Re: The moment John McCain lost the debate

On Oct 16 2008 8:22 PM, brewmaster wrote:

On Oct 16 2008 5:18 PM, JerseyRudy wrote:

On Oct 16 2008 6:09 PM, mo_charles wrote:

Uh, I do my job, and do it well. At the end of the year, I get a
review
(everyone here gets a review at the same time of year, in December).
If
you get a good review, you get a raise (paid annual salary).
Otherwise,
you get no raise. Your base salary changes, there is no distinction
which
part is for merit, it is just your salary. My job title has a salary
range from 80k to 200k. If you get near the top end they will try to
promote you to a new job title and new pay grade. There is no
difference
if you are male or female (although this industry is heavily heavily
male.
There are lots of women at my company but most of them are in
project
management, sales, marketing, etc. so salaries don't compare.

OK Thanks for the explanation. So will you answer this question: If
your
company, if another person was hired at the same time as you and
received
the same number of good annual reviews, should they be paid at the same
rate as you throughout your careers?

equal pay is total nonsense. if someone's a better negotiator, they
might
get paid better. not because they do better work, but because they're
more aggressive in pursuing their own interests. if two undergrads of
equal ability receive job offers, and one says *** you i want more (they
pay it), is the other entitled to either the raise or ludicrous damages?

mo_charles

No. Asking this question shows you don't understand the concept.

If one employee gets paid more because he is a better negotiator (or for
any other non-discriminatory reason) then the employer can use that as a
defense in any lawsuit.

What an employer cannot do is pay someone less BECAUSE they are a woman or
because they are Black or because they are Hindu or for any other legally
discriminatory reason. The employee has the burden of proving that they
were paid less BECAUSE of the discriminatory reason. It is not an easy
burden to prove, but Ledbetter had a strong case. The Supreme Court did
not give her a chance to prove her case because of a statute of
limitations standard that was impossible for her to meet.

It is hard to prove because every woman/black/hindu who isn't paid as much
as a "white man" claims they are being discriminated against, and it is
now the boy who cried wolf. The fact is that in 99% of cases, maybe
99.9%, they are being paid less because they are doing less, or inferior,
work, or have less seniority (you know, all the normal reasons).

You are quite clearly being obtuse if you are suggesting that 99+% of
cases that make it to ANY court, far less the SCOTUS, are based on
fraudulent bases.

Are you suggesting that the current rule is fair, that the statute of
limitation time clock starts ticking upon receipt of the first paycheck?
If so, why can you not go to your HR department and find out everyones'
salary?

Fell
--
Reality is only a nasty illusion brought about by having insufficient
alcohol in your bloodstream

ppdls, 08/08/08

------ 
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

.