Some feminists sure are mistaken - they think Harkin is all about “comparable worth”, and that is why they supported the bill when he first tried it in 1996:
[i]The Clinton Administration, labor unions, Senator Tom Harkin, and women’s rights groups are all strategizing on how to make pay equity a top priority among legislators.
Yesterday, the AFL-CIO released a report stating that women are still largely confined to low-pay, female-dominated jobs and earn only 74 cents for every dollars that a man earns. The report found that, by improving the enforcement of existing equal pay laws, the number of single women living in poverty would decline from 25.3% to 12.6%.
In addition to reporting these and other findings, the AFL-CIO announced the launch of campaigns to pass comparable-worth bills in 24 states. Karen Nussbaum, who heads the union’s Working Women’s department, stated, “Even though we have an Equal Pay Act making it illegal to pay women less than men in the same job, it isn’t adequately enforced, and most women are not covered because they’re in female-dominated jobs, so there’s no man around to compare themselves with. These new bills would strengthen enforcement and expand the notion of equal pay to work of equal value.”
Many Democrats, including Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, have long supported the notion of comparable worth. Harkin introduced the Federal Fair Pay Act in 1996 and continues his efforts to pass the bill. The Clinton Administration has pledged to help gain support for the Act, and has dispatched White House Chief of Staff John Podesta and others to strategize with Harkin. President Clinton also discussed the issue of pay equity in his January 30th radio address and has proposed $14 million Labor Department initiative to help end sex-based wage and job discrimination. [/i]
Women in “traditionally women” jobs is the source of the problem. Since there isn’t a man around for a direct comparison (it is all a bunch of women) in the same office, these feminists want “traditionally womanish jobs” to get a pay raise on account of being “comparable” to something “equivalent” to the mannish job.
So does Harkin - “right wing scaremongers”, all of them.
I don’t know if this counts or not, but I started smoking when I had taken a shit ton of acid one night. it seemed like a good idea at the time …
Hey, I was young!
[quote]DS 007 wrote:
My issues with smokers is - primarily - that they ever started. When was that a GOOD idea? And what’s a good reason for allowing yourself to begin? Give me a reason for starting that does not point some type of weakness.
Second, once you start…it’s probably a good idea to quit. Since it’s kills you, stinks, is expensive, on and on. And if you STILL do it…well…I…PERSONALLY…just have a tough time thinking, “Hey! This is a really bright and in-control guy who I want to lead me into a brighter future!” [/quote]
It can actually be pretty hard to tell much about a candidate from his canned campaign “positions” - which is why character is a legitimate issue…
Take a look at this, for example:
ADDENDUM: Forgot to mention that the statements below are either by Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney.
…
[i]Here’s the game. I’m going to name the issue, then put forward statements by the two candidates. See if you can guess which is which!
ENERGY:
Candidate A: "I will work to finally free America of its dependence on foreign oil -- by using energy more efficiently in our cars, factories, and homes, relying more on renewable sources of electricity, and harnessing the potential of biofuels."
Candidate B: "[T]he United States must become energy independent. This does not mean no longer importing or using oil. It means making sure that our nation's future will always be in our hands. Our decisions and destiny cannot be bound to the whims of oil-producing states....
We need to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative -- an energy revolution -- that will be our generation's equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon. It will be a mission to create new, economical sources of clean energy and clean ways to use the sources we have now. We will license our technology to other nations, and, of course, we will employ it at home. It will be good for our national defense, it will be good for our foreign policy, and it will be good for our economy."
THE MILITARY:
Candidate A: "We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills. "
Candidate B: "[W]e need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense."
PROMOTING MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS:
Candidate A: "As China rises and Japan and South Korea assert themselves, I will work to forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. We need an inclusive infrastructure with the countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity and help confront transnational threats, from terrorist cells in the Philippines to avian flu in Indonesia. I will also encourage China to play a responsible role as a growing power -- to help lead in addressing the common problems of the twenty-first century. We will compete with China in some areas and cooperate in others. Our essential challenge is to build a relationship that broadens cooperation while strengthening our ability to compete."
Candidate B: "A critical part of the economic resurgence and peace of postwar Europe was the United States' support for a unified market and U.S. engagement in cross-country ties. Today, we must push for more integration and cross-border cooperation in the Middle East. As a group of experts working on the Princeton Project on National Security noted recently, 'The history of Europe since 1945 tells us that institutions can play a constructive role in building a framework for cooperation, channeling nationalist sentiments in a positive direction, and fostering economic development and liberalization. Yet the Middle East is one of the least institutionalized regions in the world.'"
AMERICA’S UNIQUE PLACE IN THE WORLD:
Candidate A: "To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world."
