Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Pandering to feminists and apron-wearing, noodle-brained males, Barack Obama repeats the "women earn 77 cents per dollar earned by men" propaganda   (nydailynews.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

697 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2008 at 2:14 PM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



175 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-06-25 10:38:48 AM  
Obama tars those opposed to legislation called the "Fair Pay Restoration Act" as opponents of equal pay for women. That's a gross mischaracterization. Equal pay is already required by law; it has been since 1963. The Fair Pay Restoration Act would extend the time period during which an employee can bring suit against an employer for discrimination. Instead of having to take action within 180 days of a decision about compensation, employees could sue within 180 days after receiving a check related to such a decision. As a result, lawsuits could be filed decades after a compensation package was negotiated.

Definitely a pander but it seems to me that the only way it would drag on for "decades" is if the employer withheld compensation for that amount of time.
 
2008-06-25 10:44:17 AM  
This from the comments says it all:

By princessavenger Jun 25, 2008 1:10:09 AM
Lukas conveniently fails to mention that the "Fair Pay Restoration Act" is an attempt to remedy a recent Supreme Court decision. The women had been given lower pay than their male peers. Lukas correctly states that this has been ILLEGAL since 1963. However, the women did not DISCOVER the men were being paid more within 180 days. The Supreme Court said the women could not sue because they missed the deadline. The implication to employers is that you can ignore paying woman equally. All you have to do is keep them from finding out the truth, that they are being paid less just because they are women, for 6 months. Does that sound like "balance" or a "middle ground" for employees or employers? Or does that sound like a reward for ignoring the law and managing to hide it for over 6 months?


I don't understand why some people want to make it so hard for people who have been wronged to address those grievances legally. Does the author really believe there will be a huge wave of people filing lawsuits of stuff that happened years ago? Just by making the 180 day deadline start counting down after final payment. That's just absurd.
 
2008-06-25 10:46:27 AM  
Tastes Like Chicken: Does the author really believe there will be a huge wave of people filing lawsuits of stuff that happened years ago?

Perhaps you're new to the US?
 
2008-06-25 10:54:31 AM  
Pandering.
 
2008-06-25 10:57:37 AM  
Lets see. With my current job I often drive for 6 hours at a time. 16+ hour days happen regularly. Frequent motel stays. Extensive technical experience and knowledge required.

Compare that with the ladies in our tech support. Some knowledge of our system is needed, but they work 9-5 in an air conditioned building and never have to leave town.

I don't know about all of you, but I damn well better be paid more than the ladies.
 
2008-06-25 10:59:20 AM  
ThatGuyGreg: Perhaps you're new to the US?

Heh. Ok.

But I still don't see the wave happening just by extending the deadline. You still won't be able to sue for anything that happened years ago. It just makes the law regarding discrimination make more sense regarding the statute of limitations.

I also have a hard time with anything that tries to push more tort reform propaganda on me. People should have a means of addressing grievances through the legal system, and that means shouldn't be hamstrung because a bunch of stupid voters think everyone who files a lawsuit is some idiot who burned their crotch with coffee.
 
2008-06-25 11:08:57 AM  
If a woman makes only 77 cents for every dollar a apron-wearing, noodle-brained male homemaker gets, perhaps she's doing it wrong.
 
2008-06-25 11:18:45 AM  
Snarfangel: If a woman makes only 77 cents for every dollar a apron-wearing, noodle-brained male homemaker gets, perhaps she's doing it wrong.

Chicken pot pie is only worth $.77. But if she made steak and BJs....
 
2008-06-25 12:14:11 PM  
Crosshair: Lets see. With my current job I often drive for 6 hours at a time. 16+ hour days happen regularly. Frequent motel stays. Extensive technical experience and knowledge required.

Compare that with the ladies in our tech support. Some knowledge of our system is needed, but they work 9-5 in an air conditioned building and never have to leave town.

I don't know about all of you, but I damn well better be paid more than the ladies.


Really not a fair comparison. Now if a women was doing the same job as you, she should get paid the same. Give or take for years of experience and such.
 
2008-06-25 12:17:05 PM  
NightOwl2255: Really not a fair comparison. Now if a women was doing the same job as you, she should get paid the same. Give or take for years of experience and such.

But that's how they came up with the "77 percent" figure in the first place. The whole urban legend been taken apart by numerous economists.
 
