[News] Senate Republicans Block Equal Pay Measure for Women

[GasBandit]

You're right, only Lesbians can't get pregnant. I forgot women who are barren, or past the age of having children totally should still get paid less for the option of maternity leave.

Which is changing your argument. You said three times, "me, me, me." Or do you plan to have your ovaries removed to prove the point? Regardless, the barren are still miniscule exceptions. And hiring old people of either gender has HR issues of its own.

And for the record, Lesbians CAN get pregnant.

 

[Shegokigo]

I said "me me me" as an example to the case. I'm not changing anything.

I'm saying, that women who choose not to have children or cannot have children, shouldn't be paid less than men if the excuse is "They get maternity leave so they should get paid less."

That was my argument from the beginning. I'm also aware of lesbians having the OPTION of getting pregnant. Find the keyword in that sentence for me if you please.

 

[GasBandit]

I said "me me me" as an example to the case. I'm not changing anything.

I'm saying, that women who choose not to have children or cannot have children, shouldn't be paid less than men if the excuse is "They get maternity leave so they should get paid less."

That was my argument from the beginning. I'm also aware of lesbians having the OPTION of getting pregnant. Find the keyword in that sentence for me if you please.

Men don't have the option of getting pregnant. The existence of the option at all means it must be accounted for. To do otherwise is to decide not to have a fire brigade until there's a fire. What if, when one of these people who "choose" not to get pregnant, suddenly decides to change her mind and get pregnant? Does she then have to give back the money?

Bear in mind I don't support this line of thinking at all, I'm just illustrating the absurdity of the method you support your position.

I have the "option" to never kill anyone in my life. Does that mean we don't need to pay for police?

 

[Shegokigo]

If at that point she makes the choice, then yes, she takes a pay cut to support her 3-9 month absence.

 

[GasBandit]

If at that point she makes the choice, then yes, she takes a pay cut to support her 3-9 month absence.

A retroactive pay cut?

 

[Shegokigo]

Why should she get docked the pay when she was working just fine?

 

[strawman]

Maternity leave doesn't require that the person be paid, merely that they can't be fired due to reasonable maternity leave. Further, notice is generally given with enough time to provide for workload shifts or temporary workers.

Maternity leave is not a valid reason to pay women less.

But let's suppose it is, that it's paid. If every woman has 2 children during her 40 (2080 weeks) year career and takes the full 8 weeks maternity leave each time, that accounts for 0.77% of her total effort, averaged over her career length.

Certainly not anywhere near the pay disparity studies demonstrate.

There may be other factors to take into account, but maternity leave is not significant.

 

[GasBandit]

Why should she get docked the pay when she was working just fine?

Because the assertion was that the possibility of having to replace her made a lower salary part of preparing for that eventuality. Not just maternity leave, but quitting to become a stay at home mom, is the issue here. So, if you are hired at $30k/year with the understanding you won't take the "option" to get pregnant, in the event you do and quit for it a year later (necessitating the training of your replacement by other personnel), the only logical outcome of that is to have to remit the difference than if you'd been paid the "probably gonna get pregnant and quit" salary. And then that brings up all kinds of tax problems because you know the government isn't going to give back the taxes. Does the business then just have to eat it? That means the next time they hire, the "imminent babyfactory" wage will be that much lower.

Conversely, in this line, I don't think it logical a woman who has a child then comes back and stays on should be subject to the lower salary either. The issue here is quitting.

 

[Shegokigo]

That's all fine and dandy, but a man can up and quit his job too or a woman for that matter, regardless of getting pregnant so I find your example flawed.

 

[TommiR]

So you see how irrelevant that is...

Irrelevant as to there being a difference between men and women quitting their jobs. Not irrelevant as to how a maternity/paternity leave affects the employer.

Well maybe where your from...

But my experience aside, that also happens when your sick etc, and could easily be handled the same way...

As I said, that's the way it is here and I believe in most places. If you can honestly claim that in your country (which is, by the way...?) the employer of a mother is no worse off when a baby is born than the employer of a father, either due to wages, effort, lost (wo)manhours or in any way at all, then I congratulate your society of it's equality thinking on this issue.