Candidate B: "We are a unique nation, and there is no substitute for our leadership."[/i]
You can find the answers if you click on this link and scroll down:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The new act is for “equal pay for equivalent work”, and everyone seems to realize this except you. From an advocacy group that supports the bill (they are very excited):
Senator Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) are the sponsors of the Fair Pay Act, to clarify that the federal Equal Pay Act (1963) calls for equal pay for comparable work as well as “equal work” (the same work). This is also referred to as “comparable worth” or “pay equity” and deals with the fact that jobs traditionally done by women (“women’s work” or predominately female occupations) are poorly compensated compared with jobs traditionally done by men (“men’s work”).
Under comparable worth, employers would be required to set wages to reflect differences in the “worth” of jobs, with worth largely determined by job evaluation studies, not by market forces. Advocates expect comparable worth to increase pay in jobs dominated by women and to sharply narrow the overall gender gap in wages.
If the Fair Pay Act isn’t about “comparable worth”, do inform the advocacy groups that support Harkin’s bill and break the sad, sad news to them, aye? The seem to think that is exactly what the bill is about.
[/quote]
It is very common for advocacy groups to write about what they are hoping something will mean.
I’d suggest they don’t get their hopes up.
However, I can certainly see how right wing bullshit would focus on such statements as if they were the intent of the legislation.
I don’t suppose the reason would be obvious to you?
[quote]Further, if this law were nothing more than the current law - equal pay for equal work and Title VII stuff - there would be no need for the Fair Pay Act, nor would there be a reason to distinguish it from a separate competing bill:
Senator Hilary Clinton (New York) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut) are sponsors of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which includes increasing the penalties for violations of the Equal Pay Act and other federal laws against discrimination in compensation. A major problem in closing the women’s wage gap is the lack of motivation for employers to follow the laws, because the penalties are not sufficient and enforcement is not effective.
(same cite as above)
[/quote]
Dude, the above simply means that violators should be punished more. It does little to establish what the Fair Pay Act is about.
[quote]Now, let’s get down to business. The Act:
[i]SEC. 3. EQUAL PAY FOR EQUIVALENT JOBS.
(a) Amendment- Section 6 (29 U.S.C. 206) is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(h)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no employer having employees subject to any provision of this section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex, race, or national origin by paying wages to employees in such establishment in a job that is dominated by employees of a particular sex, race, or national origin at a rate less than the rate at which the employer pays wages to employees in such establishment in another job that is dominated by employees of the opposite sex or of a different race or national origin, respectively, for work on equivalent jobs.[/i]
Yay! Only problem is, we all know what “equal pay for equal work” means - you can’t pay a person in your office a different wage for the same job based on gender.
Well, the definitions section helps explain why we aren’t talking about the same job:
B) The term `equivalent jobs’ means jobs that may be dissimilar, but whose requirements are equivalent, when viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.’
[/quote]
Dude, the above is pretty clear and pretty basic. It’s pretty hard to have two jobs require the same skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions unless the work is incredibly similar.
It is only your right wing paranoid fantasies that make it sound scary.
Also, consider, that if a company were suspected to be in violation it could certainly detail the differences in skill, responsibility, working conditions and effort. Or do you think those words are meaningless?
[quote]So who decides the new criterion of “equivalent jobs” and whether or not the discrepancies are gender or race based? Glad you asked.
i The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall issue guidelines specifying criteria for determining whether a job is dominated by employees of a particular sex, race, or national origin for purposes of subparagraph (B)(iv). Such guidelines shall not include a list of such jobs.[/i]
I could link, but I don’t know that it comes through - so go to Thomas.gov and search for “Fair Pay Act”.
The EEOC gets to set enforceable guidelines as to what is equivalent work. So what happens if an employer refuses to pay within the parameters of the guidelines? Enjoy the remedies section.[/quote]
Same thing. If you want to have right wing wet dreams, knock yourself out. You will once again have to notice that the act deals with pay discrepancies within ONE company. It’s not as if pay guidelines are being set… it just has to be equal within that one company.
You might also note that the guidelines are FOR DETERMINING what is equivalent, so that companies will be able to figure out on their own what the EOCC would consider equivalent.
[quote]
Oh, and it gets better - Vroom says the Fair Pay Act is about including race and national origin…[/quote]
Yeah, yeah, I’m perfectly willing to admit I stumbled on this part… it’s not really what I meant to say or reflect on. Relax yourself.
Anyhow, here is a different take on the legislation than you have provided:
[i]
The National Committee on Pay Equity supports two bills in Congress aimed at curbing wage discrimination. The bills work on different aspects of wage discrimination, and both are needed to fully close the wage gap.
