Skip to main content

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Well, here's part of what lies behind Republican opposition to the Paycheck Fairness Act:
Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander is worried that the Paycheck Fairness Act—a bill designed to ensure equal pay—will hurt men.

“Take me through exactly what would have to happen, with a specific example of a man and woman, where a man is being paid less than the woman,” Alexander asked during a Senate hearing. “Because this law is not just about women — it’s about men and women.”

Yep, if we take action to prevent pay discrimination against women, men might risk facing a small dose of what women face every day. The poor dears. Except, of course, that won't happen, as a Chamber of Commerce (!) representative assured Alexander.

This sort of fear seems to underlie so much of Republican politics—the fear that if things are a little bit more fair for a group that's faced discrimination and inequality for generations, the old straight white guys who've benefited from that discrimination and inequality will lose a little bit of their edge. And if they lose that edge, if they aren't on the winning side of discrimination, that's like being discriminated against themselves, by their way of thinking.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 09:27 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  so Lamar it's not $0.77 on the dollar but $1.23 nt (11+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 09:35:42 AM PDT

  •  Hmm (5+ / 0-)
    “An employer would have to show that the woman was being paid more because of a factor other than sex, such as a qualification, advanced degree, or more experience,” she explained.
    I support the notion that a woman and a man who are equally valuable to a company should be paid the same.

    However, the implication here is that as a business owner I have to now have a defensible pay structure that will hold up in court and I cannot just pay someone more because they work harder or don't screw up as much (well, maybe I could, but I would need extremely onerous recording and reporting requirements).

    Instead of proving that the discrimination was due to sex, a business owner would need to prove that it wasn't in order to comply.

    Talk about onerous requirements. Now I need to spend tons of time in onerous documentation tasks explaining why every one of my employees is being paid their current salary instead of getting on with running my business. What a pain in the ass.

    And to solve what problem exactly? Since this legislation only affects people in the same jobs, that 77% number isn't going to budge much since most of that gap is due to job type and experience disparities, two things that are explicitly excluded from consideration by this bill.

    (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
    Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

    by Sparhawk on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 09:53:33 AM PDT

    •  what's needed is transparent pay (25+ / 0-)

      like the pay grade bands used by federal employees, so everyone knows what everyone else's pay is and what it's based on.

      so, the short answer to your question is:  yes.

      you need to have a pay structure that is open, fair, and defensible in court.  why is this even a question?  oh, yes, because businesses like having "secret salaries" to prevent women and minorities from realizing they're paid less than their white male co-workers.

      •  That approach ignores the great importance of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scotths, Catte Nappe, Sparhawk

        management judgement.

        Under the approach described above an engineering employee with just a BS degree who was far more productive than the typical employee with a MS degree would have a difficult time getting paid what she was actually worth.

        What a person is worth to a business is very poorly determined by degrees, years of experience and other simpleminded factors that would be defensible in court.  

        So how does a company keep a top employee with a pay increase who performs far above her peers with similar experience, degrees, etc., when she is getting offers from competitors at higher pay?

        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

        by nextstep on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:05:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If companies actually did all the performance (5+ / 0-)

          reviews that they promise you when you hire on, that might start it off.

          Individual performace reviews, when done correctly and in a timely manner, pretty much make transparent who's working hard on what, and what kind of success they have.

          How does the Republican Congress sit down with all the butthurt over taxing the wealthy?

          by athenap on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:30:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Documentation (0+ / 0-)

            All an employer needs to do is develop clear and specific job descriptions that show exactly what is expected of a good average employee holding that position.  The employer should also create a list of the kinds of qualifications and actions that would be considered above and beyond the job description so that when an employee has qualifications beyond the norm or excels in some way, all the employer has to do is check something off and submit it for inclusion in the personnel file.  

            You are exactly right about performance reviews.  

            If an employer cannot easily explain why an employee deserves higher compensation or a promotion, he/she is either lazy or sloppy or should not be giving the raise or promotion.

            In my experience, providing strong job descriptions, regular feedback regarding performance, and a clear description of what an employee can do to advance in rank and/or pay leads to higher performance and happier employees.

        •  Not necessarily. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Batya the Toon, Oh Mary Oh, Ahianne

          Education should be one of many factors. If you can document that the women with the Bachelors is far more productive than the gentleman with the Masters, she gets more money.

