the thread title should be changed to women earn less because of their period.   

 BillnDollarBaby wrote: 
Probably not in our, or our children's lives.

 bokey wrote: 

State governments are just as riddled with unqualified employees.    But I have always thought it had more to do with croney-ism than AA.

Put yourself in the shoes of the person making 66 or 83 cents on the dollar that a white male is paid for the same work.  AA is a flawed system to be sure, but if the inequities didn't exist no one would have had to come up with a "solution," even if it is a poorly executed solution.  I am sure that if the FPA passes, it will be just as flawed as AA.  But its nice, after having to eat crap my entire professional life to have someone at least acknowledge that the issue exists.  I know a lot of men who will tell you that women's pay is not an issue, that it is perfectly fair.  It doesn't really affect them so it doesn't really matter to them.  After 10+ years in the construction industry, I have seen enough gender descrimination to last me a life time.  It is one of the primary reasons I am trying to get out of it, despite the fact that I love it.  Ironically, my skill set and experience make me very valuable in the industry and I keep ending up back there (through my temp agency) because I am the only candidate with the right stuff.  They just don't want to pay the same as they would for a man with the same background.  I was once offered a job - $9 and no benefits.  It was work that I was highly experienced and very good at.  The man who had just left the position due to the fact that he couldn't get the job done had been paid $18 and full, company paid benefits.  He had no experience but was retired military.

I was once told by an older, male friend that I shouldn't be upset about women being treated differently.  It wasn't something important enough to merit my ire.  Effectively he was telling me, that because I am a female, I wasn't important enough to deserve equal rights.  Seriously.  That mentality exists to a greater degree than most people realize.

  Here's to hoping that someday, we won't need things like AA and FPA, because America will grow up and lose its unfounded biases.

 Southern_Boy wrote: 

The way I hear it, she was perfectly qualified for the, ahem, job she was performing. 

 bokey wrote: 
Great in theory, but as long as people are involved in the performance assessment, it will not be fair. Monica Lewinsky comes to mind.

I live in the DC area. The federal government is riddled with unqualified employees who were hired solely due to affirmative action.

 Now there is some good to this- the minorities  who were given jobs they are not qualified for are able to provide a better education for their children and try to "end the cycle" but it is still a joke and a big reason the federal government is so bloated and inefficient.

 But at the same time, there are people who ARE qualified for those positions working in lesser jobs.

 Hiring and advancement should be based SOLELY on performance.

 If such a law was passed and enforced everyone would be treated the same.

 Southern_Boy wrote: 

Does that make you a golddigger?




I admit to having minimal sense of humor on this topic.  After so many years in a male dominated industry, watching morons get paid almost double what I do for half the work it gets on ones nerves.

 BillnDollarBaby wrote: 
I'm on board here. I see the way the women in my office are treated and it infuriates me. Unfortunately, its a prejudice that is deeply rooted in the good ole boy business owners (not all, but most).

Besides, if women were all paid an equal scale, my wife could work and I could retire.

 Southern_Boy wrote: 



This would be funny if it wasn't so dead on accurate as to why, in many places, the pay inequity exists.  Then again, after years of being on the short end of this issues, I many be a little humourless on the topic.

I think women should be paid the same no matter what position they are in.

 Alchemist wrote: 

I don't think the phrasing addresses competency or performance... I think it goes to defining lateral positions.  An environmental attorney and a corporte attorney within the same firm should be paid the same for comparable experience and production, despite the fact they practice in two different areas of the law.  They still put in the same amount of school time, put the same effort into passing the test, work just as many hours in the same office and produce the same amount of revenue but their work is totally dissimilar.  Or the tire installer and the seat installer on a car manufacturing line.  They work in the same building, under the same conditions, have the same amount of training and the same physical demands but their work is totally dissimilar.  Compare a tire to a seat.  Totally not the same.  Yet the work on installing them is fundamentally the same - both part of the assembly process. 

duchamp wrote:
good morning!

triskele wrote:
Good Morning !

For some work, especially government work, it is who you know and who you are related to that counts. .... and if you know some really good dirt on someone.......BINGO !

Alchemist wrote:
BUT..it goes both ways....
for example, the dude in the cube next to mine who takes 5 smoke breaks a day, talks to his girlfriend on his cell, comes in late, and plays solitaire should, technically, make the same as me per hour.
This is despite the fact that i don't smoke, i only call my husband at lunchtime, i always come in early, and i don't have TIME to play solitaire because i am working too hard!

the point is....that dude should NOT be paid MORE than me, simply because he has a penis!

(i don't work in that kind of an environment, but you get my point)

 Alchemist wrote: 
That clause in bold is the answer....how did you miss that?

We have (several) fair pay acts in the UK.  It is illegal to discriminate against anyone on any criteria apart from their ability to do their job.  Equality of employment and pay is the aim, and it works to a large extent.  It works because after a short time of the act being in power someone challenged their company under the legislation and won a large amount of compensation for putting up with lower pay, sexist bullying and suchlike.  Then a lot of companies paid attention.

"The Fair Pay Act, a bill to level the paying field, has been a perennial on Capitol Hill since 1996. The FPA would outlaw discrimination in pay for jobs that are equal in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, even if the actual work is dissimilar. "

I see, so it doesn't matter whether a woman is actually doing as good of a job as the man in the cubicle next to hers, she must be paid the same.