2008-06-25 12:32:23 PM  
Tastes Like Chicken: This from the comments says it all:

By princessavenger Jun 25, 2008 1:10:09 AM
Lukas conveniently fails to mention that the "Fair Pay Restoration Act" is an attempt to remedy a recent Supreme Court decision. The women had been given lower pay than their male peers. Lukas correctly states that this has been ILLEGAL since 1963. However, the women did not DISCOVER the men were being paid more within 180 days. The Supreme Court said the women could not sue because they missed the deadline. The implication to employers is that you can ignore paying woman equally. All you have to do is keep them from finding out the truth, that they are being paid less just because they are women, for 6 months. Does that sound like "balance" or a "middle ground" for employees or employers? Or does that sound like a reward for ignoring the law and managing to hide it for over 6 months?

I don't understand why some people want to make it so hard for people who have been wronged to address those grievances legally. Does the author really believe there will be a huge wave of people filing lawsuits of stuff that happened years ago? Just by making the 180 day deadline start counting down after final payment. That's just absurd.


I predict that when this goes green, this comment will be ignored by 95% of the posters. That's an attention gap right there, and we need legislation to remedy it.
 
2008-06-25 12:36:59 PM  
Theaetetus: I predict that when this goes green, this comment will be ignored by 95% of the posters. That's an attention gap right there, and we need legislation to remedy it.

seriously. it was one of the most BS supreme court rulings I've heard in awhile- well, you've been working there 20 years, and continually discriminated against, BUT!!! because you didn't bring it up within 180 days of your hiring, you're not entitled to a remedy (aka, the missing pay you should have gotten).
 
2008-06-25 12:41:14 PM  
Katie98_KT: seriously. it was one of the most BS supreme court rulings I've heard in awhile- well, you've been working there 20 years, and continually discriminated against, BUT!!! because you didn't bring it up within 180 days of your hiring, you're not entitled to a remedy (aka, the missing pay you should have gotten).

I believe that was the case of Ha Ha v. Sucks to be You.
 
2008-06-25 12:57:22 PM  
It's a slippery slope. Employers have to be able to pay for value without worrying about being sued for it. Not everyone contributes equally.
 
2008-06-25 12:59:59 PM  
Although I suspect that it does go on in some companies, I think it's very hard to prove that a woman is being paid less because she's a woman. There are many things that go into determining salary, and there is room for negotiation. Could it just be that, for whatever reason, less women than men negotiate as aggressively and THAT is one reason that some women aren't paid as much as some men of an equal position? Of course, that brings up the question of whether or not some men do not get paid as much as other men do in spite of holding the same job title (and having, on paper, the same qualifications)? If so, what do we make of that?
 
2008-06-25 01:07:54 PM  
Theaetetus: Tastes Like Chicken: This from the comments says it all:

By princessavenger Jun 25, 2008 1:10:09 AM
Lukas conveniently fails to mention that the "Fair Pay Restoration Act" is an attempt to remedy a recent Supreme Court decision. The women had been given lower pay than their male peers. Lukas correctly states that this has been ILLEGAL since 1963. However, the women did not DISCOVER the men were being paid more within 180 days. The Supreme Court said the women could not sue because they missed the deadline. The implication to employers is that you can ignore paying woman equally. All you have to do is keep them from finding out the truth, that they are being paid less just because they are women, for 6 months. Does that sound like "balance" or a "middle ground" for employees or employers? Or does that sound like a reward for ignoring the law and managing to hide it for over 6 months?

I don't understand why some people want to make it so hard for people who have been wronged to address those grievances legally. Does the author really believe there will be a huge wave of people filing lawsuits of stuff that happened years ago? Just by making the 180 day deadline start counting down after final payment. That's just absurd.

I predict that when this goes green, this comment will be ignored by 95% of the posters. That's an attention gap right there, and we need legislation to remedy it.


So let's repost it for good measure.
 
2008-06-25 01:12:25 PM  
I_C_Weener: Chicken pot pie is only worth $.77.

Chicken Pot
Chicken Pot
Chicken Pot PIIIIIIIIE!

Do women earn 77 cents per dollar men earn, or are they just not as greedy when negotiating salary?
 
2008-06-25 01:18:56 PM  
Here we go again. Women earn less overall because they work less. By the same logic, teenagers earn less than women because they work less than women do. Makes sense.

Women also are typically not as aggressive as men at negotiating their salary and raises. Studies of recent college graduates have shown that women are often quicker to accept a mediocre salary offer while men are more likely to ask for more or hold out for a better offer.

It's not a conspiracy, it's the way women work.
 
2008-06-25 01:20:36 PM  
Nice to see the "Constitutional law professor" so willing to trample the idea of a Federal government of enumerated powers.
 
2008-06-25 01:26:30 PM  
Churchill2004: Nice to see the "Constitutional law professor" so willing to trample the idea of a Federal government of enumerated powers.

pander bear wants votes
 
2008-06-25 01:27:02 PM  
dillenger69: Do women earn 77 cents per dollar men earn, or are they just not as greedy when negotiating salary?

I wouldn't call it greedy so much as unwilling to always accept the first offer given.
 
2008-06-25 01:28:22 PM  
Epsilon: It's not a conspiracy, it's the way women work.

and there's time taken off for childbirth, not seeking higher positions with more because of desire to spend more time with the family, more options and choices because their husband works, taking more traditionally female jobs that appeal to them etc.
 
2008-06-25 02:17:35 PM  
Women spend 77 cents per dollar earned by men.
 
2008-06-25 02:19:12 PM  
i51.photobucket.com
 
2008-06-25 02:20:15 PM  
Pandering to feminists and apron-wearing, noodle-brained males, Barack Obama repeats the "women earn 77 cents per dollar earned by men" propaganda


Easily debunked.
 
2008-06-25 02:20:21 PM  
It beats alienating your base.
 
2008-06-25 02:21:12 PM  
NightOwl2255: Really not a fair comparison. Now if a women was doing the same job as you, she should get paid the same. Give or take for years of experience and such.

Exactly. And that's not what the Obama is talking about.
 
2008-06-25 02:22:42 PM  
dillenger69: Do women earn 77 cents per dollar men earn, or are they just not as greedy when negotiating salary?

Women overall earn 77 cents per dollar men earn.

Women with comparable education, experience and training, working in the same position as a man, earn the same as a man. Or else, they sue.
 
2008-06-25 02:23:21 PM  
I'm sure once it's pointed out to him that his figure is misleading, he'll correct it. Just like the 48 million without insurance claim...
 
2008-06-25 02:23:25 PM  
Churchill2004: Nice to see the "Constitutional law professor" so willing to trample the idea of a Federal government of enumerated powers.


i7.photobucket.com

You know what really 'Grinds my Gears'? People who would choose to make a point about 'trampling the idea of a Federal government of enumerated powers' when discussing legislation that would change one line in a law that's already on the books.

Overdramatic much?
 
2008-06-25 02:24:34 PM  
Gold Spider

Okay, let's take Obama out of the equation.

Let's pretend, for just a moment, that Barack Hussein* Obama doesn't exist.

What would you say is an aspect of your life that would signify that you're not a racist and/or a bigot?

I'm not being rhetorical, I'm not being snarky, I'm not trying to trap you.

Sincerely, what would it be?

*It only gives them power if we let it, people!
 
2008-06-25 02:24:36 PM  
Spanky_McFarksalot: I'm sure once it's pointed out to him that his figure is misleading, he'll correct it. Just like the 48 million without insurance claim...

Sure...as long as you count the 12 million illegals.
 
2008-06-25 02:24:44 PM  
Well, I knew a woman who was a stock broker she earned a healthy paycheck and worked for a pretty big company. Said company (like virtually all companies in the white collar world) had a policy preventing employees from discussing their salaries with one another.

She worked there for 5+ years and trained a guy straight out of college. Bearing in mind that they had the exact same degree (from the same school mind you) and he had 0 experience vs. her 5, he was fast tracked to become a VP and she found out later that he was making almost double her salary at the time he was hired.
 
2008-06-25 02:26:37 PM  
Thats because women are less productive. They spend their workday gossiping and forwarding cute animal emails while men work.
 
2008-06-25 02:26:41 PM  
Shaggy_C: You know what really 'Grinds my Gears'? People who would choose to make a point about 'trampling the idea of a Federal government of enumerated powers' when discussing legislation that would change one line in a law that's already on the books.

Overdramatic much?


The point wasn't about this particular law, but rather that Obama finds it a Constitutional and appropriate exercise of Federal power to dictate wages, particularly wages that occur in the context of a purely intrastate interaction.
 
2008-06-25 02:28:21 PM  
vernonFL: Thats because women are less productive. They spend their workday gossiping and forwarding cute animal emails while men work play around on Fark and ESPN.

Sorry. Pet peave.
 
2008-06-25 02:28:43 PM  
Crosshair: Lets see. With my current job I often drive for 6 hours at a time. 16+ hour days happen regularly. Frequent motel stays. Extensive technical experience and knowledge required.

Compare that with the ladies in our tech support. Some knowledge of our system is needed, but they work 9-5 in an air conditioned building and never have to leave town.

I don't know about all of you, but I damn well better be paid more than the ladies.


Dude, pull your head out. The issue is whether you get paid more than a woman with the same farkin' job as you, experience level, etc. Holy farkin' Christ on a stick.
 
2008-06-25 02:29:52 PM  
Typical White Person: dillenger69: Do women earn 77 cents per dollar men earn, or are they just not as greedy when negotiating salary?

Women overall earn 77 cents per dollar men earn.

Women with comparable education, experience and training, working in the same position as a man, earn the same as a man. Or else, they sue.


But if they don't discover they're being paid unequally within 180 days of being hired, they're SOL via current laws, and *can't* sue. Do you think that's right? Yes/no answer, please.
 
2008-06-25 02:29:59 PM  
SnoreCriminal: Well, I knew a woman who was a stock broker she earned a healthy paycheck and worked for a pretty big company. Said company (like virtually all companies in the white collar world) had a policy preventing employees from discussing their salaries with one another.

She worked there for 5+ years and trained a guy straight out of college. Bearing in mind that they had the exact same degree (from the same school mind you) and he had 0 experience vs. her 5, he was fast tracked to become a VP and she found out later that he was making almost double her salary at the time he was hired.


And what's your point? You know nothing about his training or education versus hers. You know nothing about what extremes the company had to go to to recruit him. You know nothing about what company executives he was related to.

You can't compare individual A to individual B and say A is being discriminated against because she is a woman. You have to look at everyone.

She very well may have been discriminated against. You just don't have the facts to show it.
 
2008-06-25 02:31:24 PM  
Felgraf: But if they don't discover they're being paid unequally within 180 days of being hired, they're SOL via current laws, and *can't* sue. Do you think that's right? Yes/no answer, please.

Yes. If for no other reason than because the Supreme Court says so.
 
2008-06-25 02:33:48 PM  
Churchill2004: The point wasn't about this particular law, but rather that Obama finds it a Constitutional and appropriate exercise of Federal power to dictate wages, particularly wages that occur in the context of a purely intrastate interaction.

Could it not be that someone else found it a "Constitutional and appropriate exercise of Federal power" years ago and he's just trying to make sure that it is applied in common-sense fashion? Not only that, but I could almost guarantee that the equal protection clause would dictate that state governments are bound by law to ensure that state-enforced contracts are required to maintain certain minimum standards of protections for the involved parties.
 
2008-06-25 02:35:34 PM  
WFern: Crosshair: Lets see. With my current job I often drive for 6 hours at a time. 16+ hour days happen regularly. Frequent motel stays. Extensive technical experience and knowledge required.

Compare that with the ladies in our tech support. Some knowledge of our system is needed, but they work 9-5 in an air conditioned building and never have to leave town.

I don't know about all of you, but I damn well better be paid more than the ladies.

You're right... different jobs often receive different levels of pay and responsibility, regardless of the gender assigned.


No, please explain that to the Obama.
 
2008-06-25 02:36:20 PM  
See what happens when you get rid of the "W"?
 
2008-06-25 02:36:28 PM  
wait a second... so women get $0.77 of every dollar I make? What the hell!!
 
2008-06-25 02:39:48 PM  
Typical White Person: See what happens when you get rid of the "W"?

Hah. I can't wait to see what will happen when we get rid of the W.
 
2008-06-25 02:40:07 PM  
Theaetetus:
I predict that when this goes green, this comment will be ignored by 95% of the posters. That's an attention gap right there, and we need legislation to remedy it.


It'll be ignored because most of us aren't quite so ignorant as that guy and are aware that statute of limitations is a fairly important part of US for almost every crime. Most of us even have a fairly good idea of the reasons for this.
 
2008-06-25 02:40:29 PM  
sokolnikov: wait a second... so women get $0.77 of every dollar I make? What the hell!!

Y'think that's bad, wait'll you get married. HOO-boy!

/Nothing like good old-fashioned misogynist humor.
//Seriously, ladies, I'm on your side.
 
2008-06-25 02:40:30 PM  
Shaggy_C: Could it not be that someone else found it a "Constitutional and appropriate exercise of Federal power" years ago and he's just trying to make sure that it is applied in common-sense fashion?

Bad law forty years ago is still bad law today. "But it's been that way for a long time" is no excuse for a candidate running on a platform of "change".

Shaggy_C: Not only that, but I could almost guarantee that the equal protection clause would dictate that state governments are bound by law to ensure that state-enforced contracts are required to maintain certain minimum standards of protections for the involved parties

The equal protection clause does not mandate anything about states rejecting contracts that they simply disagree with. Besides, we were talking about a Federal law here.

"Certain minimum standards of protection" does not include saying, in effect, "We don't like what you're paying this person, so it's illegal".
 
2008-06-25 02:40:53 PM  
sokolnikov: wait a second... so women get $0.77 of every dollar I make? What the hell!!

That explains this 23¢ in loose change in my pocket. Coulda swore I had a buck in there.
 
2008-06-25 02:43:39 PM  
Brack Obama is concerned about women's wages because he is one. His arms are bonier than Karen Carpenter's. He suffers the menses and enjoys scrapbooking.
 
Displayed 50 of 175 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report