Walker signs bill revoking equal pay for women

[KeEpEr]

Are you completely blind to the fact that for 100 years women and minorities couldn't do better somewhere else? Not because they weren't capable, but because they weren't even looked at for positions because of their race or gender? That is okay with you? Was Civil Rights legislation ever necessary in this country?

I'm talking now , not then. I had lunch last week with a black plumbing contractor friend of mine. He has black and white and hispanic workers. He pays them based on how quickly they can dig the ditch. Good guy. Voted Republican but don't tell his wife.

 

[WFFaithful]

Well based on the logic of the voter ID law, even if it happens 0.00001% of the time, we need a law for it. Here we have people arguing that it doesn't happen that much, so the law is unnecessary.

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

I'm talking now , not then. I had lunch last week with a black plumbing contractor friend of mine. He has black and white and hispanic workers. He pays them based on how quickly they can dig the ditch. Good guy. Voted Republican but don't tell his wife.

Ok, so you are conceding that the laws were necessary since the free market was foreclosing whole classes of individuals. At what point should the legislation have been removed? At what stage did discrimination become unnecessary to provide legal recourse for? Can you provide a year perhaps? Maybe stats that showed in your opinion when it was no longer needed? I'm curious as to either.

You admit it was necessary at one point 40 years ago. About when did things change enough for it to not be necessary?

 

[Wakelaw2006]

I agree with this, and have seen it over and over again in my career. I've worked with many excellent women, but they often times change their career path after they have kids. In every case, it was a very personal decision that they thought was best for their family and they wanted to do it. They either become stay at home moms, change jobs to take a position that is more conducive to being a mom, or stay at their position and go to part time.

This does not apply to all women of course, but to employers a woman employee with a family is seen as unstable. It's a risky bet to invest in her employment. It's the exact opposite for men. A male employee with a family is seen as very stable. He must work and do everything he can to provide for his family. It's less likely they'll change careers or take risks. He's the much smarter bet.

I'm not really taking position on this one way or the other, but I think this is a huge reason why men find it much easier to work their way up the ladder. I dont think employers are actively saying, let's promote John over Jane because we think men are smarter and women should be in the kitchen. I think it's more likely they're thinking, we really like Jane and the work she does, but is she going to be here in five years?

The problem is that in some ways this is self-perpetuating. [smallsamplesizehypotheticaldeac] I have two friends who met in law school, started at big law jobs and then got married about 3 years in. Both were total golden children with "PARTNER" stamped across their foreheads - billing 2400+ hours, writing, speaking, etc. They get to 7th year and he makes partner and she gets lapped (this probably wasn't because of the "uh oh, is she going to be here in 5 year or is she going to start knocking out babies" phenomenon, it was most likely a product of the team she was on, but it could have played a role) (this was also a few years ago when people actually still made partner in 7 years). So, now they are having kids and she's going part time because he's already made partner. [/smallsamplesizehypotheticaldeac]

 

[KeEpEr]

Start your own business and quit whining.

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

And keeper logic comes full circle. Laws were necessary then, not now, but no explanation as to why or when the law should have been removed.

Laws were rightfully enacted to prevent widespread discrimination because the market wasn't allowing for entire classes of people to be treated as equals or to have their merits assessed. The laws have moved our country in a positive direction towards a meritocracy which is a GOOD thing.

 

[RicoSuave]

Avalon and Bake, boogity's post has nothing to do with the issue at hand. He's trying to deflect the real issue with his silliness.

His name shouldn't be boogityboogity. It should be baityoubaityou. It's all he ever does.

Well other than blaming others for his actions.

LOL I see you're still butt-hurt over having this forum renamed.

Oh, and BTW PHDeac is smarter than you. Yeah, I said it. A black dude, just like Justice Thomas. What is it with your hatred of black people anyway?

 

[PhDeac]

that sounds like something you read in a high school econ class textbook. Real world?

In the real world, the female is more qualified for the job, but the sexist boss gives it to the man. The man does ok, or maybe even well, at the job but the female was nevertheless more qualified at the time of the interview - and didn't get the job. Now the male is employed (over-employed possibly), the female is not. She continues to look for a position in her field, but often runs into the same dilemma. The male applicants do not. The female eventually settles for taking a position in her field for less money, or she settles for some kind of lesser position (underemployment). She earns less than her equally qualified, but penis-owning, counterpart. That is the real world.