The Fair Pay Act was introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) on April 11, 2007. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) will introduce the bill in the House. It seeks to end wage discrimination against those who work in female-dominated or minority-dominated jobs by establishing equal pay for equivalent work. For example, within individual companies, employers could not pay jobs that are held predominately by women less than jobs held predominately by men if those jobs are equivalent in value to the employer. The bill also protects workers on the basis of race or national origin. The Fair Pay Act makes exceptions for different wage rates based on seniority, merit, or quantity or quality of work. It also contains a small business exemption.
The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 1338 and S.766) was introduced March 6, 2007 by Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rep. Rosa DeLauro to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The bill expands damages under the Equal Pay Act and amends its very broad fourth affirmative defense. In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act calls for a study of data collected by the EEOC and proposes voluntary guidelines to show employers how to evaluate jobs with the goal of eliminating unfair disparities.
[/i]
From: Pay Equity Information
Wow, look, voluntary guidelines… that sounds a bit different than suggesting the Fair Pay Act will establish mandatory guidelines.
Also, again, note that this act, the Fair Pay Act, deals with situations in one single company – not for and across all companies at once.
Heck, I’d also question the use of the term, equivalent in value. I’m not sure that is a useful term in this respect… and as your analysis suggests, there are a bunch of criteria used to determine if work is essentially the same.
Thunderdolt, get off your high horse bucko, finding a source that says what you want to hear doesn’t mean the source is correct.
So, are you against this legislation because big business is afraid of losing the ability to discriminate against various types of workers, or because it is being proposed by democrats?
Please have a better reason than the right wing wet dream “flaws” you keep trying to invent.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Now, Harkin references “comparable worth” in his speech as part of his Fair Pay Act - “Why is a housekeeper worth less than a janitor, a parking meter reader worth less than an electrical meter reader, or a social worker worth less than a probation officer?”
Why indeed are there wage discrepancies across different jobs?
Democratic Senator Harkin must be one of them “right wing scaremongers” I read about, talking about the Fair Pay Act and “comparable worth” together like that.[/quote]
LOL.
He’s talking, dufus.
He’s merely trying to illustrate the issue to people. I think it would be no surprise to people that some of his examples involve different working conditions or skill levels.
However, his second example is a bit more to the point, though it is still only a basic example.
You should realize it is quite easy for larger companies, and that is what the bill is for, to create job specifications that show the skills, responsibilities, experience and qualifications required for various job positions. There is not going to be a problem with the government setting everyones wages.
You can continue to panic if you like, but there is no cause as of yet.
Vroom, it is clear you did zero homework on the bill at all, but you come in anyway and try to tell us all what it is about. All mention of it being “comparable worth” is “right wing scaremongering” - but you haven’t even looked at the bill or read about it.
You make all kinds of unsubstantiated wild claims about what the bill “means”, without having read it. Then I show:
Advocacy groups that support Harkin believe it to be “comparable worth”…
Your answer? They have it wrong, and you have it right. This, despite the fact that they research this stuff for a living, and Vroom hasn’t even looked at the bill.
The Fair Pay Act includes language making the express distinction between “equal pay for equal work” and “equal pay for equivalent work”…
Your answer? “Equal pay for equivalent work” essentially doesn’t mean anything different, even though the bill, in both its preamble and enabling sections state otherwise.
The Fair Pay Act says that “equivalent work” means as between “dissimilar” jobs - meaning jobs that aren’t similar…
Your answer? What the Act really means when it says “dissimilar” is the word “similar”.
You said the primary focus of the Act was to now include race and national origin, but that was woefully wrong…
Your answer? That is not what you really meant.
Then you basically do nothing but try and buttress your claims with “if you want to spin this in a right wing way, go for it”.
Your shoddy claims were refuted, Vroom - don’t try and pretend they weren’t. Now you are just trying to save face after realizing you were dead wrong on the bill - it is obvious.
A good discussion could have been had on the bill had you not flew in and tried to tell us all what the bill was about based on some anti-conservative mission you had. I have an idea - before you pompously swoop in and embarrass yourself by getting the entire bill wrong, how about do some homework and come in with an agenda other than to to discredit, distract, and deceive?
This topic of the Fair Pay Act is done - and now more than ever, Vroom has egg on his face.
Further proof Vroom doesn’t do his homework? Vroom wrote:
[quote]The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 1338 and S.766) was introduced March 6, 2007 by Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rep. Rosa DeLauro to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The bill expands damages under the Equal Pay Act and amends its very broad fourth affirmative defense. In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act calls for a study of data collected by the EEOC and proposes voluntary guidelines to show employers how to evaluate jobs with the goal of eliminating unfair disparities.