          "That being said, I do agree I am going to hell. But for other reasons. Mostly boring tax stuff ' Amy Pohler

          by Annie B on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:56:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The documentation burden becomes quite great (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            The documentation requirement is for all employees, not just those that are exceptions.  There is also an extremely wide range in writing skills, details and dilligence provided by managers throughout the organization.

            Doing this is far less effective and larger burden than you think.  While government's focus may be on administrative compliance, businesses need to focus on providing customers what they want to buy.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:07:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Business have to do a lot of things (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Penny GC, lcbo, Purseonality, Ahianne

              that get in the way of focusing on providing customers what they want to buy.  Usually in the interests of treating their employees fairly and humanely.

              Since the alternative is things like the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire, personally I'm completely in favor of getting in the way of what businesses feel they need to focus on from time to time.

              •  You certainly get extreme in thinking where (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sparhawk, dconrad

                business would go without far greater burdens being added.

                There are costs and lower incomes to consumers, employees, the unemployed, investors and tax revenues when additional burdens are imposed on business.  The fact that there is a downside does not mean the burden should not be imposed, but good government needs to study the issue.

                The case needs to be made that the benefits of the reform significantly outweigh the adverse impacts it has.  Far too often advocates of additional administrative burdens and regulations assume there is no downside to the change.  

                The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                by nextstep on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:48:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  My point was (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Penny GC, lcbo, GreenMother, Ahianne

                  that I am not particularly moved by an argument that a given measure is unacceptable because it gets in the way of what businesses feel they need to focus on, because we've seen what happens when nothing gets in the way of what businesses feel they need to focus on.

                  The trouble with saying that it needs to be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the burdens is that the benefits and the burdens aren't going to impact the same people.  The benefits will go to the marginalized employees; the burdens will go to the business owners.

                  (Who will then do their damnedest to spread the burden around -- to the aforementioned consumers, employees, investors, and so forth -- so as to avoid cutting into profits, and then present it as though those costs to everybody else are inevitable instead of constructed.)

                  •  People react to changes in law (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sparhawk

                    but not always in the ways that proponents intend.  

                    In evaluating policy changes, one must consider how people will likely react for a wide range of people, not just how you would like them to respond.

                    To do otherwise would be similar to an architect for a building to ignore gravity - the design may be more pleasing, but the building will collapse.

                    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                    by nextstep on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 03:08:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  But those same costs are born by all (0+ / 0-)

                  businesses in all industries/fields, so the playing field is even between them all.

                  "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                  by bryduck on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:45:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We are trying to discuss a systemic problem (0+ / 0-)

                    Through the lens of non-systemic circumstances.  "Fairness" will always be subjective.  Starting salaries should be the same.   Subsequent increases should be tied to specific measures.  Individual performance then determines compensation, not managerial impressions.

                    Think about the baby Jesus. Up in that tower, letting His hair down so that the three wise men could climb up and spin the dreidle and see if there's six more weeks of winter. -- Will and Grace

                    by Rikon Snow on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:52:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not all businesses have measurable (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rikon Snow

                      outputs by which to objectify performance evaluation. In fact, I would guess that most businesses don't have them. The human element is a necessary evil, if you will, in any evaluative process, because automated evaluation is an algorithmic disaster area. Therefore, one has to find ways to account for, and perhaps control for, "managerial impressions", not eliminate them. If the "fairness quotient" bends too far in one direction for too long, why shouldn't the finger of the law be put on the scales to bend it back?

                      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                      by bryduck on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 09:14:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  There is also the matter of international (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sparhawk

                    competition, as well as some policies would decrease overall economic activity.

                    To illustrate the second point, consider a policy that said once a person is hired, if the person is laid off or terminated, the owners are responsible for paying the person the same annual compensation for 5 years.  Such a policy would impact all employers, with favor to businesses requiring few people.  This policy would lower economic growth and increase unemployment, as employers would be extremely hesitant to hire.

                    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                    by nextstep on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:55:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Presumably, larger companies (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Batya the Toon

                      got that way because they have more revenue and profits, so they would also be more able to withstand such a policy if enacted. Something like this might have the added side benefit of curbing the growth of corporations before they get "too big to fail." Or are you arguing that you need larger companies to increase "overall economic activity?"