The same goes for promotions. If she is your wife, you too are very frustrated and possibly need to turn to the legal system because you understand this injustice as you try to feed, clothe, and medicate your family.

Add that now the man has a higher level job which puts him at an advantage over a woman for the next job no matter how poorly he did at that job.

Reading Boog's post again, I think you all missed his point. It was another one of his bid/Boog analogies. The man was Bz and the woman was Dino. Makes more sense when you see where he was going with it.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

Ok, so you are conceding that the laws were necessary since the free market was foreclosing whole classes of individuals. At what point should the legislation have been removed? At what stage did discrimination become unnecessary to provide legal recourse for? Can you provide a year perhaps? Maybe stats that showed in your opinion when it was no longer needed? I'm curious as to either.

You admit it was necessary at one point 40 years ago. About when did things change enough for it to not be necessary?

Please discuss the governments' de jure segregation of the era (e.g. Jim Crow laws, segregation of the military and unions) and show how that constitutes a "free market". Then continue to babble about the wonderful advantages of today's governmental de jure integration in comparison to the "free market". You may find that de jure integration is not much better than de jure segregation.

If the large-government babblers of all eras would leave peaceful, honest people alone and allow them to interact normally without suing one another for impure thoughts maybe we would have de facto racial and gender equality today.

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

Please discuss the governments' de jure segregation of the era (e.g. Jim Crow laws, segregation of the military and unions) and show how that constitutes a "free market". Then continue to babble about the wonderful advantages of today's governmental de jure integration in comparison to the "free market". You may find that de jure integration is not much better than de jure segregation.

If the large-government babblers of all eras would leave peaceful, honest people alone and allow them to interact normally without suing one another for impure thoughts maybe we would have de facto racial and gender equality today.

This entire post is nonsense. There was no de jure segregation impacting private corporate America and yet women and minorities were still never hired. Try again.

 

[RicoSuave]

This entire post is nonsense. There was no de jure segregation impacting private corporate America and yet women and minorities were still never hired. Try again.

Segregation impacted all aspects of society. If blacks weren't even allowed to use the same water fountains as whites, what makes you think that Wall Street investment firms would have hired blacks as corporate officers? Black Americans weren't even guaranteed equal educational opportunities, and it was the fortunate few who could receive a college education. Technically it wasn't "illegal" but societal pressure was unfortunately so strong that the possiblity just wasn't considered.

Racism wasn't just a legal thing; it was a societal thing, which was far stronger and more pervasive. Federal wage and hour laws didn't end racism. Only integration of our schools ended it (at least for the younger generation who attended school, played ball, played in band, etc. with people of other races and finally realized that they could be friends with people of other races because they weren't that different after all). Unfortunately racism still exists is some form or another (as well as race-baiting), but at least now its frowned upon and is not the norm.

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

Obviously. That is my point.

Racism impacted all avenues of society. Fortunately the SCOTUS in Brown and then the federal government with Title VII got the ball rolling in the correct direction. The law created both by the SCOTUS and by legislation helped minorities in all aspects of society - educationally, in the workplace etc. Once legal precedent and remedies were established, businesses and states could no longer freely discriminate.

Legal recourse -- the very thing mocked by some in this thread or called unnecessary is what began to move our country in a more positive direction.

 

[RicoSuave]

Obviously. That is my point.

Racism impacted all avenues of society. Fortunately the SCOTUS in Brown and then the federal government with Title VII got the ball rolling in the correct direction. The law created both by the SCOTUS and by legislation helped minorities in all aspects of society - educationally, in the workplace etc. Once legal precedent and remedies were established, businesses and states could no longer freely discriminate.

Legal recourse -- the very thing mocked by some in this thread or called unnecessary is what began to move our country in a more positive direction.

I don't think anybody has "mocked" legal recourse, nor has anybody claimed that civil rights legislation is unnecessary. Integration of the public schools was the driving force in eliminating racism, and that was mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court (that "unelected" body now being mocked by President Obama). My whole point is that wage and hour laws did nothing to fix discrimination, nor will they do anything now.

Even where there is a problem, I have full faith in the ability of the Federal Government to fuck it up even more. Thats one of the few guarantees in life.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

This entire post is nonsense. There was no de jure segregation impacting private corporate America and yet women and minorities were still never hired. Try again.