As to getting sick, yes, it is handled in pretty much the same way. An employee calling in to say they have 2 weeks of sick leave from a doctor is handled one way, and an employee calling in to say they have 3-10 months of sick leave is handled in another way.[/quote]

Lower wages aren't about maternity, but historical context...

I agree that is a significant if not the primary factor of why the wage gap existed in the first place. The discussion in this thread has highlighted a few points on why it might be difficult to reduce that wage gap, and why it still exists.

 

[GasBandit]

That's all fine and dandy, but a man can up and quit his job too or a woman for that matter, regardless of getting pregnant so I find your example flawed.

Every reason a man has to quit a woman also has, plus the demonstrated tendency to quit to be a mom on top of all that (with one exception, selective service... but that's a whooooole 'nuther discussion). Furthermore, 2 posts ago you agreed that a woman who gets pregnant should take a pay cut, so you have already agreed there is an inherent difference.


However, let me skip to the next level of the discussion - even once you have accepted what I say to be the irrefutable logical progression of the line of thought, I'll tell you why it still would never fly - because in practicality, in addition to the tax headache, nobody would agree to give back pay without kicking and screaming and biting and clawing. It just goes against the grain of our cultural mindset. It'd never stand. Congressmen would probably get involved to put a stop to it. So, the whole concept of adjusting pay based upon whether or not the "option" of pregnancy is taken is absolutely doomed. It doesn't seem fair, I know. Much like the insurance premiums going up because you work with fat people doesn't seem fair to the skinny, despite them not only not exercising the "option" to get fat, but actively keeping themselves in shape while the others pack on the tonnage. It's not fair. It's just how it's been found to work. But maybe there should be a pay bump for sterility treatments...?

 

[@Li3n]

As I said, that's the way it is here and I believe in most places. If you can honestly claim that in your country (which is, by the way...?) the employer of a mother is no worse off when a baby is born than the employer of a father, either due to wages, effort, lost (wo)manhours or in any way at all, then I congratulate your society of it's equality thinking on this issue.

Oh no, you misunderstand, that was a complaint about not having any replacement at all for a year or so and just having everyone else left pick up the slack... my country sucks...

As to getting sick, yes, it is handled in pretty much the same way. An employee calling in to say they have 2 weeks of sick leave from a doctor is handled one way, and an employee calling in to say they have 3-10 months of sick leave is handled in another way.

Point was, there's no reason for a 3rd category there...

I agree that is a significant if not the primary factor of why the wage gap existed in the first place. The discussion in this thread has highlighted a few points on why it might be difficult to reduce that wage gap, and why it still exists.

Problem is you're using a very complex excuse while ignoring the more simple explanation of why an employer doesn't want to pay more, because it's no in his interest to pay more for the same work...

A retroactive pay cut?

Again, does the person not come back? And if she doesn't, how is that any different from quitting the job for any number of other reasons?

 

[Shegokigo]

Yeah, all I'm reading is details that can almost completely be applied to long term medical leaves with or without pay. Simply put, if a woman never chooses or cannot choose to have a child, she spent her entire life with a pay cut. That's totally fair in the opinion of those who push it. Again, the neanderthal males who feel threatened by women making as much as them.

Oh and Steinman already pointed out how any details pointing toward maternity leave being and equal ground financially for a full lifetime of paycut is absurd.

 

[GasBandit]

Again, does the person not come back? And if she doesn't, how is that any different from quitting the job for any number of other reasons?

So far, no, none of them have. And it is a demonstrable tendency. Our latest TD is past childbearing age, so here's hoping no more training for me to do for a while. Of course, every old lady health issue that comes up means I have to cover while she's out, but that's still preferable to having to retrain a new person from scratch every year or two, because it really does take 8 to 12 months to learn to do that job well enough to be unsupervised in it.

But I realize now I phrased my final point to Shegokigo badly -

I still think that unequal pay is not justified, and that women should get equal pay, and that yes, a business will just have to eat the training costs if and when a new mom quits. Conditional salaries based upon not "taking the option" to get pregnant will never work, it would be less of a struggle to just make companies take the hit yet again. However, once can easily foresee the future changes in hiring practices that this would precipitate... IE, male applicants getting preference over female to try to mitigate the matriarchal quitting tendency.

