Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    Justwantfair's Avatar
    Justwantfair Posts: 3,422, Reputation: 944
    Ultra Member
     
    #21

    Apr 28, 2009, 11:37 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Say what?!?!?

    If you don't like the pay, don't take the job. If you take the job but don't like the pay, find another job. But if you take a job and don't like the pay, don't complain that someone else made you do it. You shouldn't blame the employer for getting the best deal he could find. He's in the business of making money, not paying salaries that are higher than he is able to negotiate.

    It works that way in every capitalist society in the entire world at every company. Heck, it works that way in many non-capitalist societies around the world.

    At what company does it NOT work that way?

    Elliot
    How can you honestly say that you know that the pay you are offered/negotiate is comparable to the pay of persons in your same position?

    Should men really be paid at a higher consideration then women for doing the same job?
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #22

    Apr 28, 2009, 11:50 AM
    Even if I agreed with the law I know I would not agree to the retroactive aspect of the law as written which removes statutes of limitations. All it does is make work for slip and fall lawyers .

    I expect any victory would expand to class action actions against individual employers and industries.

    Also you should worry about employers now being risk adverse of hiring women for fear of future litigation and law suits .It will also have a negative effect on the rewarding productive workers. Employers may fear that rewarding an employee for exceptional work will come under a cloud of litigation from a disgruntled employee who claims wage discrimination.
    Justwantfair's Avatar
    Justwantfair Posts: 3,422, Reputation: 944
    Ultra Member
     
    #23

    Apr 28, 2009, 12:30 PM

    I work in employment litigation and it doesn't work like that.

    So I guess then the real problem was that the female employee was the only unproductive worker and the male employees should have been earning 15% - 41% more than their female counterpart?
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #24

    Apr 28, 2009, 01:13 PM

    Spit and JustWantFair:

    First of all, since when did "fair pay" mean that everyone had to earn the same thing as everyone else? Just because the other guy is earning $12 doesn't mean that I get to earn $12 too. It all depends on what I negotiate before I sign on to the job.

    Am I getting paid what I BELIEVE IS FAIR COMPENSATION FOR ME? Can I live on the agreed upon salary? Those are the questions that I need to ask myself before I take a job. I can also do some research on the job market and find out if what is being offered is market rate. If I don't like it, I don't have to take the job.

    But if I take the job and some other guy comes along and negotiates a better deal that I did, what does that have to do with me? That's between the other guy and the employer. It's got nothing to do with me. And if I don't like it, I can ask for more, and if I don't get it I can quit.

    This idea that everyone has to get equal pay is a joke. Perhaps my work is better than yours. Perhaps I'm better at smiling at clients than you are. Perhaps I'm just a better negotiator. Or perhaps we are exactly the same, and I got lucky. So I'm making $ per hour more than you. Your boss agreed to pay you $10 per hour. You agreed to the job on that basis. You want more? Get another job, if you can find it.

    You guys are operating under the impression that if I get more than you, it's because you are being "oppressed"... that the extra money that is coming to me is somehow coming out of your pocket. You are acting like a bunch of victims. This victim mentality among libs drives me nuts sometimes.;

    If you are getting the amount that was agreed upon, why do you care what anyone else is making? Who cares what sex the other person is? Who cares what their race is? I made a deal with the boss, and that's between me and him. You made a deal with the boss and that's between you and him. And neither of us has an effect on the other's deal.

    I have been working in Banking for 15 years. Some of the people that I trained with back in the day are now making significantly more than I am. None of them are Jewish, and I am. Am I being descriminated against because of my religion?

    Maybe they were better at negotiating a deal than I am? Or they made better career moves than I did. Or perhaps they are just luckier than me.

    That's life. It ain't descrimination. It's business. If the woman doesn't like it, she can find another job at a company that doesn't "descriminate" by offering her as low a salary as they can get away with... the same as they do with everyone else they offer jobs to.

    Elliot
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #25

    Apr 28, 2009, 01:16 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by Justwantfair View Post
    I work in employment litigation and it doesn't work like that.

