Quote:Days after issuing a bland statement supporting women’s equality, the Trump administration halted a key equal pay initiative on Tuesday put in place by the Obama administration.
The scrapped provision would have required employers to report aggregate information on how much they pay workers ― broken down by gender, race and ethnicity ― and would have been a critical first step in figuring out the scope of the pay gap at different companies.
Instead, the Office of Management and Budget said in a memo this week that it was halting implementation so it could review the provision, citing concerns about paperwork and privacy.
BRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS At the Republican National Convention last summer, Ivanka Trump said she and her father were committed to equal pay for women.
Ivanka Trump, who speaks frequently about the importance of equal pay for women and who promised last summer that her father feels similarly, issued a statement supporting the move.
“Ultimately, while I believe the intention was good and agree that pay transparency is important, the proposed policy would not yield the intended results,” Trump said on Tuesday. “We look forward to continuing to work with [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission], [the Office of Management and Budget], Congress and all relevant stakeholders on robust policies aimed at eliminating the gender wage gap.”
She offered no further explanation for the administration’s action or her endorsement of it.
Women’s groups universally decried the move.
“This is not a technical tweak as they would have you believe. Make no mistake— it’s an all-out attack on equal pay,” Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement on Tuesday.
“Today’s action sends a clear message to employers,” Graves added. “If you want to ignore pay inequities and sweep them under the rug, this Administration has your back.”
They also took aim at the president’s eldest daughter for betraying her purported commitment to working women.
“For somebody who has long held herself out as a champion for women and for gender equality, it’s really disappointing,” Vicki Shabo, vice president for workplace policy and strategy at the National Partnership for Women and Families, told HuffPost on Wednesday.
“[This] spits in the eye of gender equality and in the eyes of women and people of color who are so often paid less and do not know.” Subscribe to the Politics email How will Trump’s administration impact you?
Quote:[This] spits in the eye of gender equality and in the eyes of women and people of color who are so often paid less and do not know.Vicki Shabo, National Partnership for Women and Families
On average, women in the U.S. are paid 80 cents for every dollar men earn, according to federal data. The pay gap for women of color is even worse. Hispanic women earn 54 cents on the dollar, while black women make 63 cents. Even when researchers analyze the data and account for differences in education and time spent in the labor force, the wage gap persists.
Interestingly, Ivanka Trump’s book, a bland treatise called Women Who Work, mentions the term “equal pay” only once, focusing more on individual moves women can make to achieve success in the workplace. “When you’re passionate and work hard you can achieve great things,” she writes.
But even when a woman is going full-steam ahead at work, she may not realize that her male peers are out-earning her. After 19 years as a manager at a Goodyear plant in Alabama, Lilly Ledbetter famously found out she had been making less than her male colleagues after someone sent her an anonymous note. Her lawsuit led to the passage of equal pay legislation in 2009.
Employers are now required to report information about the race, ethnicity and gender of their employees. Starting a few years ago, tech companies have made their Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports public, which has led to a painful ― but fruitful ― discussion about the lack of women in the tech industry.
It’s easy to imagine how pay data would’ve advanced the conversation even further and made it easier for federal regulators to spot patterns of discrimination.
“Having pay data in summary form will help us identify patterns that may warrant further investigation,” the former chairwoman of the EEOC said last year at a conference in New York. In the past, she said, “we’d learn about a pay-discrimination problem because someone saw a piece of paper left on a copy machine or someone was complaining about their salary to co-workers.”
Companies with more than 100 workers were set to receive a new form to report the data in September and start providing more detailed information to the EEOC in 2018.
Most employers were already preparing to file this data, according to Shabo. Indeed, in recent years, activist shareholders have been pressuring public companies to report data ― a few companies, including Apple and Amazon, have started opening up about gender and pay.
Stopping the Obama administration provision from going into effect was the result of an orchestrated effort by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the federal contractors business lobby and anti-worker and anti-regulatory senators on the Hill, Shabo said.