And unlike salaries, it will be much harder to show the metrics to prove it is happening.

 

[TommiR]

Point was, there's no reason for a 3rd category there...

Problem is you're using a very complex excuse while ignoring the more simple explanation of why an employer doesn't want to pay more, because it's no in his interest to pay more for the same work...

I think the point I'm trying to make is a fairly simple one. A male worker statistically will provide an employer with more man-hours than a female due to parental issues, and this imbalance will be pronounced in the ~10 years after graduation when women generally have babies. Say ages 25-35.

Though, reading stienman, it seems things are different in the US than they are here. If a US woman spends merely 8 weeks on leave due to having a baby, it is quite different from what it is here where women generally spend 8-10 months, and are a lot more likely to take the various optional leaves that accrue until the child is 10 years old. Whereas most men spend about 2-3 weeks on childbirth-related leaves.

Again, does the person not come back? And if she doesn't, how is that any different from quitting the job for any number of other reasons?

Women quit after pregnancy more often then men quit after their wife has given birth. Women and men otherwise quit about as often, in a large-numbers game.

Hence, in a gross generalisation, women seem to quit their jobs more often then men.

Yeah, all I'm reading is details that can almost completely be applied to long term medical leaves with or without pay. Simply put, if a woman never chooses or cannot choose to have a child, she spent her entire life with a pay cut. That's totally fair in the opinion of those who push it. Again, the neanderthal males who feel threatened by women making as much as them.

I agree that a difference in pay between men and women should not exist, on moral grounds. But I'm trying to figure out how the right for a woman to change her mind can be integrated in a practical way into general business philosophy about cost-efficiency and risk management. So far, my results haven't been very promising.

 

[PatrThom]

...notice is generally given with enough time to provide for workload shifts or temporary workers.

Most successful pregnancies tend to have a built-in, obvious notification mechanism to coworkers that a birth is going to be occurring sometime within the next 6-7 months. One would think management would pick up on the signs.

...maybe there should be a pay bump for sterility treatments...?

I was going to mention this but it appears you have ninja'd me, sir.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

I just don't see what mechanism could be instituted that would work.

I got a great job out of college with a salary that was 20% higher than other graduates because I demonstrated I had a greater value than the other graduates (significant experience, passion for the field, demonstrated ability, etc).

Eventually the 600+ employee company was sold to another 600+ company that had rigorous salary/pay tables based solely on experience since graduation, and all the employees were ultimately forced into the pay grade scale. I ended up being paid less than employees who were obviously less proficient but had more time under their belt since their graduation. (it was slightly more complex than this, but the point and result is the same)

But I can't complain because there's no easy way to quantify my value in an objective way that's fair to everyone.

Similarly, there's not going to be an easy way to determine if a given employee's value - male or female - is actually on par with another employee's value except in a rather subjective way. This is especially true outside my industry. At least in engineering you can objectively evaluate how cheap a design is, how quickly an engineer completes the design, and how much maintenance the design needs in the long run.

There are some things in each industry that can be evaluated, but then there are the once in a blue moon problems that would only be well solved by someone that has significant knowledge and experience that can't be easily measured by monthly output reports.

Further, once you tie pay to a measurement system employees optimize for that system, which is one of many reasons why so many companies implement a rather subjective evaluation mechanism. IBM started tracking how many lines of code programmers wrote each day, and suddenly it became a race to write the lengthiest, most bloated code one could manage. Another company implemented a bonus for each bug fixed. Suddenly the number of bugs created exploded - and the fixes followed right behind.

So on the one hand you can average all the employees in a given position and force the outliers - both high and low - into the same pay scale to make sure there's no gender gap, or you can implement a complex system of objective measures with unintended consequences to grade each employee.

Neither option works, and there are a million loopholes.

Take the first option - all you need to do is create a new job title with slightly different requirements for each employee. Analyst 1, 2, and 3. Junior Analyst 1, 2, and 3. Senior Analyst 1, 2, and 3.

It's going to be impossible for any court to properly evaluate whether an employee is truly as valuable as any other employee, nevermind the second loophole that the company may have only opened up one junior position, and hired the senior analyst into the junior position.