                      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                      by bryduck on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 09:17:21 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No need to look at how policies work for small (0+ / 0-)

                        Vs big, as its devastating impact in dramatically increasing unemployment, lower tax revenues, greater income inequality, etc.  The potential "upsides" of the bad policy I discuss above would be similar to the "upside" of spending less on food after one dies.

                        The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                        by nextstep on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 11:00:06 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Really? You think having (0+ / 0-)

                          a company pay into a system where people get some income after they're unemployed is a bad thing? You must be pretty anti-tax, then . . .

                          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                          by bryduck on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 11:59:44 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Issue is that it is a massive disincentive to (0+ / 0-)

                            employ people and results if far higher unemployment and lower wages.

                            Some other countries have tried this with terrible results.  I used this example as it is known by economists as a bad policy.

                            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                            by nextstep on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 12:07:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why do you think that if employers were required (0+ / 0-)

                            to pay laid off and terminated employees the same pay not working as they did working for 5 years after separation, that fewer people would be employed?

                            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

                            by nextstep on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 12:39:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  How many times have I been told not to discuss (5+ / 0-)

        what I make!

        Like it's some state secret.

        "It were a thousand times better for the land if all Witches, but especially the blessing Witch, might suffer death." qtd by Ehrenreich & English. For Her Own Good, Two Centuries of Expert's Advice to Women pp 40

        by GreenMother on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:44:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is zero requirement that anything be fair (0+ / 0-)

          The only requirement is that someone not be paid more (or less) due to gender.

          A business owner could pay more or fire people by throwing darts at a board blindfolded. All perfectly legal.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:43:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, there is still such a thing (3+ / 0-)

            as an unfair labor practice, and random firing (one of the aspects of "wrongful termination") is still one of them.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:47:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No there isn't (0+ / 0-)

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:50:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Um, yes there is, at least in the US. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Batya the Toon

                Even "at will" employees can be fired illegally. The Wikipedia article is actually pretty extensive on the topic. What are you using to support your assertion?

                "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                by bryduck on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 08:58:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re (0+ / 0-)

                  Other than state laws protecting employees from being fired for reporting/refusing to engage in illegal activities, this Wikipedia article about at-will employment supports my position, not yours.

                  Employment is at will and can be terminated by either party for any reason or no reason, other than a very few protected reasons.

                  (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
                  Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

                  by Sparhawk on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 09:38:33 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  More importantly the proposed policy can very well (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            hurt the people it is intended to help.

            As discrimination does take place, having penalties for very apparent discrimination does not run into the problem discussed below.  However, if proving that one did not discriminate is difficult or costly when one did not discriminate, then those the policy is intended to help are hurt as described below.

            So let's assume stronger anti discrimination laws are put into law requiring extensive documentation and other work for employee performance and management.

            If you hire a young white male for a job and he does not work out, you can terminate that person with little concern that the business will be sued for discrimination.

            However,

            If you hire someone other than a young white male, you need to be convinced to a greater degree that you are making a good decision as the cost of making a mistake in hiring is far higher, so you are less inclined to hire those with a greater cost of a hiring mistake (from the cost of a law suit, or from needing to hire more people to get the job done but not terminating the underperforming employee).  Non young-white-males of clearly exceptional ability will not be adversely effected very much, but those of more average, uncertain or below average will pay the highest price for this policy.  

            Just to clarify this point without the factor of human empathy for a moment.  Assume you were going to buy a large screen TV (same model) for $1000 from one of two stores.  Store X has a no questions asked full refund in 30 days policy, Store Y has a policy of returning 50% of what you paid if you return in 30 days.  Which store would you buy from?  What would most other people do?

            Making it more costly to terminate a TV purchase, or employing someone, decreases the rate a rational person will purchase or hire.

            The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

            by nextstep on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 05:06:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I think it's "oneri." n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Batya the Toon

        I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

        by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 04:14:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Why wouldn't that hold up in court? (14+ / 0-)

      You are stating valid reasons there--this person worked 20 more hours of overtime on this project than the other project members, this person forgot to file important paperwork that delayed the project for two months. Those are reasons that would stand up in court. How are you determining pay scales now? Just on gut feeling? Hopefully you are using documentation on a person's performance. How onerous could it be?

      Also it is not just for people in the exact same job, it is for people in essentially equivalent jobs. Some employers will give men a different title than a woman even though their jobs are essentially the same and use that to justify paying the woman less money (she's a Junior Account Executive).