    So I guess then the real problem was that the female employee was the only unproductive worker and the male employees should have been earning 15% - 41% more than their female counterpart?
    Perhaps she was.

    Perhaps she was incompetent.

    Perhaps she was a troublemaker.

    Perhaps she was untrained compared to her counterparts.

    Or perhaps she was exactly as productive and as well trained as every single one of them... or even better than them... and she just made a bad deal for herself.

    Why is that the employer's fault? Why is that DESCRIMINATION?

    Not everyone is a victim. Sometimes life just happens.

    Elliot
    Justwantfair's Avatar
    Justwantfair Posts: 3,422, Reputation: 944
    Ultra Member
     
    #26

    Apr 28, 2009, 01:23 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Or perhaps she was exactly as productive and as well trained as every single one of them... or even better than them... and she just made a bad deal for herself.

    Why is that the employer's fault? Why is that DESCRIMINATION?

    Not everyone is a victim. Sometimes life just happens.

    Elliot
    She worked for the company for 19 plus years, so you believe that she was unfairly compensated because she just made a bad deal for herself?

    Yes, if after 19 plus years every male is compensated 15-41% higher than I am then there is a fault with the employer for unfair treatment. If the reason is because I am a female then that is called DISCRIMINATION.

    Not everyone is a victim, but they don't hand out verdicts for the plaintiff's that are not victims.
    spitvenom's Avatar
    spitvenom Posts: 1,266, Reputation: 373
    Ultra Member
     
    #27

    Apr 28, 2009, 01:25 PM

    If you pay someone less because of their sex race or religion it is discrimination. That is the entire point of the act. So say this a women goes and negotiates the same way a man does the boss says sorry ms. jones the raise is the raise. The man goes in negotiates the same way and the boss says Mr. Smith you got it. That is discrimination. Do you get it yet BUB
    Justwantfair's Avatar
    Justwantfair Posts: 3,422, Reputation: 944
    Ultra Member
     
    #28

    Apr 28, 2009, 01:29 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    Spit and JustWantFair:

    First of all, since when did "fair pay" mean that everyone had to earn the same thing as everyone else? Just because the other guy is earning $12 doesn't mean that I get to earn $12 too. It all depends on what I negotiate before I sign on to the job.

    Am I getting paid what I BELIEVE IS FAIR COMPENSATION FOR ME? Can I live on the agreed upon salary? Those are the questions that I need to ask myself before I take a job. I can also do some research on the job market and find out if what is being offered is market rate. If I don't like it, I don't have to take the job.

    But if I take the job and some other guy comes along and negotiates a better deal that I did, what does that have to do with me? That's between the other guy and the employer. It's got nothing to do with me. And if I don't like it, I can ask for more, and if I don't get it I can quit.

    This idea that everyone has to get equal pay is a joke. Perhaps my work is better than yours. Perhaps I'm better at smiling at clients than you are. Perhaps I'm just a better negotiator. Or perhaps we are exactly the same, and I got lucky. So I'm making $ per hour more than you. Your boss agreed to pay you $10 per hour. You agreed to the job on that basis. You want more? Get another job, if you can find it.

    You guys are operating under the impression that if I get more than you, it's because you are being "oppressed"... that the extra money that is coming to me is somehow coming out of your pocket. You are acting like a bunch of victims. This victim mentality among libs drives me nuts sometimes.;

    If you are getting the amount that was agreed upon, why do you care what anyone else is making? Who cares what sex the other person is? Who cares what their race is? I made a deal with the boss, and that's between me and him. You made a deal with the boss and that's between you and him. And neither of us has an effect on the other's deal.

    I have been working in Banking for 15 years. Some of the people that I trained with back in the day are now making significantly more than I am. None of them are Jewish, and I am. Am I being descriminated against because of my religion?

    Maybe they were better at negotiating a deal than I am? Or they made better career moves than I did. Or perhaps they are just luckier than me.

