It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Personally, I do not see reason, why should anyone have something against these.
The second executive order will instruct the Department of Labor to create new regulations .
beezzer
Can someone show me an example where women aren't getting paid the same as men for equal work?
Oh wait, never mind. . .
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.
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??
FuZe7
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??
Nice post, it's truly scary how so many people in this thread can be so foolish.
FuZe7
FuZe7
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??
Nice post, it's truly scary how so many people in this thread can be so foolish.
Then again, it's to be expected considering the fact that liberals despise free choice and self determination.
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)
liejunkie01
Again,
Being in a union we don't have these issues.
I work along side a woman. She makes the exact same amount as everybody else.
These are great points. The only thing I'd add is that when I woman goes on pregnancy leave and follows up by spending a lot of time with her children, which is very common, it is naturally going to set her career track back a bit. Women generally don't work as many hours as men over the long-term so of course their pay is going to be lower despite doing the same job. Yes they are doing the same job but they are doing it for less hours. Its the fact that part-time jobs pay lower than identical full-time jobs. It makes total sense and has nothing to do with discrimination. It has to do with less hours and the fact that women do not negotiate in the same way men do... different negotiating styles result in different wages.
TXTriker
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.edit on 4/6/2014 by TXTriker because: typo