Obama To Sign Executive Orders On Equal Pay

President Barack Obama will sign two new executive orders on equal pay for women Tuesday, Politico reports. The executive actions coincide with "Equal Pay Day" -- the date that symbolizes how far into 2014 women must work to earn the same amount of money men earned last year.

Both executive orders mirror provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which Congress has twice failed to pass. One would prohibit federal contractors from retaliating against employees who share their salary information with each other

The second executive order will instruct the Department of Labor to create new regulations requiring federal contractors to report wage-related data to the government, in the hope that it will hold them more accountable for salary differences based on sex or race.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Despite the fact the these will be signed due to elections coming up, I see these as only positive. In many fields, it is definitely an issue and these acts seem to be quite reasonable as well as having the potential of affecting the situation, whether it comes to discrimination on women or based on one´s race. Personally, I do not see reason, why should anyone have something against these.

Ok, on the outside it sounds good. But now we have the Gov't dictating what a company has to pay? Thats called min. wage.

Maybe there is some disparity in pay between the sexes and race. I guess they are talking mostly about white collar executive level jobs?

reply to post by Cabin


Hand outs and equality, given in vain. Can only cause more dependence, and lots more pain. For every sword they draw, has two sides too. But these sides are not equal, they are false and true.

Happen to agree with. Its outrageous they've blocked these positive type legislations for so long.

As a woman in the workforce, I will say that it is only the woman's fault for accepting lower pay. Every person negotiates their own deal. If a woman isn't negotiating the best deal for herself it is her own fault. If she negotiates a deal that includes lower pay than a man in the same position that's her problem. The job of the employer is to fill each position for the least amount possible and the employee's job is to negotiate the best deal possible for themselves.

Cabin

President Barack Obama will sign two new executive orders on equal pay for women Tuesday, Politico reports. The executive actions coincide with "Equal Pay Day" -- the date that symbolizes how far into 2014 women must work to earn the same amount of money men earned last year.

Both executive orders mirror provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which Congress has twice failed to pass. One would prohibit federal contractors from retaliating against employees who share their salary information with each other

The second executive order will instruct the Department of Labor to create new regulations requiring federal contractors to report wage-related data to the government, in the hope that it will hold them more accountable for salary differences based on sex or race.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Despite the fact the these will be signed due to elections coming up, I see these as only positive. In many fields, it is definitely an issue and I see that these acts seem to be quite reasonable and having the potential of affecting the situation, whether it comes to discrimination on women or based on one´s race. Personally, I do not see reason, why should anyone have something against these.

I couldn't agree more! F&S for the OP!

Kinda makes you wonder "who" in Congress voted against this legislation to begin with, not once but twice. What do you want to bet it was the republican party who caused this legislation to fail in the past.

Hell, as far as I'm concerned he should take it a step further and mandate that republican legislators only receive half pay due to their repeated insistence on doing anything but their actual jobs!

Cabin

President Barack Obama will sign two new executive orders on equal pay for women Tuesday, Politico reports. The executive actions coincide with "Equal Pay Day" -- the date that symbolizes how far into 2014 women must work to earn the same amount of money men earned last year.

Both executive orders mirror provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which Congress has twice failed to pass. One would prohibit federal contractors from retaliating against employees who share their salary information with each other

The second executive order will instruct the Department of Labor to create new regulations requiring federal contractors to report wage-related data to the government, in the hope that it will hold them more accountable for salary differences based on sex or race.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Despite the fact the these will be signed due to elections coming up, I see these as only positive. In many fields, it is definitely an issue and these acts seem to be quite reasonable as well as having the potential of affecting the situation, whether it comes to discrimination on women or based on one´s race. Personally, I do not see reason, why should anyone have something against these.

edit on 6-4-2014 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

This is terrible, once again Barrack Obamambo is ruining America.

What are we gonna do when women think they deserve the same pay as men? The poor business owners and corporations.

Next they'll wanna give women time off for having a baby

What is becoming of our country, progress yeah right

Fascism

reply to post by Cabin


Notice how this only applies to Federal Contractors?

Now imagine all of the people whom will read this and think it is for everyone......

Nothing more than an election tactic.

Plus, most businesses in the private sector are smart enough to have these things called "performance reviews" so it would be very difficult if not impossible to apply this so called law without creating a bigger log jam in our court system than we already have.

Equal pay for equal work? Equal pay for equal job performance? Not a problem with either of those scenarios.

But we all know what this is. Don't we??

reply to post by Cabin


I can see the positives in this, but also the negative in having a president unilaterally impose his will on a free people in-spite of congress.

Hey, if he can do this why not, by executive orders implement new strict gun regulations, and/or control free speech in the news media through the FCC (oops he almost did that) ...

He is a president, not a king, there is a process for actions like these for a reason.

reply to post by TXTriker


As another woman in the work place, I'd just like to drop this off. link

Women are expected to advocate for themselves, but, at the same time, they're also seen as too aggressive and viewed negatively if they do so.

That said, though, I don't like this legislation. All factors taken into account, and the pay gap is shown as the myth that it is, with women actually making 95+% of men. It's not perfect parity, but, then, it probably never will be.