      Besides, it's not like you are currently paying your women employee's less money than your male employee's just because they are women. Right?

      "That being said, I do agree I am going to hell. But for other reasons. Mostly boring tax stuff ' Amy Pohler

      by Annie B on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 11:53:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dconrad, nextstep
        How are you determining pay scales now? Just on gut feeling? Hopefully you are using documentation on a person's performance. How onerous could it be?
        Very. A small business has plenary power to pay employees anything (s)he wants for any reason (or no reason at all) except gender, religion, whatever. Including gut feel.

        As of now, a business owner doesn't need a reason to pay anyone anything. No required documentation, nothing.

        This bill would pretty much require business owners to have an on-paper pay structure and rigid rules about who gets paid what. That's a huge imposition on people who don't have such a structure today, and frankly an imposition on superstar employees who "deserve" extra pay but whom business owners can't document a "good reason".

        And tell me again what problem this is trying to solve, based on the fact that the vast majority of the gap is explainable by differing career choices and experience levels,  something this bill does zero to address.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:22:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Equivalent jobs (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk

        Some employers give men and women and a whole bunch of different employees the exact same title, even though they're doing different jobs. I worked for a consulting company where there were only three titles among all the worker bees: consultant, senior consultant, and principal consultant. But you could have two "senior consultants", one of whom had a really rare and highly marketable skill, such as with Microsoft Biztalk, and another who is a web designer. Could the company pay the Biztalk expert more to retain him?

        I guess they could just change his title to "Biztalk consultant" and say that title comes with higher pay, but then what happens when one of the web designers sues, claiming that creating a special title for that job is discriminating against them?

        Also, in the places I've worked, it's almost never that one person is working 20 more hours than someone else. Rather, it's that there are a few people who get much more done in the same number of hours as the others. But when I try to think about how to quantify that, it's really hard to think of something that wouldn't lead to gaming the system, unintended consequences, administrative overhead, or all of the above.

        La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues, et de voler du pain.

        by dconrad on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:56:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What?! You are for the staus quo?! Shocking I say! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Batya the Toon, bryduck, mollyd

      /s

      “When you victim-blame, be aware that in all likelihood, at least one woman you know and love silently decides she cannot trust you.” ` Steph Guthrie

      by Penny GC on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 01:44:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The only thing the law changes, (2+ / 0-)

      relative to the Equal Pay Act (Which is already law), is that it disallow employers for citing some reason that has nothing to do with their job, or job performance, as a reason for paying women less.

      Courts have gutted the Equal Pay Act to allow companies to create all kinds of ridiculous reasons that have nothing to do with the job.

      The plaintiff stuff must show actual evidence of wage discrimination - that's the case today, and will still be the case if the law is passed.

    •  It can be done fairly. (0+ / 0-)

      It does require considerable effort, however.  I was the manager of a division of a large company.  The employees of my division all did the same job and were roughly half men and half women.  
      I had to spend the first two months of the year writing and delivering detailed annual evaluations of everyone.  Then we had mid year check ups (another month) and even 3rd quarter "career development plans."  
      All of this was in aid of doling out raises totaling 2 percent or less.  It was laughable putting someone through all these hoops for a .78 percent raise.  And after doing the evaluations for a couple of years and working with everyone day to day for years, I knew exactly how well everybody was doing their job.  
      Because the work was measurable, by volume of output, quality of workmanship and meeting of deadlines, etc., I'd say gender differences were never a factor though educational level was.  

      Freedom of speech, in my view, does not mean the freedom to buy the United States government -- Bernie Sanders

      by OnePingOnly on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 05:58:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where I've worked (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ahianne

        there was no rhyme or reason to who was paid what, because everyone negotiated his starting salary when he hired on.

        People who changed jobs frequently generally ended up making more than people who stayed in one place a long time - sometimes a lot more. Also people who were hired on when the economy was good. Also people who were better negotiators, or who had multiple offers to play off against each other. Etc.

        From that point on, the RAISES - but not the salaries - were based on evaluations. Occasionally a manager would go to bat for someone whose salary really was way below what other people were getting and get them an extra bump up, but generally speaking if you came into the company at a high or low salary you were always going to be at an advantage or disadvantage relative to your co-workers.