Boogity has illustrated very nicely why your persistent calling of arguments "nonsense" fails to refute them. I just wanted to add that government laws in the Southern states at that time essentially forced segregation in everything-the workplace, corporations, government schools, everything. This was government intervention fubaring freedom. Forced segregation in the military, in unions, and in schools even in other parts of the country fubared freedom also. What was called for at that time was getting rid of fubar from government. What was recieved was replacing one form of government fubar by another form of government fubar.

If we did not now have government fubar in this realm you would not need to obfuscate while trying to explain why Jessica should be able to blackmail her employer into promoting her over the equally qualified Mark.

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

Boogity has illustrated very nicely why your persistent calling of arguments "nonsense" fails to refute them. I just wanted to add that government laws in the Southern states at that time essentially forced segregation in everything-the workplace, corporations, government schools, everything. This was government intervention fubaring freedom. Forced segregation in the military, in unions, and in schools even in other parts of the country fubared freedom also. What was called for at that time was getting rid of fubar from government. What was recieved was replacing one form of government fubar by another form of government fubar.

If we did not now have government fubar in this realm you would not need to obfuscate while trying to explain why Jessica should be able to blackmail her employer into promoting her over the equally qualified Mark.

Your posts are entirely incoherent. You clearly don't understand what de jure means or else you wouldn't have referenced it when there was no de jure workplace discrimination.

The point is really simple but apparently too complicated for you to grasp. The market discriminated against non-white men. Legislation was enacted to guarantee people were assessed based on their merits. This has resulted in women and minorities participating in corporate America at higher levels. You, and others are arguing that guaranteeing this continues is a bad thing. It is uncontested there was no diversity prior to 1970. It is almost incomprehensible to believe people think this is a bad thing.

@Boogity--civil rights legislation was a positive. Equal salary legislation is working it just takes time.

The idea put forth in this thread that minorities and women aren't more perasive in corporate america because they foster resentment due to their option of lawsuits based on discrimination is one of the saddest and most thinly veiled racist things I've seen posted on these boards.

Fortunately less people in this country have a desire to return to 1910 America than some posting here.

Anti-discrimination legislation was crucial for our country's development. Based on logical continuance of some thoughts here we should have just left it to the wonderful free market and women could still be relegated to the kitchen and minorities kept out of businesses and if they complained "too bad get another job."

I am happy I don't view the world through those eyes.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

Eagles, leave the ad hominum attacks aside for a moment and concentrate on answering this: Should an employer be able to choose between a man and a woman for a certain promotion without having to fear a lawsuit for gender discrimination?

 

[ONW]

Start your own business and quit whining.

Good idea. I'm starting my automated scorekeeper patent application ASAP.

 

[KeEpEr]

Good idea. I'm starting my automated scorekeeper patent application ASAP.

Look out as that is reserved for highly trained veterans....

 

[Eagles_Legendz]

Eagles, leave the ad hominum attacks aside for a moment and concentrate on answering this: Should an employer be able to choose between a man and a woman for a certain promotion without having to fear a lawsuit for gender discrimination?

The way you phrased that question is a tad loaded. In the context of what we've been discussing, no, employers should be subject to lawsuits based on discrimination. If a lawsuit is wrongly brought it will bear that out in the legal process, often before it proceeds to any substantial degree. The other option based on the inference of your question is to never allow someone to bring a suit based on discrimination which you've already stated you believe is fine. I do not believe that is acceptable.

You believe that lawsuits are counterproductive. You weigh the employers concerns higher than you weigh the potential class of people discriminated against. OK.

Do you admit Civil Rights legislation was necessary? Are you going to honestly contend that you believe without any laws regarding discrimination that the free market would have taken care of these concerns?

I think invidious discrimination is a negative in our society. Civil Rights legislation helped to correct this. Statistics illustrate this. The free market did not protect at all against widespread discrimination regarding employment.

People are going to sue when it isn't warranted. Some companies are going to discriminate on the basis of nothing other than gender or race. I value the rights of individuals to bring suits on the claim of discrimination even if it isn't warranted sometimes more than I view protecting the rights of companies to never have to defend such suits.

 

[DreamOnDemOn]

Okay, then. How does the judge/jury/ whatever tell if the employer discriminated or not? I also think that anybody should be able to bring a lawsuit against anybody anytime if they think they have been a victim of some kind of fraud. But if there is a law against "discrimination" it just seems to me that you would have to read an employer's mind to tell if he/she were guility of that. How could you tell otherwise?