Just because something is good, does not mean he can subvert the law.


I Like what it does, I do not like how he did it.


IF people where more politically aware, they would of voted out the A-holes that voted this down twice.

I get the reason obama likes the Executive orders, more so now during his 2nd. This is pandering to genders, its a half measure to start with (though any advance on this front is good) and it was done wrong.

We have a senate and congress for a reason, if laws that the people want, and that are good for the nation, can't get passed. Unable even to agree on a simple operational budget, how the hell are these people still in office?

This like everything else they do is pandering, . Federal contractors and reporting to the labor dept pay?

You want to know why this didn't pass? Special interest lobbying, companies do not want anything that mean they have to pay more...

SO Just like employees who got there full time cut from 40 to part time because mandatory health care, extrapolate that behavior with poorly thought out forced Executive order.


Fellas, get ready to make as much as the fairer sexes.

Equality, Yay.

ETA:

A bill that took the chance of employers lowering pay, rather than raising pay (remember its just statistics, a number on a spread sheet) I would be completely behind.

Its why we are supposed to have a congress, to make sure we don't pass crap that hurts the people...

So once again, how are we still electing dems and reps?

seeker1963
reply to post by Cabin

 

Notice how this only applies to Federal Contractors?

Now imagine all of the people whom will read this and think it is for everyone......

Nothing more than an election tactic.

Plus, most businesses in the private sector are smart enough to have these things called "performance reviews" so it would be very difficult if not impossible to apply this so called law without creating a bigger log jam in our court system than we already have.

Equal pay for equal work? Equal pay for equal job performance? Not a problem with either of those scenarios.

But we all know what this is. Don't we??

Don't Federal Contractors already have very define pay scales, so what is it that he is actually doing?

reply to post by Xtrozero


Don't you love the misleading and propagandized Obama latest scams? Good catch

First was increasing minimum wages, but only to federal workers no to the regular joe living from pay check to pay check, most Federal workers and government contracting firms are under salaries and they far from miminum pay


reply to post by Cabin


You fail to see the irony of the latest campaign geared propaganda that Obama has been doing while signing on executive powers, is nothing but misleading crap and does not affect regular everyday on hourly salary workers

Including the latest minimum wage raises, is to affect only contracting and gov. federal employees.

Most of the working force in this nation including women, are hard working minimum hourly pay employees on government assistance this days, all this sign ins under executive pen means nothing to them.

reply to post by seeker1963


I can not agree more, is nothing but more propagandized crap to mislead the gullible and hopeful out there that will believe anything they are spoon fed to them.

helping the middle class and poor my arse, now targeting women for votes, sorry Mr. president but your pen power doesn't extend to hard working single mothers on hourly salaries.

Yeah it is misleading.

Since most federal CONTRACTORS.

Are already well paid.

This is a very nice gesture. Unfortunately, it is unenforceable.

The human resources departments are as devious in their ability to creatively dodge the truth as the accounting departments are in cooking the books. They fudge, they hire swarms of lawyers, and they cover the truth.

Ask anyone caught in any pension swindle or age discrimination situation.

But, again, nice gesture anyway.

I've never, ever, understood why women's pay was ever less than men's for the same job description. Nor was I ever a proponent of such practices. However, the direction I see this going is that men's wages/salaries will be lowered to match. Kinda like minimum wage works.

AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by TXTriker

 

As another woman in the work place, I'd just like to drop this off. link

Women are expected to advocate for themselves, but, at the same time, they're also seen as too aggressive and viewed negatively if they do so.

That said, though, I don't like this legislation. All factors taken into account, and the pay gap is shown as the myth that it is, with women actually making 95+% of men. It's not perfect parity, but, then, it probably never will be.

I looked at the link and from my experience I don't think it is the norm - just my opinion. I just went through a meeting with my upper level manager about this very issue. Maybe because I have been a manager it is easier for me to understand both sides. Do I like it - no. And I work in a business that is notorious for men making more than women and being given more opportunity. This company works to promote based on the actions a "person" takes not on gender. There will always be "good ole boy" companies where women don't have the opportunity to excel and be recognized. Move on. When those companies can't function because the men don't want to do the work the women did they will close or sell and then the opportunity changes - maybe better maybe not. In any industry word of mouth determines the quality of the potential employees applying. Let the free market work and it will balance itself out.

As a building trade guy I can say that any job I work on that gets federal money pays prevailing wage. I think that is Davis_bacon or something. I am Union so prevailing wage doesnt really affect my pay other than keeping un qualified non union contractors from bidding some jobs.

Not to say all non union contractors are unqualified, just some.

So just a nothing law that looks good on paper

Not coming down on one side or the other, but some people fail to realize he isn't the only president have exercised an Executive Order.

In fact William Henry Harrison is the only one NOT to. But he was only in office 32 days.

All presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders that in general terms can be described as executive orders

the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme for executive orders in 1907, starting retroactively with an order issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln. The documents that later came to be known as "Executive Orders" probably gained their name from this document, captioned "Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana."[5]

Source