It’s even more disappointing because the provision already represented a compromised effort, she added. “It wasn’t as comprehensive or as detailed as we would’ve liked. This was something that was put together with the ease and efficiency of the employer community in mind.”
Still, there had been rumors since January that this would happen, and it’s hard to be surprised that the White House, which has been openly hostile to women’s rights ― by rolling back provisions on contraception and reinstating harsh restrictions on women’s health around the world ― would make such a move.
“This is not a woman- or family-friendly administration,” Shabo said.
I was going to ask why conservatives never want actual data to make their decision but then I remembered that this same administration wants all of your voter registration information.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(09-02-2017, 01:34 PM)Griever Wrote: yeah how dare we pay people the same amount of money
not all women feel their own worth is being a stay at home mom
I agree with the sentiment, but the regulation as I understand it didn't do anything to address inequalities. Maybe some employers would've seen the pay difference and done something, but many were just delegating that job to someone else anyway. Most likely an underpaid employee.
Women get (typically) paid less. Let's fix that instead of adding more paperwork to business owners.
(09-02-2017, 12:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This was a massive waste anyway.
Yet again another terrible plan from obama.
(09-02-2017, 01:45 PM)Benton Wrote: I agree with the sentiment, but the regulation as I understand it didn't do anything to address inequalities. Maybe some employers would've seen the pay difference and done something, but many were just delegating that job to someone else anyway. Most likely an underpaid employee.
Women get (typically) paid less. Let's fix that instead of adding more paperwork to business owners.
It's really just a payroll thing.
We do censuses all the time for the insurance company, the workers comp, etc. Gathering data would be the first step to seeing if there is an actual problem and a possible fix.
Data never hurts if you ask me.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(09-02-2017, 01:45 PM)Benton Wrote: I agree with the sentiment, but the regulation as I understand it didn't do anything to address inequalities. Maybe some employers would've seen the pay difference and done something, but many were just delegating that job to someone else anyway. Most likely an underpaid employee.
Women get (typically) paid less. Let's fix that instead of adding more paperwork to business owners.
That's what I was thinking. If it addressed the issue and actually fixed it, that'd be great. But it's important to think of the implications of requiring companies to do stuff like this because it costs man hours, which in turn costs companies more money. That's not to say costing companies more money is the focus here but rather about whethet or not whar the companies are being requiered to do is an effective process.
Calling it an "equal pay rule" is rather misleading, likely intentionally misleading. It didn't actually actively do anything towards it.
It's really a "report how much you pay all your people so we can get statistics proposal". So they can hire a couple hundred people to parse through the data, and nothing will come from it other than more government spending and some high ranking government person being able to have a bigger metaphorical d*** to swing when their budget becomes bigger than someone else's from it.
(09-02-2017, 01:34 PM)Griever Wrote: yeah how dare we pay people the same amount of money
not all women feel their own worth is being a stay at home mom
The government collecting data does nothing to do with anyone's pay. It's just the government collecting information it doesn't need to know.
Besides the pay gap is a myth. Women and men are paid the same when they have same exp and qualifications. The reason there is a change in pay is because women choose to leave the work force and have a family
(09-02-2017, 04:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Besides the pay gap is a myth. Women and men are paid the same when they have same exp and qualifications. The reason there is a change in pay is because women choose to leave the work force and have a family
Is there a study with data to back that up and if so how did they go about collecting the information to reach that conclusion?
Let's see if that makes sense next to the sentence:
(09-02-2017, 04:24 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The government collecting data does nothing to do with anyone's pay. It's just the government collecting information it doesn't need to know.
Because *I* would say that that is why we need the data: People just spout of whatever they believe with little to no facts to back it up.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(09-02-2017, 06:21 PM)GMDino Wrote: Is there a study with data to back that up and if so how did they go about collecting the information to reach that conclusion?
Let's see if that makes sense next to the sentence:
Because *I* would say that that is why we need the data: People just spout of whatever they believe with little to no facts to back it up.