Wow, look, voluntary guidelines… that sounds a bit different than suggesting the Fair Pay Act will establish mandatory guidelines.[/quote]
Yes, and it would sound different than suggesting the Fair Pay Act doesn’t have voluntary guidelines, because the section you quoted as having “voluntary guidelines” is from the competing bill: the Paycheck Fairness Act, not the Fair Pay Act. That is from your own source, genius.
You can continue to panic if you like, but there is no cause as of yet.[/quote]
And one other thing: there has never been any panic. The bill doesn’t have a chance of being passed. That was never the point.
The point was Obama was the only Democratic Presidential candidate to sign on to it. The issue I raised was: “is that a good idea?” Will that be something his colleagues use against him to say he is “too far” out of the mainstream to be the candidate? Or does it help him with base, for example?
It was about whether it was a good decision by Obama to join on to the bill at this point. All of this was obscured by Vroom’s all-too-predictable moronic gushing about “right wing scaremongering” completely distracting us from the point of the post and the Act.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It can actually be pretty hard to tell much about a candidate from his canned campaign “positions” - which is why character is a legitimate issue…
Take a look at this, for example:
ADDENDUM: Forgot to mention that the statements below are either by Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney.
…
[i]Here’s the game. I’m going to name the issue, then put forward statements by the two candidates. See if you can guess which is which!
ENERGY:
Candidate A: "I will work to finally free America of its dependence on foreign oil -- by using energy more efficiently in our cars, factories, and homes, relying more on renewable sources of electricity, and harnessing the potential of biofuels."
Candidate B: "[T]he United States must become energy independent. This does not mean no longer importing or using oil. It means making sure that our nation's future will always be in our hands. Our decisions and destiny cannot be bound to the whims of oil-producing states....
We need to initiate a bold, far-reaching research initiative -- an energy revolution -- that will be our generation's equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the mission to the moon. It will be a mission to create new, economical sources of clean energy and clean ways to use the sources we have now. We will license our technology to other nations, and, of course, we will employ it at home. It will be good for our national defense, it will be good for our foreign policy, and it will be good for our economy."
THE MILITARY:
Candidate A: "We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills. "
Candidate B: "[W]e need to increase our investment in national defense. This means adding at least 100,000 troops and making a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense."
PROMOTING MULTILATERAL INSTITUTIONS:
Candidate A: "As China rises and Japan and South Korea assert themselves, I will work to forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. We need an inclusive infrastructure with the countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity and help confront transnational threats, from terrorist cells in the Philippines to avian flu in Indonesia. I will also encourage China to play a responsible role as a growing power -- to help lead in addressing the common problems of the twenty-first century. We will compete with China in some areas and cooperate in others. Our essential challenge is to build a relationship that broadens cooperation while strengthening our ability to compete."
Candidate B: "A critical part of the economic resurgence and peace of postwar Europe was the United States' support for a unified market and U.S. engagement in cross-country ties. Today, we must push for more integration and cross-border cooperation in the Middle East. As a group of experts working on the Princeton Project on National Security noted recently, 'The history of Europe since 1945 tells us that institutions can play a constructive role in building a framework for cooperation, channeling nationalist sentiments in a positive direction, and fostering economic development and liberalization. Yet the Middle East is one of the least institutionalized regions in the world.'"
AMERICA’S UNIQUE PLACE IN THE WORLD:
Candidate A: "To see American power in terminal decline is to ignore America's great promise and historic purpose in the world."
Candidate B: "We are a unique nation, and there is no substitute for our leadership."[/i]
You can find the answers if you click on this link and scroll down:
I thought it was a trick and that one of them was Bush. Some of it sounds a lot like Bush.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Further proof Vroom doesn’t do his homework? Vroom wrote:
The Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 1338 and S.766) was introduced March 6, 2007 by Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rep. Rosa DeLauro to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The bill expands damages under the Equal Pay Act and amends its very broad fourth affirmative defense. In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act calls for a study of data collected by the EEOC and proposes voluntary guidelines to show employers how to evaluate jobs with the goal of eliminating unfair disparities.
Wow, look, voluntary guidelines… that sounds a bit different than suggesting the Fair Pay Act will establish mandatory guidelines.
Yes, and it would sound different than suggesting the Fair Pay Act doesn’t have voluntary guidelines, because the section you quoted as having “voluntary guidelines” is from the competing bill: the Paycheck Fairness Act, not the Fair Pay Act. That is from your own source, genius.
My God, Vroom - does your failure never end?[/quote]
If he keeps doing what he is doing, nothing is likely to change. I wonder if he has a “big move” planned to try and shake up his positioning? Or hope Hillary implodes? I don’t see the latter happening - not in the primaries.