    That's life. It ain't descrimination. It's business. If the woman doesn't like it, she can find another job at a company that doesn't "descriminate" by offering her as low a salary as they can get away with... the same as they do with everyone else they offer jobs to.

    Elliot

    It is often times among middle management, the lowest salaried personnel are African-American or female, so are you telling me that everywhere African-Americans and women can not do the same jobs with the same skills as Caucasian White Males? These are statistics.

    The reason that acts like this are in place is because it is discriminitory to evaluate an employee based on race and sex. These are actions of oppression and they do take place in America. Companies should be aware of these practices and not be participating in them. That doesn't mean that productive employees should not be compensated and rated accordingly.
    tomder55's Avatar
    tomder55 Posts: 1,742, Reputation: 346
    Ultra Member
     
    #29

    Apr 28, 2009, 03:42 PM
    it doesn't work like that.
    What doesn't work like that ? An employer being risk adverse because of the possibility of future litigation ?

    Does a dismissed as frivolous action mean that the plaintiff has to pay compensation for bringing on the suit... including court costs ?

    Let me predict what will happen as a result of this act. Employers will not let wages rise to equal levels... they will take steps to shrink them to equal levels.
    If businesses start paying workers the same amount even though their productivity differs because they fear that judges and juries will not be able to understand how productivity is determined, the law would impose significant costs on businesses .Employers will vet a prospective employee in advance to try to determine if that individual will likely be a "trouble maker " who would bring litigation in the future.

    Losing the statute of limitations is a complete joke. Ledbetter waited until she retired to bring the lawsuit against Goodyear. If she truly was being discriminated against she should've filed sooner when particular events related to her complaint was still fresh in witnesses minds. Memories fade witnesses move on and key documents related to the complaint get destroyed over time.
    galveston's Avatar
    galveston Posts: 451, Reputation: 60
    Full Member
     
    #30

    Apr 28, 2009, 04:40 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello twink,

    10 things, huh? Ok..

    1) He ended torture

    2) The prosecution of the torturers is going to happen.

    3) He is restoring our good name in the world.

    4) He's fixing the economy.

    5) He's cutting taxes for the middle class.

    6) He's ending the war in Iraq.

    7) He's stepping up the "good war" in Afganistan.

    8) He's restoring "diplomacy" as a tool.

    9) He's UN-politisizing the Justice Department.

    10) He extended un-employment benefits.

    11) He's going to approve legislation that will help the American worker organize.

    12) He's fixing the health care system.

    13) He's fixing the education system.

    14) He's restoring the American Dream.

    I got more if you need 'em.

    excon
    Do you actually believe all that? Or are you just yankin' our chains?
    Skell's Avatar
    Skell Posts: 1,863, Reputation: 514
    Ultra Member
     
    #31

    Apr 28, 2009, 04:41 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post

    I'm sure 83-year-old Queen Elizabeth is enjoying her ipod.

    Elliot
    Are you saying because she's old she wouldn't be able to comprehend such technology?
    If not, it is common knowledge the Queen loves listening to music. In fact she alreaqdy has an iPod. Why wouldn't she be grateful for a thoughtful gift?
    inthebox's Avatar
    inthebox Posts: 787, Reputation: 179
    Senior Member
     
    #32

    Apr 28, 2009, 06:18 PM

    My mom taught me if I had nothing nice to say...

    But let us say I was a LIBERAL :

    1] $400,000 to planned parenthood abroad

    2] opening up tax dollars to EMBRYONIC stem cell research despite the lack of positive human results.

    3] hiring "do as I say, not as I do" folks like Geithner, Sebellious for cabinet positions

    4] meeting with Hugo Chavez and accepting his book

    5] calling Americans "arrogant"

    6] bowing to the saudi king

    7] closing Gitmo

    8] scaring the crap out of New Yorkers

    9] firing a CEO

    10] RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH





    :)






    G&P
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #33

    Apr 29, 2009, 07:51 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Skell View Post
    Are you saying because she's old she wouldn't be able to comprehend such technology?
    Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.