        Early in my career someone accidentally left a sheet of paper on the copy machine listing the salaries of everyone in my department. It was an eye-opener. The spread was huge, and I couldn't relate it to the contributions the employees made. Some really excellent and some pretty useless people were highly paid; some really poor and really excellent people were poorly paid. Length and type of experience and level of education were factors but didn't account for everything.

        I don't see an alternative to this situation. Where things are arrived at by negotiation they won't necessarily be fair. Men are generally better at this than women, but lots of good performers are bad at it and lots of bad performers are good at it. Women have to learn how to do it better.

    •  a suggestion to hmm (0+ / 0-)

      If you note in the file of the worker who isn't up to par, that the said worker isn't performing as expected.  Give them specifics, how to improve for the next performance evaluation.  They sign it.  You have your reason for the disparity in their income.  I don't think it would be a problem at all.  Running a business is tough, I imagine.

  •  There is a point he misses. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    Men get paid what they have negotiated. I don't see how it affects men at all.

    After all, they are still being paid their wages and salaries, even if women earned double what they make.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 09:53:37 AM PDT

  •  oy (4+ / 0-)

    I get this from the men I love best and it makes my head hurt.  There is no way I can get through to them that some animals are not more equal than others.

  •  Ah, it's more mansplaining from an evil GOTPer (5+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 10:51:28 AM PDT

  •  Wouldn't it actually benefit men (10+ / 0-)

    because employers could no longer hire a woman for less pay than an equally qualified man?

    What's the downside for men?

  •  Somebody get this guy a calendar and a color TV. (6+ / 0-)

    Perhaps SCOTUS needs a filibuster provision.

    by here4tehbeer on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 12:19:13 PM PDT

  •  WTF? If women are being paid less than men, (5+ / 0-)

    and if the paycheck fairness act mandates that both sexes be paid equally, then what would men have to fear?  How does it reduce their paychecks in any way?

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 01:39:52 PM PDT

  •  The game by Stephanie Miller, among others ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    j b norton

    ... "Add A Penis!"

    Watch the difference in wages when you add a penis.

    Ugh.  I wish I had more time.

    "People should not be afraid of their government; governments should be afraid of their people." --V

    by MikeTheLiberal on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 01:51:36 PM PDT

  •  I had a similar discussion with a family member (6+ / 0-)

    about the minimum wage increase...just how exactly does paying someone else more mean less for you?
    Really do not get the (il)logic...
    Peace and Blessings!

    “When you victim-blame, be aware that in all likelihood, at least one woman you know and love silently decides she cannot trust you.” ` Steph Guthrie

    by Penny GC on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 01:54:07 PM PDT

    •  Zero sum (4+ / 0-)

      A lot of people are stuck in a zero-sum mindset. If there's more for someone else, there's less for me.

      Of course, some resources work that way. But there are some that there can be more of, the more we work. (And there are even some that have the opposite nature, where the more they are spread around, the more value they have -- think about social media, where the more people participating make it more valuable).

      But for most people, the zero-sum assumption is the first one they make. It's "common sense".

      La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues, et de voler du pain.

      by dconrad on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 03:05:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is important. My lawsuit against hooters (0+ / 0-)

    for paying me less as a 40 something man has no chance without this

  •  All employees are equal... (0+ / 0-)

    ...but Sen. Alexander suggests that some employees should be more equal than others.

    Change does not roll in on the wheels of inevitability, but comes through continuous struggle. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:37:48 PM PDT

  •  It's Always 1966 (4+ / 0-)

    This was how the Civil Rights law and integration were spun to the working class: losses to thosssse people. It's much of how the ERA was stopped in the 70's.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:40:35 PM PDT

  •  Didn't you know (2+ / 0-)

    that liberty is a zero-sum equation?

    Being attentive to the needs of others might not be the point of life, but it is the work of life. It can be ... almost impossibly difficult. But it is not something we give. It is what we get in exchange for having to die. - Jonathan Safran Foer

    by ramara on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:45:01 PM PDT

  •  Also ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Palafox

    Lamar is a crappy piano player.

