• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Walker signs bill revoking equal pay for women

DreamOnDemOn said:
There is terrible inequity everywhere, but let's talk about Mark and Jessica. If the employer feels that Mark treats the customer better than Jessica, why can't he/she promote Mark instead of Jessica? Does the horror of a national gender gap in saleries justify forcing the employer to make a stupid business decision or face a costly lawsuit?
Click to expand...

It is tiresome to discuss subjects with people who are either willfully ignorant/obtuse/or simply don't possess the ability to understand even the most basic concepts, but I'll do my best to break this down in the simplest form possible.

Without a legal avenue for redress due to discrimination, women, african-americans etc would never have ascended to positions of power (and if you want to argue this, take a look at the American corporate environment pre-1970). To you, sadly, that's fine, so long as CEO of corporation X doesn't have to face the threat of lawsuits and can continue to hire white males regardless of other circumstances surrounding who is actually the most qualified.

Of course on a micro level there will be situations where someone is being chosen for non-discriminatory reasons. There will also be situations where a person is not being promoted because of discrimination. You have to attack the issue from a macro level. The entire purpose of the legal process is to protect people when they are being discriminated against just because of race/gender, while simultaneously protecting employers who aren't discriminating for these reasons.

To you, it is better to have no means to protect against discrimination. We live in a perfect utopia where people are hired based on their merits. Your viewpoint would never have brought about any change in this country because why should employers be forced to hire black people or women, even when they're qualified, when they can just hire white counterparts? Non-white men shouldn't try to remedy this because it just fosters resentment! Lets not care at all about entire classes of people who have no opportunity to compete for jobs for reasons entirely irrelevant such as race or gender. You can argue that's not what you're saying but it really is. You're giving tacit approval to discrimination. Our country's history has proven that absent the judiciary, corporations have not and will not hire people based on their actual qualifications. This is a fact, not a hypothetical.

We provide a remedy on a macro level for everyone because fostering a situation where people are hired and promoted based on the merits is a good thing is this country. Sadly, it hasn't always happened, so we need laws in place to guarantee that it does. To argue that these laws shouldn't be in place because there might be a lawsuit where a company is sued wrongly is the argument of a 3-year old. Your world would just say "oh well, better luck next time" to people who are discriminated against as a way to protect ALL employers no matter what.

I'll take a situation where 100 lawsuits are brought, 50 of which are illegitimate and tossed, and 50 of which are brought with good cause to provide a solution for people who are being screwed just because of their race. I am for our country striving to look at individuals based on their merits. If we as a people actually didn't live based on our biases we never would have needed Title VII, the 14th amendment, and things of that nature. We've already proven as a people we need legal remedies to provide those discriminated against with a voice that they otherwise wouldn't possess. When we get to a point where people are looked at absent of race and gender, we can wipe out laws protecting discriminated against classes.

I find your views personally repugnant, and there is no point to have a conversation with someone who is justifying misogyny and racism because a corporation may have to defend a fruitless lawsuit, while ignoring the thousands of Americans who are left out for purely discriminatory reasons. No recourse for you all, sorry! If you people stop complaining, maybe we (the power brokers) will look more kindly upon your class and not so actively discriminate. Just brilliant reasoning. I'm just glad Congress and the SCOTUS is a tad more intelligent or else the disparity in employment would be even more drastic than it is today. But really, it's not that women and african-americans were discriminated against in the 19th and 20th centuries. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that they complained about it which fostered resentment.

Have a wonderful Easter.
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
"RJ, what if the employer is forced to promote a spiteful, cranky Jessica because of the fear of a costly lawsuit? What does that do to the employer's business? The next time there is a Jessica and a Mark applying for a job, who do you think the employer might favor? "

There you go again!

No one (other than you) is saying a spiteful, cranky person should get a job or be promoted. Everyone but you is saying people who are EQUAL.

Only YOU is putting grossly unequal people up as examples.
Click to expand...

Let's get down to the facts......what does Jessica look like?
 
Go ask your mothers, sisters, girlfriends and wives their opinion on this issue, the legislation, and the reaction and get back to us.
 
WakeandBake said:
Go ask your mothers, sisters, girlfriends and wives their opinion on this issue, the legislation, and the reaction and get back to us.
Click to expand...

I have never understood why, when being sued by a woman or minority for dismissal or lack of promotion, an employer never gets any credit for hiring them in the first place. It seems to me if you were a sexist or racist you would not have made the initial hire.
 
Am I the only one who finds humor in a guy who owes his relationship with Wake to his daddy lecturing other folks about how we don't need to worry about the most qualified person getting the job?
 
DeaconSig said:
Am I the only one who finds humor in a guy who owes his relationship with Wake to his daddy lecturing other folks about how we don't need to worry about the most qualified person getting the job?
Click to expand...

??
 
so the implication is - if given the full reins of the legal system to protect themselves in the workplace against centuries of gender bias, American women will take unfair advantage of their newfound unbalanced playing field and exploit men in business? am I understanding that right?
 
WakeandBake said:
so the implication is - if given the full reins of the legal system to protect themselves in the workplace against centuries of gender bias, American women will take unfair advantage of their newfound unbalanced playing field and exploit men in business? am I understanding that right?
Click to expand...

They have the ablity to sue that white men under forty do not have.
 
Eagles: I just saw your post and I appreciate your appraisal of my intelligence and moral character. It is always good to have that kind of feedback on a message board.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. But if there are any libertarian-leaning folks out there worried about the misogynists taking over America absent gender-discrimination laws they should read the book "Forbidden Grounds" by Richard Epstein of University of Chicago Law School. Here is a review that summarizes almost everything in the book:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/col...ent-discrimination-laws-by-richard-a-epstein/
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Two groups of lawyers apply for a job at your firm. One group just graduated from Wake Law. The other just graduated from the law school at, say, NCCU. The group from NCCU mentions that they will sue you for "discrimination" if you do not hire them. Can you understand why some employers object to these kinds of laws?
Click to expand...

Yes, because it makes it easier for them to hire and fire based on race.
 
keeper said:
I think so. They can be hired without the fear of a lawsuit if they are dismissed.
Click to expand...

helluva world you must live in.

what business are you in? I've been interviewing, working, hiring, firing and promoting as a white male in the competitive IT field for 16 years and can't seem to grasp your paranoid delusions about the workplace.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
Yes, because it makes it easier for them to hire and fire based on race.
Click to expand...

Do you believe that employers want to hire and fire based on race rather than ability? If that is true you and I can get rich and silmultaneously fight racism: I secure the capital for the takeover and you improve the bottom line by making race-neutral HR decisions.

Of course, it is easier to get rich by shaking down companies that haven't been able to meet thier racial quotas. This is an important sector of the race-pimping industry.
 
DreamOnDemOn said:
Do you believe that employers want to hire and fire based on race rather than ability? If that is true you and I can get rich and silmultaneously fight racism: I secure the capital for the takeover and you improve the bottom line by making race-neutral HR decisions.

Of course, it is easier to get rich by shaking down companies that haven't been able to meet thier racial quotas. This is an important sector of the race-pimping industry.
Click to expand...

they don't necessarily "want" to do it. often times, it is subconscious and having this statute would bring it to the forefront of your mind.
 
WakeandBake said:
helluva world you must live in.

what business are you in? I've been interviewing, working, hiring, firing and promoting as a white male in the competitive IT field for 16 years and can't seem to grasp your paranoid delusions about the workplace.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been sued?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top