    Exactly how many 83-year-olds do you see walking around with ipods? There's a reason for it. There is a reason that younger people tend to be more technology savvy than older people of the same intelligence. As we age, our brains actually begin to harden, and we become less capable of the brain flexibility necessary to learn new technology. This has been shown in numerous neurological studies (I'll try to see if I can find a citation, but don't bet on it right now).

    Even if they somehow understand computer technology and how to use a cell phone (which also happens to be a rarity among octogenarians), she can barely hear or see... she's 83 friggin years old. An iPod with a 2 inch screen and earbuds is not exactly a piece of technology she can get much use from.


    If not, it is common knowledge the Queen loves listening to music. In fact she alreaqdy has an iPod. Why wouldn't she be grateful for a thoughtful gift?
    I am quite sure she appreciates music. But she wouldn't know what the heck to do with an iPod, and wouldn't be able to use one effectively if she did.

    Elliot
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #34

    Apr 29, 2009, 08:46 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Justwantfair View Post
    She worked for the company for 19 plus years, so you believe that she was unfairly compensated because she just made a bad deal for herself?

    Yes, if after 19 plus years every male is compensated 15-41% higher than I am then there is a fault with the employer for unfair treatment. If the reason is because I am a female then that is called DISCRIMINATION.
    THEN QUIT AND FIND A NEW JOB THAT PAYS YOU WHAT YOU THINK YOU DESERVE!! I'm sure that someone with 19 years experience who doesn't have any problems in their past can find a better paying job if she is underpaid. Even if she is being underpaid because she's a woman (which is pretty hard to prove in any case, unless you can prove a pattern of it occurring within that company... and if she is the sole female employee you can't prove a pattern of descrimination in pay for women), so what? She has other employment options!! She can get another job!!

    Not everyone is a victim, but they don't hand out verdicts for the plaintiff's that are not victims.
    Oh, puhleese. Do you truly believe that?

    Do I need to bring up the case of the lady who bought a coffee from McDonalds, held the coffee in her lap while driving, even though she had cup holders in the car (a point not often talked abut in that case), and spilled the coffee on herself and sued McD's and won $2.86 million ($160,000 in damages and $2.7 million in "punitive damages")?

    Here are a few more cases of awards to non-victims:
    A woman was playing golf and hit a shot which ricocheted off railroad tracks that run through the course. The ball hit her in the nose and she won $40,000 because the golf course had a "free lift" rule. (This allows golfers to toss balls which land near the rails to the other side.) The woman alleged that because the course allowed a free lift, they were, in effect, acknowledging the rails to be a hazard.

    A man who had purchased a BMW took his new car to a detailing shop for a fancier look and discovered that the car had been partly repainted before it was sold, due to damage done by acid rain. The man was awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages, and $4 Million in punitive damages. The court upheld the verdict, but cut the punitive damages to $2 million.

    A jury awarded $178,000 in damages to a woman who sued her former fiance' for breaking their seven-week engagement. The breakdown: $93,000 for pain & suffering; $60,000 for loss of income from her legal practice, and $25,000 for psychiatric counseling expenses.

    A 27-year-old man from Michigan was involved in a rear-end collision. Four years later, he sued the owners of the truck that was responsible for the accident. Having suffered minor injuries, he stated that from then on, his sexual relationship with his wife deteriorated, as he was unable to maintain their sex life. He claimed that he had been so affected by the crash that his personality had been forever changed. In fact, he maintained that the accident turned him into a homosexual. He left his wife, moved in with his parents, began hanging out in gay bars, and became a fervent reader of gay literature. He won his case and was awarded $200,000, while his wife received $25,000.

    THis one is from Canada: An Ontario woman who got drunk at an office party and crashed her car has successfully sued her employer for allowing her to drive -- even though her company offered a cab ride or accommodation if she gave up her keys. Linda Hunt, 52, won more than $300,000 in damages and interest from Sutton Group Realty Ltd. of Barrie, Ont. after arguing her boss should have stopped her from driving home in a snowstorm following a 1994 Christmas party." The judge assessed Hunt's damages from the resulting accident at C$1.2 million, but reduced that by three quarters to reflect her own fault in the matter. He "went on to declare it the duty of employers to monitor the alcohol consumption of employees at company functions."