Couple problems with that six minute ad for donations:
1) They cite studies but provide no evidence that that is what the studies said versus their interpretation. For example: I looked up the 2009 DOL wage gap study. There is a 2015 version and guess what? The wage gap is real and shrinking. But real. And that about 1/3 was due to different wages and occupations.
2) Prager "U" (lol) is listed a conservative alternative to "left" education. So...slanted.
3) When I say "equal pay for equal work" that is what I mean. I don't expect a woman who is waitress to make the same as a man who is a construction worker. I expect a woman and a man doing the same job to get the same wage if they do the same work the same way.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(09-02-2017, 07:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Couple problems with that six minute ad for donations:
1) They cite studies but provide no evidence that that is what the studies said versus their interpretation. For example: I looked up the 2009 DOL wage gap study. There is a 2015 version and guess what? The wage gap is real and shrinking. But real. And that about 1/3 was due to different wages and occupations.
2) Prager "U" (lol) is listed a conservative alternative to "left" education. So...slanted.
3) When I say "equal pay for equal work" that is what I mean. I don't expect a woman who is waitress to make the same as a man who is a construction worker. I expect a woman and a man doing the same job to get the same wage if they do the same work the same way.
Quote:Women take almost 50 percent more short term sick leave than men, finds research in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. But they don't take more long term sick leave, the findings show. Physical health problems, physical work demands, and work fatigue were more commonly reported by women. And they were 46% more likely than men to call in sick for short periods of a few days. Women may be better at recognizing problems and going to the doctor for treatment, suggest the researchers.
There have been a lot of other studies that show women are more likely to take sick days and flexibility of hours for women are generally regarded as more important than pay, while men are the opposite and generally focus more on pay than hour flexibility.
Quote: --On the days they worked, employed men worked 56 minutes more than
employed women. This difference partly reflects women's greater
likelihood of working part time. However, even among full-time workers
(those usually working 35 hours or more per week), men worked longer
than women--8.4 hours, compared with 7.8 hours. (See table 4.)
Full-time worker vs full-time worker, men worked 36 minute longer days than women and women are 46% more likely to take a sick day. Even if you say a man and a woman are doing the same job with the same educational level, and have the same amount of job experience (which generally isn't the case because women more often end their working career earlier to start a family, while men continue on, thus leading to an experience disparity)... If you are going to give a raise to someone and you can choose the person working more and taking less time off, or the person working less and taking more time off, who are you going to choose? Exactly.
(09-02-2017, 07:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Couple problems with that six minute ad for donations:
1) They cite studies but provide no evidence that that is what the studies said versus their interpretation. For example: I looked up the 2009 DOL wage gap study. There is a 2015 version and guess what? The wage gap is real and shrinking. But real. And that about 1/3 was due to different wages and occupations.
2) Prager "U" (lol) is listed a conservative alternative to "left" education. So...slanted.
3) When I say "equal pay for equal work" that is what I mean. I don't expect a woman who is waitress to make the same as a man who is a construction worker. I expect a woman and a man doing the same job to get the same wage if they do the same work the same way.
You asked for information.
Should have known your prime move would be to just dismiss lol
There have been a lot of other studies that show women are more likely to take sick days and flexibility of hours for women are generally regarded as more important than pay, while men are the opposite and generally focus more on pay than hour flexibility.
Full-time worker vs full-time worker, men worked 36 minute longer days than women and women are 46% more likely to take a sick day. Even if you say a man and a woman are doing the same job with the same educational level, and have the same amount of job experience (which generally isn't the case because women more often end their working career earlier to start a family, while men continue on, thus leading to an experience disparity)... If you are going to give a raise to someone and you can choose the person working more and taking less time off, or the person working less and taking more time off, who are you going to choose? Exactly.