I don't see any measures that people have so far proposed working at all, nevermind meeting their intended purpose. It is more likely that people will work around it, or optimize for it, making the situation worse.

 

[PatrThom]

Pretty astute observation...for an engineer.

Why, if what you say is true (about people taking advantage of their systems), it should have been trivially easy to avoid the real estate/S&L crisis, or put a stop to excessive asset churning, or avoid the recent collapse of Wall Street. All it would've taken would've been for people to be less willing to game their respective systems. But obviously what you say can't be true, or else people wouldn't be using the patent system or copyright laws to make money instead of, y'know, doing something valuable for the betterment of society.

The only alternative is that people everywhere not only are dicks, they enjoy being dicks, and of course no decent human being would behave that way towards his fellow (wo)man.

--Patrick

 

[strawman]

What!?! People taking advantage of others?

Mind==blown.

 

[Bubble181]

Just dropping in my €0.02....There's no inherent reason why women should get paid less, starting out (unless it's a job where one or the other is objectively better - and even so, there's probably better metrics than gender out there to quantify the difference).
However, maternity leave (which can easily be over 6 months per baby - I personally *know* someone who's been home on maternity leave/paid vacation/parenting leave/pregnancy leave/etc for going on 8 years...no, our system isn't broken! Why would you think that?!) can, and should, play a role in salary later on; as it's lost experience and lost contributions to other systems.
That is, if a man works for 42 years, and a woman does the exact same job for 42 years, by my account, they should be paid the exact same and should have the same pension. If the man works for 42 years, and the woman works for 40 years and stays at home for 2 years to rear hatchlings, I think it's fair that the woman makes a bit less and has a slightly smaller pension. In Belgium, currently, they're supposed to make the same and earn the same. With the crisis and everything, it's now up for debate again, but it seemsl ike that'll stay the same....Which I disagree with. Having kids is pretty essential to society, sure, but it's still your own choice, with plenty of kickbacks (in Belgium), and not something your employer should be punished for.

 

[Necronic]

Here's my take: Life isn't fair. It's not. It sucks.

With that in mind, there's two ways to deal with the unfair position nature has left women with regards to a tendency towards child birth:

1) Be severely unfair to the woman. Use cold actuarial methods to determine that a woman is more of a risk of leaving your company than a man is, all other things being equal. Because of this risk the unfairness of nature will be paid in full by them in being passed over by promotions etc..

2) Be a little unfair to everyone. Ignore the actuarial data and treat them equally implicitly. Yes, you are ignoring a mathematical risk, but you spread the consequences to everyone. Everyone suffers a little when a woman unexpectedly leaves her job. Now, seeing as you have at least a couple months notice (see Knocked Up, you can't hide it that long), you should be able to mitigate the damage so it's pretty small.

I choose option 2.

Also, there's another problem with option 1. The cold actuarial nature of it also implies mistreating a lot of other "conditions", like age, obesity, smoking, or marriage status (single people are more likely to quit/move). All of these things play into a person's loyalty to a company and/or their career length. Yet we don't see an argument of "Hey don't hire fat people because they are more likely to die younger and have more sick days" or "hey young single people are a flight risk only hire 30 year old married folk" or "Hey don't hire jews because they have more congenital health deffects". That shit isn't even considered even if the math does support it because it's culturally understood to be so fucking wrong.

 

[Bubble181]

That shit isn't even considered even if the math does support it because it's culturally understood to be so fucking wrong.

I'm not sure how the world works over there, must be a really cool place to live. Any discrimination that's not explicitly illegal but is statistically relevant is being used over here in insurance. Car insurance goes up if you live in the city, it goes up if you move, it's higher if you're younger, it's higher for men,.... A lot of health insurance doesn't cover every possible angle, but yes, those things are measured and yes, some of them will mean forking over more money or changing your ways (if possible and practical. I know it's possible but I can't imagine anyone taking the Amorous Eyes route just to save on car insurance )

 

[PatrThom]

I can't imagine anyone taking the Amorous Eyes route just to save on car insurance )

There's got to be a Guyco joke in there, somewhere.