    Life begins at incorporation.

    by jnhobbs on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:45:08 PM PDT

  •  Scaredy cat. (1+ / 0-)

    Lamarr can't stand the idea that women are simply equal to men. He and a lot of the wingers are afeared of ladies. Heh.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:46:07 PM PDT

  •  Dear Lamar Alexander, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Purseonality, Palafox, gvsahunt

    I am not even going to be polite about this. Shut the fuck up you whining pus nutted defective. You cannot possibly be this stupid and be allowed to comment on anything even remotely resembling policy ever again. Shut the fuck up. Not one more word. This is Taliban policy. That's right you dimwitted fuckweasel, TALIBAN policy.
    You want to live in a theocratic oligarchy, fine. You pack up your shit and vamoose your sorry ass to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, or some other 'stan. I want the benefits to my country that 51% of our population can bring when it is educated, motivated, innovative, and fairly fucking paid. Women help to build this country to greatness you flaming shit spewmiester. They are one of the primary reasons we can say that we are a great nation. You know, a super power. You want to live in a third world country you be my guest. But you do it elsewhere.
    So two choices for you Lamar. Move, or shut the fuck up. No other options exist for you.

    Give blood. Play hockey.

    by flycaster on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:52:33 PM PDT

  •  I suppose we should be grateful (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    j b norton

    he didn't ask how the law would help white men.

    I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

    by VirginiaJeff on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:52:51 PM PDT

  •  To his credit, though (0+ / 0-)

    Sen. Alexander seems to recognize that businesses would probably just comply with a "paycheck fairness" requirement by bringing men's pay down to women's level, not by raising women's pay to men's level.

    Similar to how colleges comply with Title IX by cutting men's sports...

    29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

    by TDDVandy on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 02:53:56 PM PDT

    •  People blame women's sports for losing men's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      j b norton, Ahianne

      sports teams, ignoring the fact that the culprit is actually... men's football.  

      With football's large lineups, both offensive and defensive lines, and 2nd, 3rd, and sometimes even 4th stringers getting full scholarships, men's fencing isn't losing out due to women's volleyball.

      But it's easier to blame teh womenz.

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 07:01:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not blaming the women (0+ / 0-)

        I'm saying there's a reasonable chance that the response of corporate America will be to bring men down to 77 cents instead of bringing women up to a dollar, because duh.

        29, white male, TX-07 (current), TN-09 (born), TN-08 (where parents live now)

        by TDDVandy on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 08:22:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The reason they want that edge... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Purseonality

    Is because they know without it, they'd be in real trouble. Just like they need guns to feel safe, and God to feel deservedly blessed.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 03:03:24 PM PDT

  •  They Prefer Women In Missionary Position Only (0+ / 0-)
  •  Yep, Lamar, sometimes we might be paid more. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SheLawyer, cai, j b norton, Ahianne

    Some years back, at another university, I was the only woman in my department, and seriously underpaid (according to the university's own Secret Study, for which I was a consultant at the request of the Highest Authority.) The department chair, a Good Ol' Boy if ever there was one, refused to give me a raise even though it would be paid out of an equity fund and wouldn't cost the department a penny. "Get a better offer somewhere else!" he suggested snidely.

    So I did. At an absolutely top-of-the-top-tier university. We had a discussion then about what it would take to keep me. "But you'd be paid more than any of the men!" he lamented. I left.

    Yes, Lamar, sometimes we will be paid more. Sometimes we might even be paid the MOST. Get over it.

  •  Fuck YOU Lamar! (7+ / 0-)

    I've lived my life through an era when women finally got to be more than teachers, nurses and secretaries (not that there's anything wrong with that, but those were pretty much our only choices in the 50's and 60's).
    I was there when Title IX was passed and men started screaming about how giving women equality took opportunities away from them.
    Tough shit.
    Perhaps it's time for men, specifically white men, to realize the world was not made just for them, but for all of us - white, black  brown, red, yellow, gay straight, bi, trans, etc.
    The only criteria should be how good you are. That is it.
    I'm sick of this goddamn argument that giving women equality takes something from men. Deal with it. If you can't cut it, then the fact you have a penis shouldn't give you extra points (since most of you think with that "little brain" instead of the one resting on your shoulders.
    It's like corporations nowadays...they can't compete with ideas, so they simply use money to buy other companies and kill them. Or they get tax breaks and government welfare because they can't cut it with their own brains and creativity.
    Am I pissed? You betcha!
    I just turned 59 yesterday and we still can't get the ERA passed.
    You think you've seen the ugly side of America with a black president? Wait until we have a woman in office.
    Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..................

    Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

    by MA Liberal on Wed Apr 02, 2014 at 04:19:36 PM PDT

    •  Thanks!! I'm a decade older than you... (0+ / 0-)

      and, in the early 60s, turned down a $10 an hour (!!!!) job as a telephone operator to make $2.35 an hour as a parts runner for a car repair shop.  

