or rule is implemented that gives preferential treatment and/or forces and organization of any kind to meet quotas or purposely sets demographic guidelines .... the most qualified people for the position get screwed.

    The GOP & TEA Party have put forth and heavily supported dozens of highly qualified female candidates and the LWNJ's go absolutely ballistic with their campaign of character assassination.

    You might want to dabble in some facts. It could be quite refreshing.
  • YouSirName Schläue~© 2012/06/08 18:16:10
    YouSirName
    It's not preferential treatment - it's equal treatment.

    As to facts - "LWNJ's" aren't putting forth the republican candidates for Congress. Sorry but the RWNJs get all the blame for those.

    Here are some facts for you:
    There have been 157 women democrats in the House. Only 88 republican women.
    There have been 25 women democrats in the Senate. Only 13 republican women.

    I've got plenty of facts. Feel free to respond back in kind next time.
  • Schläue~© YouSirName 2012/06/08 18:25:01
    Schläue~©
    You have a very twisted interpretation of equal.

    Obviously, you've spent the past few decades in a coma and have completely missed the Alinsky type tactics implemented by the left.

    Then again, your avatar shows you may be well beyond that, and are actually a member of 0bozo's graveyard voting bloc.
  • YouSirName Schläue~© 2012/06/08 19:01:24
    YouSirName
    I can accept some of that - just don't diss my avatar. The rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

    From Wikipedia:

    The Scream (Norwegian: Skrik) is the popular name given to each of four versions of a composition, created as both paintings and pastels, by the Expressionist artist Edvard Munch between 1893 and 1910. Der Schrei der Natur (The Scream of Nature) is the title Munch gave to these works, all of which show a figure with an agonized expression against a landscape with a tumultuous red sky. The landscape in the background is the Oslofjord, viewed from Ekeberg, Oslo, Norway.

    The fourth version (pastel, 1895) sold for $119,922,500 at Sotheby's Impressionist and Modern art auction on 2 May 2012 to a private buyer, the highest nominal price paid for a painting at auction.

    Selected because it fits the typical comment on Sodahead.

    te sream
  • Schläue~© YouSirName 2012/06/09 13:01:04
  • Dark Knight 2012/06/06 00:18:35
    Dark Knight
    Regardless of my opinion on the issue (which, incidentally, might surprise you) how can a minority of senators block a bill if the bill is supported by all of the majority (I. e. Democrats)?
  • Schläue~© Dark Kn... 2012/06/06 00:38:12
    Schläue~©
    +1
    Because Senate rules differ from the House of Reps, in that a bill requires 60 votes to pass on a full vote.
    The Senate makes their own rules and the way it stands now, only budget and spending bills can pass with a simple majority, all legislative action must be 60.
  • YouSirName Schläue~© 2012/06/06 00:41:26
    YouSirName
    +2
    Yep - part of the craziness that the Congress has gotten itself into over the years. Every bill must overcome the "virtual" fillibuster that might otherwise prevent it from being approved.
  • Schläue~© YouSirName 2012/06/06 00:46:41
    Schläue~©
    Reid has threatened to change the rule, but he'd have to get 60 to agree and he knows it would come back to bite his behind in 2013..... hehehe.

News & Politics

2013/05/22 08:20:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals