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.

(Talking Points Memo)   TX GOP Gov candidate says he wouldn't sign a law making it easier for women to sue if they are paid less than men. Which makes sense given his office would be the first target since women DAs are making 6k/year less on average than male counterparts   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 41
    More: Obvious, GOP, San Antonio Express-News, health disparities, Yoshiaki Iwasaki, Gen, males  
•       •       •

520 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2014 at 6:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-03-19 05:07:43 PM  
Hey at least he stands for what he believes in

He's running a campaign clearly meant to walk all over liberal pet policies

He knows the campaign is marathon, not a sprint...

/okay, I'll stop now
 
2014-03-19 05:14:10 PM  
So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.

*This is not to say that sexual harassment suits are a BAD thing or worth justifying lower pay over, but there are women who will just randomly sue out of boredom or because someone looked at them funny (My mother's one of them), and that cost must be worked into the total cost of employment.  And yes, NOT paying them less is a great way to reduce the number of these lawsuits.
 
2014-03-19 05:25:09 PM  

meyerkev: So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.

*This is not to say that sexual harassment suits are a BAD thing or worth justifying lower pay over, but there are women who will just randomly sue out of boredom or because someone looked at them funny (My mother's one of them), and that cost must be worked into the total cost of employment.  And yes, NOT paying them less is a great way to reduce the number of these lawsuits.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2014-03-19 05:27:16 PM  

meyerkev: *This is not to say that sexual harassment suits are a BAD thing or worth justifying lower pay over, but there are women who will just randomly sue out of boredom or because someone looked at them funny (My mother's one of them), and that cost must be worked into the total cost of employment.


I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that that's not really an issue at the district attorney's office.
 
2014-03-19 05:31:26 PM  

meyerkev: So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.

*This is not to say that sexual harassment suits are a BAD thing or worth justifying lower pay over, but there are women who will just randomly sue out of boredom or because someone looked at them funny (My mother's one of them), and that cost must be worked into the total cost of employment.  And yes, NOT paying them less is a great way to reduce the number of these lawsuits.


i902.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-19 05:33:24 PM  
The farker will still win.
 
2014-03-19 05:34:09 PM  
"In three categories, the women on average either had more years of service or had been licensed longer, or both, despite being paid less, according to figures from the attorney general's office...'If you were to take them to court and show these statistics to the court, the burden would shift to them automatically to prove why there is that kind of discrimination, that disparity,' said Harringon, an Abbott critic who's founder and director of the Texas Civil Rights Project. 'That's a prima facie case of discrimination you are describing.'"

But according to Abbot, "the difference is explained by the amount of time that the men have been licensed as lawyers and have served at the agency."

Yeah I'd say a phone call to the EEOC might be in order.
 
2014-03-19 06:05:37 PM  
"Because wage discrimination is already against the law and because legal avenues already exist for victims of discrimination, Greg Abbott would have not signed this law,"

Says someone apparently unaware of what the law would do.
 
2014-03-19 06:40:03 PM  

meyerkev: So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.

*This is not to say that sexual harassment suits are a BAD thing or worth justifying lower pay over, but there are women who will just randomly sue out of boredom or because someone looked at them funny (My mother's one of them), and that cost must be worked into the total cost of employment.  And yes, NOT paying them less is a great way to reduce the number of these lawsuits.


pertobello.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-19 06:49:13 PM  
i159.photobucket.comi159.photobucket.comi159.photobucket.comi159.photobucket.com i159.photobucket.comi159.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-19 06:55:17 PM  
 
2014-03-19 07:00:39 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Only 6%?

Obama considers you an amateur

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/11/war-on-women-white-house- fo und-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/


Look how stupid you are.

/Different jobs, not the same job - that's been pointed out every time that lie comes up.
 
2014-03-19 07:02:12 PM  
Obviously they're just doing different work, right GOP?

Oh no, wait, they're doing the same work? Uh oh, you might have a problem there.
 
2014-03-19 07:05:45 PM  

Lochsteppe: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Only 6%?

Obama considers you an amateur

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/11/war-on-women-white-house- fo und-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/

Look how stupid you are.

/Different jobs, not the same job - that's been pointed out every time that lie comes up.


That is irrelevant; since you can spin the factoid to criticize Obama it's a perfectly valid counter.
 
2014-03-19 07:05:53 PM  

Lochsteppe: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Only 6%?

Obama considers you an amateur

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/11/war-on-women-white-house- fo und-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/

Look how stupid you are.

/Different jobs, not the same job - that's been pointed out every time that lie comes up.


Are you saying the Blaze is not completely objective?!?
 
2014-03-19 07:08:22 PM  

Lionel Mandrake:  


Serial_Crusher's and your post made me LOL so hard.
 
2014-03-19 07:10:21 PM  

TFerWannaBe: Lochsteppe: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Only 6%?

Obama considers you an amateur

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/11/war-on-women-white-house- fo und-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/

Look how stupid you are.

/Different jobs, not the same job - that's been pointed out every time that lie comes up.

That is irrelevant; since you can spin the factoid to criticize Obama it's a perfectly valid counter.


TFA states that the avg seniority is different for the female versus male positions. Nobody seems to have any problem with that spin.

Farkin librocrits
 
2014-03-19 07:34:29 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: TFA states that the avg seniority is different for the female versus male positions. Nobody seems to have any problem with that spin.

Farkin librocrits


read ginandbacon's post and get back to us.
 
2014-03-19 07:54:36 PM  

Curious: IamKaiserSoze!!!: TFA states that the avg seniority is different for the female versus male positions. Nobody seems to have any problem with that spin.

Farkin librocrits

read ginandbacon's post and get back to us.


LOL I was just about to reply to IamKaiserSoze!!! :)

Hon seriously, stop reading those websites. They make you look silly and you're not.

Pay grade and tenure determine salaries in the White House. Obama has nothing to do with it. In fact, women earn slightly more compared to men: 85% as opposed to 81% in the overall economy. The problem is that fewer women hold the higher paid positions and fewer men hold the lower paid positions. This problem reflects the difficulties women face everywhere. This is also not Obama's fault. As I pointed out in another thread, the US has gone from ranking 6th for women's participation in the workforce to 17th or 18th since 1990. That's also not Obama's fault.

Let me know if you have any questions.
 
2014-03-19 08:02:22 PM  

meyerkev: So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.


Something tells me you don't have to worry about paying for too many dates, vacations, and jewelry.
 
2014-03-19 08:02:25 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: TFerWannaBe: Lochsteppe: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Only 6%?

Obama considers you an amateur

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/11/war-on-women-white-house- fo und-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/

Look how stupid you are.

/Different jobs, not the same job - that's been pointed out every time that lie comes up.

That is irrelevant; since you can spin the factoid to criticize Obama it's a perfectly valid counter.

TFA states that the avg seniority is different for the female versus male positions. Nobody seems to have any problem with that spin.

Farkin librocrits


You are an embarrassment to your namesake.
 
2014-03-19 08:21:54 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: TFerWannaBe: Lochsteppe: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Only 6%?

Obama considers you an amateur

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/11/war-on-women-white-house- fo und-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/

Look how stupid you are.

/Different jobs, not the same job - that's been pointed out every time that lie comes up.

That is irrelevant; since you can spin the factoid to criticize Obama it's a perfectly valid counter.

TFA states that the avg seniority is different for the female versus male positions. Nobody seems to have any problem with that spin.

Farkin librocrits


BWAAAAA HA HA HA HA!!!!

/I'm laughing at you, not with you
 
2014-03-19 08:57:01 PM  
Funny, I'd think DA pay would be a county by county thing. Certainly I wouldn't expect the DA of Dallas County to make the same as Smith County, even though they're both elected positions and not the result of a talent search.
 
2014-03-19 09:15:15 PM  
But men work construction, mining and other physically demanding jobs, so it all balances out.

/plus them biiiiiiiitcheeeeeeeeees never pay!
//both arguments I've actually heard
 
2014-03-19 09:33:37 PM  
i1079.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-19 09:55:29 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: Only 6%?

Obama considers you an amateur

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/11/war-on-women-white-house- fo und-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/


People get paid different amounts of money for different jobs and you are against that? I guess Obama is now the capitalist and you are the socialist. You should let him know that the jig is up.
 
2014-03-19 10:02:01 PM  

artifishy: IamKaiserSoze!!!: Only 6%?

Obama considers you an amateur

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/04/11/war-on-women-white-house- fo und-to-pay-women-less-on-average-than-men/

People get paid different amounts of money for different jobs and you are against that? I guess Obama is now the capitalist and you are the socialist. You should let him know that the jig is up.


i1079.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-19 10:57:38 PM  
This version of the Fair Pay Act was, in fact, a symbolic bit of bullshiat full of loopholes designed to make some lawyers (who I assume paid the right bribes) a bunch of money without actually addressing an actual problem.  So I'm going to give Abbot this one.

However, the conditions in his office should probably be inquiry'd under existing law as-is, so in a way he still loses.
 
2014-03-19 11:42:32 PM  

meyerkev: So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.

*This is not to say that sexual harassment suits are a BAD thing or worth justifying lower pay over, but there are women who will just randomly sue out of boredom or because someone looked at them funny (My mother's one of them), and that cost must be worked into the total cost of employment.  And yes, NOT paying them less is a great way to reduce the number of these lawsuits.


i59.tinypic.com
 
2014-03-20 12:51:20 AM  

meyerkev: So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.

*This is not to say that sexual harassment suits are a BAD thing or worth justifying lower pay over, but there are women who will just randomly sue out of boredom or because someone looked at them funny (My mother's one of them), and that cost must be worked into the total cost of employment.  And yes, NOT paying them less is a great way to reduce the number of these lawsuits.


http://memeorama.com/wp-content/upload s/2012/01/i-see-what-you-did-the re-slow.jpg
 
2014-03-20 01:49:27 AM  

meyerkev: So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.

*This is not to say that sexual harassment suits are a BAD thing or worth justifying lower pay over, but there are women who will just randomly sue out of boredom or because someone looked at them funny (My mother's one of them), and that cost must be worked into the total cost of employment.  And yes, NOT paying them less is a great way to reduce the number of these lawsuits.


Plus the cost of maternity leave, taking time for family, and higher healthcare costs.

Of course women, as a group, make less. They are, as a group, more expensive and less productive.
 
2014-03-20 02:29:58 AM  

JesusJuice: meyerkev: So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.

*This is not to say that sexual harassment suits are a BAD thing or worth justifying lower pay over, but there are women who will just randomly sue out of boredom or because someone looked at them funny (My mother's one of them), and that cost must be worked into the total cost of employment.  And yes, NOT paying them less is a great way to reduce the number of these lawsuits.

Plus the cost of maternity leave, taking time for family, and higher healthcare costs.

Of course women, as a group, make less. They are, as a group, more expensive and less productive.


You're not supposed to take the troll seriously.

/Ok, other than the 'don't care point'.  Unequal pay for equal work is BAD, Government Witch-hunts are generally BAD, the point at which the 2nd overpowers the first is about 5%.
//And I DO have a family member who's like that.  Not Mom though.
 
2014-03-20 02:46:46 AM  

JesusJuice: meyerkev: So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.

*This is not to say that sexual harassment suits are a BAD thing or worth justifying lower pay over, but there are women who will just randomly sue out of boredom or because someone looked at them funny (My mother's one of them), and that cost must be worked into the total cost of employment.  And yes, NOT paying them less is a great way to reduce the number of these lawsuits.

Plus the cost of maternity leave, taking time for family, and higher healthcare costs.

Of course women, as a group, make less. They are, as a group, more expensive and less productive.


i58.tinypic.com

What happened?  Show me on the doll.
 
2014-03-20 02:59:16 AM  

stoli n coke: meyerkev: So is it still 6% after accounting for experience, benefits, hours worked, qualifications, seniority, the cost of sexual harassment suits*, etc, etc, etc?

And even then, 6% is at my don't care level.  It's 4% after taxes, and I figure that that just about covers the cost of all the things that guys have to buy for girls like dinners, vacations, and jewelry.  You get Chivalry or you get treated exactly like one of the guys.  Pick one.

Something tells me you don't have to worry about paying for too many dates, vacations, and jewelry.


Sounds like someone needs bass guitar lessons.
 
2014-03-20 09:45:11 AM  
We aren't talking Wal-Mart workers, we are talking lawyers. What you get paid is 95% what you negotiate walking in the door. Most professionals figure that out sooner or later....
 
2014-03-20 10:22:03 AM  

EWreckedSean: What you get paid is 95% what you negotiate walking in the door. Most professionals figure that out sooner or later....


Actually, that's a good point. I negotiated the salary for my last few jobs. When your skill set is in demand, you can do that. I am certain I make more than anyone I work with. Is that sexism? Hell no, that's good negotiation!

/probably first on the chopping block, come budget cuts, tho.
 
2014-03-20 10:53:30 AM  
I'd like to comment on this but since I am a Texas woman I am too busy.

//Thanks Cari Christman
 
2014-03-20 11:10:17 AM  

Geoff Peterson: EWreckedSean: What you get paid is 95% what you negotiate walking in the door. Most professionals figure that out sooner or later....

Actually, that's a good point. I negotiated the salary for my last few jobs. When your skill set is in demand, you can do that. I am certain I make more than anyone I work with. Is that sexism? Hell no, that's good negotiation!

/probably first on the chopping block, come budget cuts, tho.


One of the provisions in the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that I thought was silly was that it put aside money for nonprofits that teach women better negotiating skills.  As a man with poor negotiating skills, I'm a little miffed that women get more options to solve a common problem, just because of their gender.

/ Of course I take advantage of my own gender advantages when they present themselves.  I'm not stupid.
 
2014-03-20 12:31:05 PM  
Simple way to end the problem women (or anyone else) not being as willing to negotiate:   Make the salaries public information: for each employee what each makes, their title/position, time at such position, time with the company.
 
2014-03-20 12:40:35 PM  

TheMysteriousStranger: Simple way to end the problem women (or anyone else) not being as willing to negotiate:   Make the salaries public information: for each employee what each makes, their title/position, time at such position, time with the company.


It's nobody's business but the employee and employer what they make. These are private contracts.
 
2014-03-21 01:26:13 AM  

EWreckedSean: TheMysteriousStranger: Simple way to end the problem women (or anyone else) not being as willing to negotiate:   Make the salaries public information: for each employee what each makes, their title/position, time at such position, time with the company.

It's nobody's business but the employee and employer what they make. These are private contracts.


But working in the DA office is a govt job.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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