    In 1997, Larry Harris of Illinois broke into a bar owned by Jessie Ingram. Ingram, the victim of several break-ins, had recently set a trap around his windows to deter potential burglars. Harris, 37, who was under the influence of both alcohol and drugs, must have missed the warning sign prominently displayed in the window. He set off the trap as he entered the window, electrocuting himself. The police refused to file murder charges. Harris’s family saw it differently, however, and filed a civil suit against Ingram. A jury originally awarded the Harris family $150,000. Later, the award was reduced to $75,000 when it was decided Harris should share at least half of the blame.

    Are you really prepared to argue that courts don't give awards to people who aren't victims? They do it all the time.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #35

    Apr 29, 2009, 08:50 AM

    Hello again, El:

    Your solution, of course, would be to limit the awards, even badly injured people get. I swear you own insurance company stock.

    excon
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #36

    Apr 29, 2009, 09:00 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, El:

    Your solution, of course, would be to limit the awards, even badly injured people get. I swear you own insurance company stock.

    excon
    No, excon. I have told you what my solution is. I think we should have a grand jury system for civil cases. That way, the frivolous cases get thrown out quickly and the meritorious ones move on to trial.

    But I seem to be the only one with that concept.

    Still, you are again going off topic. The question here isn't what to do about frivolous lawsuits. My point is a refutation of the statement that "people aren't awarded money by courts if they aren't victims".

    You seem to be having trouble staying on topic, excon. Are you suffering from ADD?

    (I don't have ADD... it's just that... oh, look, a bunny!! )

    Elliot
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #37

    Apr 29, 2009, 09:04 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by ETWolverine View Post
    But I seem to be the only one with that concept
    Hello again, El:

    I've noticed. Isn't it getting lonely?

    excon
    speechlesstx's Avatar
    speechlesstx Posts: 1,111, Reputation: 284
    Ultra Member
     
    #38

    Apr 29, 2009, 09:06 AM
    Watchdogs are heeling for Obama
    By: Richard Benedetto
    April 28, 2009 04:37 AM EST

    Last week, I asked my journalism and political science students at American University to grade the news media covering the Obama administration for the first 100 days. The consensus fell between a C+ and a B-.

    However, if I asked President Barack Obama's media strategists to grade the press corps covering their boss, I bet they would mark their cards with an A.

    Why? With few exceptions, the mainstream news media have been dutifully pushing the Obama message, burnishing his carefully crafted image and offering few challenges when he makes questionable or misleading pronouncements, gestures or policy statements. In short, they seem mesmerized by the glamour of this new and different president. He is keeping them so busy with skillfully staged daily travel, speeches, meetings and photo ops that they hardly have time to ask tough questions or add context to their stories. Whatever Obama says, or doesn't say, is usually good enough for them.

    No comment from the president on pirates taking hostage the captain of a U.S.-flagged ship? No problem.

    Get a new dog? Three days of extensive coverage everywhere.

    Obama strategists must be giving each other fist bumps as they chortle, “Boy, have we got them eating out of our hands.”
    See also

    The message they've been successfully pushing from Day One is that Obama is not bad old George W. Bush. Everything they have Obama do or say, from apologizing for American arrogance in Europe to releasing CIA memos outlining interrogation techniques used against suspected terrorists, carries a not-Bush subtext.

    And the news media have been only too happy to press that message, even when facts suggest otherwise. The Bush brand is so damaged, and Obama is so cool, they see no need to set the record straight when it's necessary.

    For example, when Obama spoke to the Turkish Parliament earlier this month, the big news story was his declaration that the United States “is not and never will be at war with Islam.”

    The phrase was headlined everywhere as a major departure from the bellicose Bush, who, by implication, was at war with Islam.

