Re: Hillary Underrates Women
- From: patrick.barnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 08:19:38 -0700
On Jul 22, 3:45 am, "MCP" <gf010w5...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.nysun.com/article/50601
By DIANA FURCHTGOTT-ROTH
March 16, 2007
To listen to Senator Hillary Clinton proposing gender pay equity legislation
last week, one might reasonably conclude that she is paid only 77% of Senator
Obama's $165,200 salary.
According to Senator Clinton, "More than forty years after the Equal Pay Act was
signed into law by President Kennedy, women still earn only 77 cents for every
dollar men earn for doing the same work."
Women do get paid 77 cents for every dollar men earn. But that's
where it ends. There's no "for doing the same work" involved. Men
get paid more precisely because they are doing *different* work and
the census shows that. Men get paid more. Men also have more
seniority, work longer hours, and work more demanding jobs.
Where men and women do actually work the same jobs, they receive the
same pay. This is in the same report which gives the 77 cents
statistic.
It's been literally years now, and they're still harping on that 77
cents thing. I don't understand how it ever got as far as it did when
the exact same report that came up with the 77 cents figure also said
it was an average figure across all jobs and not corrected for hours
worked, time in grade, or actual job functions.
That's why last week she reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act that she had
sponsored in the previous Congress. The bill would require the government to set
wage guidelines for different occupations, with the goal of equalizing wages of
men and women. "If the president will not sign my bill to ensure equal pay for
equal work, then as the next president, I will," she said last week at a
Washington fund-raiser.
I don't see how anybody could support such a thing in a free country.
Government mandated wages? A minimum wage to ensure companies don't
completely exploit workers is one thing, but what she's proposing
sounds positively socialist.
The senator's claim of unequal pay is exaggerated and distorted. Worse, her
remedy might cause employers to favor hiring men, to avoid the possibility of
being sued or boycotted under federal "guidelines."
This comment makes no sense to me. If a company didn't hire women to
avoid being sued over equal pay issues, they'd just end up getting
themselves sued over equal opportunity employment issues instead.
Mrs. Clinton tries to obscure the trend toward equal pay and the reality that
men and women generally have equal pay for equal work now - if they have the
same jobs, responsibilities, and skills. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are paid
identically, as are many other men and women with the same job.
My guess is that her proposed guidelines for equal work are going to
say a receptionist is equivalent to a fire fighter, a secretary is
equal to a lumberjack, etc.
It's a sad comment on America I think that she could propose as
undemocratic a thing as mandated wage ranges based off of a false
reading of a census report, and yet she's the front runner to run our
nation.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hillary Underrates Women
- From: MSNothing
- Re: Hillary Underrates Women
- References:
- Hillary Underrates Women
- From: MCP
- Hillary Underrates Women
- Prev by Date: Re: UK Bloggers in UK BEWARE!!
- Next by Date: Re: Hillary Underrates Women
- Previous by thread: Re: Hillary Underrates Women
- Next by thread: Re: Hillary Underrates Women
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|