--Patrick

 

[TommiR]

With that in mind, there's two ways to deal with the unfair position nature has left women with regards to a tendency towards child birth:

1) Be severely unfair to the woman. Use cold actuarial methods to determine that a woman is more of a risk of leaving your company than a man is, all other things being equal. Because of this risk the unfairness of nature will be paid in full by them in being passed over by promotions etc..

2) Be a little unfair to everyone. Ignore the actuarial data and treat them equally implicitly. Yes, you are ignoring a mathematical risk, but you spread the consequences to everyone. Everyone suffers a little when a woman unexpectedly leaves her job. Now, seeing as you have at least a couple months notice (see Knocked Up, you can't hide it that long), you should be able to mitigate the damage so it's pretty small.

I choose option 2.

I do like this thinking when it is applied to society or intra-group mechanics in general. It's the reason why I for instance give to charity and pay a little higher taxes to provide basic welfare, if the alternative is a rocketing crime rate or the least well-off section of society dying on the streets from starvation or exposure.

But I perceive a problem, both practical and theoretical, when thinking based on such concepts as fairness and morality are attempted to port over to the business world as things are currently set up. I believe it was Milton Friedman who said that the only responsibility a company has is to make money for the shareholders, within the limits set by law. I fully agree with this, and believe that any concerns external to making a profit need to come from the outside, from legislators and such authorities. Several people in this thread have highlighted the difficulties associated with the legislative approach.

This of course doesn't mean that women are doomed. In some industries the wage gap is very narrow or even non-existent. What I think is needed to spread that gender equality further is to provide a sound business reason for companies to do so, that real equal opportunity gives them some competitive edge. If that holds true, then good old Invisible Hand will, in time, take care of the problem. If it does not hold true and changing things will simply increase costs without providing companies with equal value, then I don't know what can be done.

I'm not sure how the world works over there, must be a really cool place to live. Any discrimination that's not explicitly illegal but is statistically relevant is being used over here in insurance. Car insurance goes up if you live in the city, it goes up if you move, it's higher if you're younger, it's higher for men,.... A lot of health insurance doesn't cover every possible angle, but yes, those things are measured and yes, some of them will mean forking over more money or changing your ways (if possible and practical. I know it's possible but I can't imagine anyone taking the Amorous Eyes route just to save on car insurance )

That's a good example.

And while we're on the topic of car insurance, if any of you are thinking about getting a full-coverage policy for a used car, you might want to think twice. If you were a young university student and paying higher premiums in return for protecting the most valuable thing you own seemed like a good idea, I'd especially recommend you think twice. Because I can tell you those f*ckers at the insurance company have no souls.

 

[Necronic]

But I perceive a problem, both practical and theoretical, when thinking based on such concepts as fairness and morality are attempted to port over to the business world as things are currently set up. I believe it was Milton Friedman who said that the only responsibility a company has is to make money for the shareholders, within the limits set by law. I fully agree with this, and believe that any concerns external to making a profit need to come from the outside, from legislators and such authorities. Several people in this thread have highlighted the difficulties associated with the legislative approach.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Relying on companies to do something "out of the goodness of their hearts" is absurd and unrealistic. It's not that companies are evil, it's that they have very different motivations from us and their rationale is affected by as much. Hence I do agree that certain legislation should exist to bridge that gap.

The Car Insurance example is interesting, but maybe it's fundamentally different because you are talking about purchasing a service, not talking about employment. The logic is exactly the same, but there's something different.

Also, I want to point out/repeat what others have said that there are a handful of industries/positions where no one cares the slightest what sex you are. In very technical work (like PhD level science) the skills of the individual are rare enough that they couldn't be looked at in an actuarial method if they wanted to. The sample sizes are too small, and the risk you take on is quite likely negligible amongst all the noise.

 

[GasBandit]

Yet we don't see an argument of "Hey don't hire fat people because they are more likely to die younger and have more sick days"

Perhaps not out loud, but you know that's already an unspoken factor in hiring. And fat people and smokers are the last two demographics we're allowed to hate on and discriminate against and still be politically correct. Heck, I used to even work for a company that had a policy to not employ people who smoke even if they don't smoke during work hours. As in, if you smoke at home, you're fired/not hired.

or "hey young single people are a flight risk only hire 30 year old married folk"

I've actually heard THAT said out loud where I work NOW.

or "Hey don't hire jews because they have more congenital health deffects".