What troubles me about this is that it is incomplete data to make such an assessment. If women spend about a half-hour less per day working than men, okay, we have that measured. But what is their productivity? Are they completing the same work, more, less? How is their effectiveness and efficiency? If I have someone that spends an hour less working chained to their desk a day on average, but yet they produce the same number of widgets at the same level of quality (or higher in either case), guess who I give the raise to.
I honestly don't know what the answer here is, but I know that based on the data presented it does not provide adequate evidence to refute the existence of a wage gap between men and women for equal work.
(09-02-2017, 11:50 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I think the wage gap will shrink to nonexistent as long as more and more men become "House Husbands" and "Stay at Home Dads".
We have a fear our daughters will bring one of those home.
(09-02-2017, 09:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which, while true, doesn't refute his argument.
What troubles me about this is that it is incomplete data to make such an assessment. If women spend about a half-hour less per day working than men, okay, we have that measured. But what is their productivity? Are they completing the same work, more, less? How is their effectiveness and efficiency? If I have someone that spends an hour less working chained to their desk a day on average, but yet they produce the same number of widgets at the same level of quality (or higher in either case), guess who I give the raise to.
I honestly don't know what the answer here is, but I know that based on the data presented it does not provide adequate evidence to refute the existence of a wage gap between men and women for equal work.
By definition, if someone is working less and taking more sick days, they're not doing the job "the same way", which is what his point was. How does that not refute it?
You tell me where in the Obama proposal that got cancelled, it would measure every single worker's productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency in the country. Are we just going to employ half the country to just sit there and hover, watching the other half work for 6 months, grading everything they do? Then have that half of the country switch watch the other half?
If you think there's not adequate evidence now, then you're simply never going to find it unless you just make everyone work under 24/7 constant surveillance, and grade them all. This program sure as hell wouldn't have given you that evidence, it'd just tell you how much people are getting paid. Heck, I never even saw where it said where it took into account how much overtime they work, or how long they've been doing the job.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If taking less sick days, and working longer hours isn't enough proof for you (somehow)... then here's the final thing I can provide you. Families and job experience:
Say you have 20 people working the exact same job, 10 men and 10 women, and we ignore the fact that the women would take more sick days and work less hours. In this scenario they all work the same amount, the same amount of sick days, and have the same productivity and everything. The job has 0 promotion opportunity, a starting salary of $50,000 and, fixed $2k pay raises each year. All the workers are hired at age 20, and any empty job spots will be replaced by a person of the same gender that left.
They all work 5 years, all of their pay is up to $60,000/yr.
Then 2 women retire to have a family. 2 new women are hired at the starting salary of $50,000.
Average salary:
Men, $60,000/yr
Women, $58,000/yr
Another 5 years pass, the original people are now making $70k/yr. One man leaves for another job. Two more women retire for families, and one leaves for another job. 1 man and 3 women are hired at the same $50,000 starting salary.
Average salary:
Men, $68,000/yr
Women, $57,000/yr
WOAH, salary different, despite them all doing the exact same work, same production, but when you average it out, the men are making 19.3% more than the women! Why? Because the men collectively have on average 9 years of experience, against the women's collective average of 6 years of experience.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Obviously the salaries and raises and all of that are made up for the sake of the example, but it's based in reality.
As of 2014...
56.4% of males age 16-24 are in the workforce. The same category for women? 53.6%, a difference of +2.8% for men.
45.9% of males age 55 or older are in the workforce. The same category for women? 34.9%, a difference of +11% for men.
People with more experience at a job, are generally going to get paid more. A doctor who's been working at a hospital for 30 years is going to make more than one who's been working there for 15.
Then you add in the factors of women taking more sickdays and working less time to the fact that there are more experienced men in the workforce than women.
1. Take less time off.
2. Work more.
3. More experienced.
If those three still don't convince you, you were never looking to, or allowing yourself to be convinced in the first place, regardless of proof or logic.
![[Image: 59a6c61c1e00002800a74de5.jpeg?ops=scalef..._noupscale]](https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/59a6c61c1e00002800a74de5.jpeg?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