      My dad was furious.  I didn't care.  I wanted to ENJOY what I did...not just fulfill a stereotype.  

      That one decision changed my entire life for the better, and I have never once looked back with regret.  

      Never mind that I ended up owning the shop!!  And have been a business owner for over 46 years now :-)  

      I also have the most wonderful (and non-sexist) husband in the world.  The most perfect children, grandchildren, and great-grands.  

      And I have the happiest life I could ever imagine...and it's partly because I simply refused to accept being part of that stereotype.

  •  Senator has a point... (0+ / 0-)

    As a white male at a predominately white company, a minority male coworker who looked down at me became my supervisor. He made a big deal out of the "generous" 2% raise that he was giving me. I laughed and told him about the 50% raises over several years that pushed me against the salary cap for my position. Hence, that 2% raise was all I would ever get. He got mad, made a huge stink and HR had to prove to him that my hard work justified those raises.

    That's the problem with business: too many small-minded men who need to compensate for something. No wonder CEO compensation packages are sky high.

  •  Lamar from Tennessee (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    j b norton

    Male and female Senators get the same pay.  Total backwoods thinker. Bet he wants equal pay for all the women in HIS family.  Guess they are "special"

  •  fairness (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai, Batya the Toon, gvsahunt

    Typical GOP rationalism, reverse the discrimination and make it about the poor "man" in the hypothetical never going to happen scenario. Only in the bubble can an elected old white guy play the reverse card, never mentioning the generations that women have been subjected to second class status.

  •  Alexander (0+ / 0-)

    What a jerk.

  •  awe (0+ / 0-)

    Old white men might lose their "edge" that discrimination gave them.

    boo fucking hoo.

  •  Is it fear or fear mongering? (0+ / 0-)

    The biggest factor employed by Republican strategists is the fostering and exploitation of fear.  Introduce an improbable, if not impossible, down side and make it a mantra, then the faithful will once again follow.
     

  •  zero sum (0+ / 0-)

    It's because this is a zero sum game to these men - there is only so much to go around, so if someone gets something they haven't had before (no matter what it i), then it necessarily follows that they will get less.

  •  Someday liberals will finally realize that (0+ / 0-)

    feminism's been lying to them all along.

    Damned if I know when they'll realize it, though.

  •  I know why Lamar's pissed: (0+ / 0-)

    In the Good Old Days white men got raises and promotions just for being white and male. Now they have to WORK for them.

    Thank God, the Bob Fosse Kid is here! - Colin Mochrie

    by gardnerhill on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 08:23:11 PM PDT

  •  Yes, indeed, just think of the crushing blow (0+ / 0-)

    to the fragile egos of men everywhere when they awake on that fateful day and realize "Oh, God!  Now there are women everywhere who are worth as much as me!  They make the Same pay I make!  I can't live with this shame!"  What a horror filled day it will be.  Then imagine the next day when all the bodies self-flung from uncounted windows on high must be cleaned up!  Oh, the Humanity!!

    “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” - John Steinbeck

  •  Remember: to Republicans, equal rights (0+ / 0-)

    are "special" rights, and equal treatment is "special" treatment.

    Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything.

    by David Franks on Thu Apr 03, 2014 at 11:24:12 PM PDT

  •  Alas. (0+ / 0-)

    This moran is my Senator.

    I would hope for him to drop dead,  but I fear his replacement would be from an even shallower part of the gene pool.

  •  Oh! The fwajile Egos of Wepuwikin men! (0+ / 0-)

    I'd be happy to have women earn the same as men. It won't hurt me one iota.

  •  I have a solution (0+ / 0-)

    Marry a woman that is working in a different career than yours that pays less.

  •  Did I Miss Something? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't understand the issue here.  Isn't the bill gender-neutral?  Isn't the answer that if by some miracle a situation transpires in which men are being systematically underpaid, then they are entitled to the same relief as underpaid women?

    Maybe I missed the question.

  •  job> (0+ / 0-)

    <<<<>>>>>>
    Hi ! I am Jenna, and i will be your personal coach and will guide you in starting with an online business and earning online... So if you are interested in making $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month then follow link at the bottom and sign up and you can have your first check by the end of this week...­­WORK71.C­­O­­M

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site