    But one fact was missing from most news stories. Bush said the same thing many times, including in September 2006, before the United Nations General Assembly — hardly an obscure forum.

    “President Bush tried to quell anti-Americanism in the Middle East yesterday by assuring Muslims that he is not waging war against Islam,” The Associated Press reported at the time.

    Bush's declaration might have fallen on deaf ears for many reasons. Nonetheless, Obama was only echoing his words. To say so is context in reporting. Lending the impression that Obama said it first is not. But it is precisely the impression the White House hoped to create. The news media obliged.

    Another example: Last week, when Obama attended the Summit of the Americas, he again seemed to draw a contrast with Bush by suggesting that anti-American sentiment in Latin America stemmed from the U.S. (Bush) ignoring the region's humanitarian needs.

    “If our only interaction with many of these countries is military, then we may not be developing the connections that can, over time, increase our influence,” Obama said in a news conference.

    The widely reported statement went unchallenged in the press. But the fact is that in fiscal 2008, the U.S. under Bush sent nearly $1 billion to Latin America for such nonmilitary needs as schools, health care, anti-poverty programs, refugee assistance and economic development.

    A few news outlets, notably The New York Times on April 3, have sporadically noted some similarities between the policies of Obama and Bush, especially in foreign affairs. Yet the media honeymoon continues:

    • Rock-star coverage by the TV networks of the president and first lady's tour of Europe.

    • An April 12 puff piece on White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel on the front page of The Washington Post, followed two days later by a similar profile of his deputy, Mona Sutphen.

    • A touching April 19 New York Times article, fed to the paper by the White House, on how the president reads 10 letters a day from ordinary citizens who write him.

    This is all well and good, as long as we do not forget our function as government watchdog. So far, we have.

    B- is a bit generous. C+ is about right. It's time to start barking.

    Richard Benedetto is a retired USA Today White House correspondent and columnist. He now teaches journalism and politics at American and Georgetown universities.
    So far in his 1st 100 days he's at least managed to mesmerize the media. They apparently drank the Koolaid.
    excon's Avatar
    excon Posts: 21,482, Reputation: 2992
    Uber Member
     
    #39

    Apr 29, 2009, 09:17 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    So far in his 1st 100 days he's at least managed to mesmerize the media. They apparently drank the Koolaid.
    Hello Steve:

    They did. People like Brian Ross of ABC, Mort Kondrake, Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, David Gregory, and most of the MSM did.

    They haven't changed since they lead the charge into Iraq. Their trumpeting is as wrong now as it was then. There are a few bloggers who didn't sip the koolaid, though. Neither did Keith Olbermann.

    excon
    ETWolverine's Avatar
    ETWolverine Posts: 934, Reputation: 275
    Senior Member
     
    #40

    Apr 29, 2009, 09:24 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, El:

    I've noticed. Isn't it getting lonely?

    excon
    If it's right it's right, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

    I don't base my ideas on what others say or think... not even Rush Limbaugh.

    Contrary to your opinion of me, I do think for myself.

    Elliot

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

I started my period 2 days after unprotected sex, It only lasted 2 1/2 days. [ 6 Answers ]

I know I've already asked if I could be pregnant because I started my period only 2 days after having sex. I've gotten feed back and that reassured me, but the weird thing is my period only lasted 2 days. I started on Tuesday morning and by late thursdy night I was already finished, which isn't...

Started because pack 2 days late, and I now have my period 15 days later [ 5 Answers ]

Hi, I was meant to start my first pill of my new pack Monday, march 16th. However I did not pick up my prescription until Tuesday night and so I started the pack Wednesday the 18th at my regular time. Usually when I forget a pill for a few hours I only bleed a little that same day, and then it...

Need to give 60 days notice, but rent is increasing in thirty days [ 3 Answers ]

I have rented the condo I am in now for over two years. After the initial lease term of one year, I went on a month-to-month basis. I am required to give 60 days notice prior to vacating the property. My landlord notified me at the end of this month (february) that the rent would be...


View more questions Search