Author Topic: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!  (Read 1335 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8032
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2012, 02:09:29 PM »
tricky

might potentially make it  harder for women to get jobs since the employer don`t want the risk.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2012, 02:55:11 PM »
Women who complain about being underpaid cannot be fired until the issue is resolved.

This is the same as whistleblower laws. If all you have to do to get rid of someone who is wise to discrimination against them is to fire them, then the law is meaningless.

Women are paid less for the same job. That is unfair. There should be a law to prevent it. The Republicans refuse to support any such law or to propose a workable one, because they want to enable companies to underpay women.

They would really like a law to underpay everyone.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2012, 03:35:37 PM »
Republicans refuse to support any such law or to propose a workable one,
because they want to enable companies to underpay women.

thats a bunch of bullshit based on a bullshit foundation
typical of most Leftwing thought
reality is what it is
women in general earn less for a reason



Kay Hymowitz: Why Women Make Less Than Men

April 26, 2012

In studies from the U.S. to Sweden, pay discrimination can't explain the disparity.
Women earn less because they work fewer hours 

By KAY HYMOWITZ

First, the Atlantic magazine announced "the end of men." Then a Time cover story in March proclaimed that women are becoming "the richer sex." Now a Pew Research Center report tells us that young women have become more likely than young men to say that a high-paying career is very important to them. Are we really in the midst of what Pew calls a "gender reversal?"

One stubborn fact of the labor market argues against the idea. That is the gender-hours gap, close cousin of the gender-wage gap. Most people have heard that full-time working American women earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. Yet these numbers don't take into account the actual number of hours worked. And it turns out that women work fewer hours than men.

The Labor Department defines full-time as 35 hours a week or more, and the "or more" is far more likely to refer to male workers than to female ones. According to the department, almost 55% of workers logging more than 35 hours a week are men. In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers. In other words, the famous gender-wage gap is to a considerable degree a gender-hours gap.

The main reason that women spend less time at work than men'and that women are unlikely to be the richer sex'is obvious: children. Today, childless 20-something women do earn more than their male peers. But most are likely to cut back their hours after they have kids, giving men the hours, and income, advantage.

One study by the American Association for University Women looked at women who graduated from college in 1992-93 and found that 23% of those who had become mothers were out of the workforce in 2003; another 17% were working part-time. Fewer than 2% of fathers fell into those categories. Another study, of M.B.A. graduates from Chicago's Booth School, discovered that only half of women with children were working full-time 10 years after graduation, compared with 95% of men.

Women, in fact, make up two-thirds of America's part-time workforce. A just-released report from the New York Federal Reserve has even found that "opting-out" by midcareer college-educated wives, especially those with wealthy husbands, has been increasing over the past 20 years.

Activists tend to offer two solutions for this state of affairs. First is that fathers should take equal responsibility for child care. After all, while men have tripled the number of hours they're in charge of the kids since 1970, women still put in more hours on the domestic front. But even if we could put a magic potion in the nation's water supply and turn 50% of men into Mr. Mom, that still leaves the growing number of women with no father in the house. Over 40% of American children are now born to unmarried women. A significant number?though not a majority?are living with their child's father at birth. But in the next few years when those couples break up, which is what studies show they tend to do, guess who will be left minding the kids?

Which brings us to the second proposed solution for the hours gap: generous family-leave and child-care policies. Sweden and Iceland are frequently held up as models in this regard, and they do have some of the most extensive paternity and maternity leave and publicly funded child care in the world.

Yet even they also have a persistent hours and wage gap. In both countries, mothers still take more time off than fathers after the baby arrives. When they do go back to work, they're on the job for fewer hours. Iceland's income gap is a yawning 38%?that is, the average women earns only 62 cents to a man's dollar. Even Sweden's 15% gap?though lower than our 23% one?is far from full parity.

All over the developed world women make up the large majority of the part-time workforce, and surveys suggest they want it that way. According to the Netherlands Institute for Social Research, in 2008 only 4% of the 70% of Dutch women who worked part-time wished they had a full-time job. A British Household Panel Survey interviewing 3,800 couples discovered that among British women, the happiest were those working part-time.

A 2007 Pew Research survey came up with similar results for American women: Among working mothers with minor children, 60% said they would prefer to work part-time, while only 21% wanted to be in the office full-time (and 19% said they'd like to give up their job altogether). How about working fathers? Only 12% would choose part-time and 70% wanted to be full-time.

Some counter that the hours gap would shrink if employers offered more family-friendly policies, such as flexible hours and easier on-off ramps for moving in and out of the workforce. We don't know if there is a way to design workplaces so that women would work more or men would work less or both. What we do know is that no one, anywhere, has yet figured out how to do it. Which means that for the foreseeable future, at least when it comes to income, women will remain the second sex.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296.html
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2012, 04:35:26 PM »
That does not explain every case. Of course the WSJ is all for the status quo. It is the boss's favorite newspaper.

Equal pay for equal HOURS WORKED would be the goal, and the Repugs oppose that as well.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2012, 07:59:43 PM »
That does not explain every case.

