I can't believe what I just heard on Faux News

[MrsAxilla]

I'll paraphrase, with commentary!

Polosi is pushing her controversial 'fair pay for women bill' again. She and her Democrat supporters argue that although women make up 50% of the workforce, they earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. But those stats don't take into account that men work longer hours and have more dangerous jobs (side eye). :::flash to employment policy "expert"::: Employers will spend a significant amount of money defending false claims. This law will require employers to make salaries known, and if there is a gender discrepancy, women can sue. It will be very difficult for employers to tease out the detail that will justify a man making more money. (How does this support the idea that the bill is bad? If they can't defend pay discrepancies, doesn't that support the argument that they have pay discrimination??) :::flash back to anchor::: This measure will be expensive for businesses. Democrats will have to decide whether they want to support such a job killing measure. (fair pay is a job killer?). In the end, many employers might decide to just not hire women. (OMG! I'm scared!! Oh wait. It's illegal to do that.)

[dev22]

Well, if it will help business, us women should just not work at all. Then they wouldn't have to worry about paying us little women folk fairly.

[IIOY]

May 30, 2012 17:31:35 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Employers will spend a significant amount of money defending false claims. This law will require employers to make salaries known, and if there is a gender discrepancy, women can sue. It will be very difficult for employers to tease out the detail that will justify a man making more money.

I've seen the financial impact of frivolous lawsuits on employers and I'm the first to argue about the expense involved. I also do think that statistical pay discrepancies cannot simply be dismissed as sexism.

Nevertheless, I disagree that it would be all that difficult or expensive for a company to explain a valid pay discrepancy. Pay issues aren't nearly as vague or reliant upon he said/she said evidence involved with, say, a harassment claim, and it makes me stabby for any company to complain that it can't really explain something that should be clear or clearly documented anyway.

As for the bill itself, I withhold judgment until I get a chance to read it.

[MrsAxilla]

May 30, 2012 17:47:34 GMT -5 IIOY said:

May 30, 2012 17:31:35 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

Employers will spend a significant amount of money defending false claims. This law will require employers to make salaries known, and if there is a gender discrepancy, women can sue. It will be very difficult for employers to tease out the detail that will justify a man making more money.

I've seen the financial impact of frivolous lawsuits on employers and I'm the first to argue about the expense involved. I also do think that statistical pay discrepancies cannot simply be dismissed as sexism.

Nevertheless, I disagree that it would be all that difficult or expensive for a company to explain a valid pay discrepancy. Pay issues aren't nearly as vague or reliant upon he said/she said evidence involved with, say, a harassment claim, and it makes me stabby for any company to complain that it can't really explain something that should be clear or clearly documented anyway.

As for the bill itself, I withhold judgment until I get a chance to read it.

I think it can be difficult in some businesses. For example, at the med school, we had some discrepancies among the PhDs, which did appear to be gender-related. We did an analysis, and some disciplines are just more in demand than others. Physiologists are kind of common, but immunio-biologists are hard to come by. It was just an unfortunate that the physiologist were women and the immunio-biologists were male.

[emilyj]

May 30, 2012 17:31:35 GMT -5 MrsAxilla said:

I'll paraphrase, with commentary!

Polosi is pushing her controversial 'fair pay for women bill' again. She and her Democrat supporters argue that although women make up 50% of the workforce, they earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. But those stats don't take into account that men work longer hours and have more dangerous jobs (side eye). :::flash to employment policy "expert"::: Employers will spend a significant amount of money defending false claims. This law will require employers to make salaries known, and if there is a gender discrepancy, women can sue. It will be very difficult for employers to tease out the detail that will justify a man making more money. (How does this support the idea that the bill is bad? If they can't defend pay discrepancies, doesn't that support the argument that they have pay discrimination??) :::flash back to anchor::: This measure will be expensive for businesses. Democrats will have to decide whether they want to support such a job killing measure. (fair pay is a job killer?). In the end, many employers might decide to just not hire women. (OMG! I'm scared!! Oh wait. It's illegal to do that.)

Some industries already have this. I work for a public university, and all of our salaries are public record. However, women who choose to complain about salary discrepancies between the genders are not looked upon very favorably.