Their skill with money counterbalances that.

 

[Necronic]

That smoking thing is actually a really big deal to me, and is my only point of contention with the American Lung Association, who are vocally opposed to laws that stop companies from firing/not hiring people who smoke. I had a friend who worked there (who secretly smoked) who worked next to a fat woman who drank sodas all day.

That's complete rubbish. There is no difference from refusing to hire a smoker than refusing to hire a fat person. They are both health risks and drive up health premiums (fat people moreso than smokers it turns out). They are both potentially less productive. They both may be unpleasant to one of your senses or be uncomfortable to sit next to in tight quarters (like a meeting).

It's just more PC to say that you don't want to be near smokers than you don't want to be near overweight people. One is considered normal, the other sounds like something a serial killer would say.

 

[strawman]

Maybe, but people are more scared of cancer than heart disease, even though heart disease has a higher mortality rate.

 

[blotsfan]

I'd say the difference is that you need to eat, while you can live without smoking.

 

[Necronic]

That's facile. You may need to eat but nothing says you have to eat so much.

They are both choices. They both lead to increased health risks and costs. They are both issues of addiction.

 

[TommiR]

The Car Insurance example is interesting, but maybe it's fundamentally different because you are talking about purchasing a service, not talking about employment. The logic is exactly the same, but there's something different.

As you said, the logic is the same, but I might go quite far in saying the two cases are very much the same. For an employer, hiring is an investment where they purchase the skills and time of the employee, in return for a salary. The company is essentially buying a service, so I'd say they are subject to the same considerations. I'm not sure I see a great difference in acquiring labor when compared to acquiring other factors of production.

Also, I want to point out/repeat what others have said that there are a handful of industries/positions where no one cares the slightest what sex you are. In very technical work (like PhD level science) the skills of the individual are rare enough that they couldn't be looked at in an actuarial method if they wanted to. The sample sizes are too small, and the risk you take on is quite likely negligible amongst all the noise.

Agreed. Possession of rare skills that are in demand will see many of the things discussed here substantially decrease in relevance.

 

[AshburnerX]

That's facile. You may need to eat but nothing says you have to eat so much.

They are both choices. They both lead to increased health risks and costs. They are both issues of addiction.

Except you don't get heart disease by being near a fat person while they eat. However, you COULD get develop health problems if you spend significant time around a smoker while they smoke. It certainly made my allergies worse growing up with someone who smoked a pack a day.

 

[Necronic]

Except you don't get heart disease by being near a fat person while they eat. However, you COULD get develop health problems if you spend significant time around a smoker while they smoke. It certainly made my allergies worse growing up with someone who smoked a pack a day.

I'll agree with that, and for that reason I have no problems with banning smoking in public, or banning smoking at your workplace.

You do that then there's really little to no difference other than culture.

 

[@Li3n]

I think the point I'm trying to make is a fairly simple one. A male worker statistically will provide an employer with more man-hours than a female due to parental issues, and this imbalance will be pronounced in the ~10 years after graduation when women generally have babies. Say ages 25-35.

And i'm sure i can find statistics like that between different ethnic groups, with one working less man hours, but i doubt anyone would make the same argument...

It's not that companies are evil, it's that they have very different motivations from us and their rationale is affected by as much.

No they don't... unless you're some sort of saint you're as motivated by making the most money with the lest effort as any company, even if it's on a smaller scale.

It's just more PC to say that you don't want to be near smokers than you don't want to be near overweight people. One is considered normal, the other sounds like something a serial killer would say.

If fat people where blowing grease at me with every breath i'm pretty sure no one would mind when i say i dont want to be near them...

 

[TommiR]

And i'm sure i can find statistics like that between different ethnic groups, with one working less man hours, but i doubt anyone would make the same argument...

Most people would agree that, other things being equal, a worker who puts in more man hours is more valuable to the company, and more likely to get a raise or promotion or something.