So?...Very little in life explains 100%.
Thats why there is a saying "there's an exception to every rule"
Most of our lives are lived living out for what happens "most of the time", not the exceptions.
Most people dont refuse to get on an airplane because a few crash.
Most people drive in cars eventhough thousands are killed in cars every year.
So no article...most conclusions are never 100% yet we accept them as a standard.

Equal pay for equal HOURS WORKED would be the goal, and the Repugs oppose that as well.

Source?

And to tell you the truth from my experience of being in mgt for over 2 decades
in several different roles/capacities it isn't even close for men vs women short
notice absenteeism
. Sure there are exceptions but in general from my first-hand
experience it isn't anywhere near close. Women are much more likely to call in
unscheduled absent days.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2012, 08:57:28 AM »
There are ways of dealing with excessive absences other than passing laws allowing discrimination.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2012, 10:27:28 AM »
There are ways of dealing with excessive absences other than passing laws allowing discrimination.

It's not discrimination to pay people more that work more hours and are more dependable, what is discrimination is to pretend that people that work less hours and are not as dependable should automatically be paid the same because of what's between their legs....in fact it's outrageous.
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8032
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2012, 11:18:26 AM »
it`ll just be like prisoners. it`s illegal to not hire them but they still don`t get work anyway.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2012, 01:26:02 PM »
It may be true that statistically SOME women take more time off than men, it is not true of ALL women, and perhaps not even MOST women.

Paying ALL women less for what SOME women fail to do is unfair.

Should we also have a law that allows people to pay one armed vets less because they are not as productive? Should we allowed to pay obese people, diabetics, people in wheelchairs, people with prosthetic limbs or people with genetic diseases less simply because statistically they do less work?

You are saying that women are genetically less able to work and therefore should be paid less.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8032
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2012, 02:02:53 PM »
actually we haven`t really got any direct research to find if the lower pay is by preformance or straight off gender bias.

the data shown now doesn`t address it at all. that article has been around in one form or another for decades. it`a a very valid charge, but more data needs to be research .

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2012, 02:42:41 PM »
As it seems to stand at present, guys like "Christians" are bosses and pay women less because he has decided that they work less, and want to continue doing so.

I noticed that SOME women on the faculty missed more classes than men, but not ALL of them.

When I retired I had several YEARS worth of accumulated sick time, or would have, had some administrator decided that  no one could accumulate more than a year.



"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11153
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2012, 03:40:05 PM »
It may be true that statistically SOME women take more time off than men, it is not true of ALL women, and perhaps not even MOST women. Paying ALL women less for what SOME women fail to do is unfair. You are saying that women are genetically less able to work and therefore should be paid less.

You are missing the point.
You are looking at a conclusion and auto-pilot the worst scenario.
I am not for women starting at less pay.
People should start the same....then let nature take it's course.
The cream will rise to the top.....
People that work longer hours, don't miss....should be paid more.
Over years this can cause a certain payscale to formulate.
If women miss more work or work less hours
Then after years & years you have a workforce where men are higher paid.

You only look at the final result & cry foul without looking deeper at the reasons.
Women that show up everyday & work hard are paid the same at my company.
But if you look at my company as a whole the men as a group are higher paid.
But there is no sinister reason....it's called reality.
Again it's because the men on average work longer hours and miss less.
Men on average got promotions, ect....
only because they dont miss, work full-time, or dont call in last minute as much.

At my company so many women over the years...
start out in their twenties...young and ready to rock/work
they are great...smart....energetic....passionate about their job
then they fall in love
then they get married
a few years later they start having kids
many when that happens prefer less hours or stay home with kids
instead of being passionate about work, they are passionate about their new kids
and that's a good thing....but if people work less they are gonna earn less
then you've got the guys that are there every day
not wanting less hours
not wanting to stay home
so naturally more of the men slowly get raises/promotions over the years
and thus you arrive in reality that they make more
and then you have XO that does not know what he's talking about trying to demonize



« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 05:13:49 PM by Christians4LessGvt »
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2012, 07:18:31 PM »
It may be true that statistically SOME women take more time off than men, it is not true of ALL women, and perhaps not even MOST women.

Paying ALL women less for what SOME women fail to do is unfair.

Should we also have a law that allows people to pay one armed vets less because they are not as productive? Should we allowed to pay obese people, diabetics, people in wheelchairs, people with prosthetic limbs or people with genetic diseases less simply because statistically they do less work?

You are saying that women are genetically less able to work and therefore should be paid less.

Already some women are being paid more than some men. So this is an entirely invalid point.


It would be very stricly fair to base payment on productivity, but pay rates are also based on availibility of skill.
Any skill whose practicioners doubled in number,all elese being equal,would halve the cash value of the skill.
This is perfectly fair too, elese we would be neck deep in female teachers and nurses.
 


kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8032
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Idiot Barbara Boxer declares women "un-fireable"!
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2012, 01:05:31 AM »
maybe some research on ann mulcahy or the ceo of hp will findout if women really are getting paid less