100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Obama's One-Dollar Promise to Women | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
There is a code of practice on equal pay that employers are expected to follow , which they have access to in order to aid them. My understanding is that those who can be shown to NOT be administering equal pay under those codes, are then in violation and appropriate legal measures may be taken. Many employers dont bother to concern themself with the codes though and just pay whatever they can get away with,,which is pretty ethically abhorrent in my opinion. I might find a babysitter who would be willing to watch three kids for 3 or 4 dollars and hour,,but my ethics would never allow me to rip someone off that way just because they may be ignorant of their real value. Then please let me know when you'll be hiring 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He's getting pretty desperate when he implies women are stupid enough to fall for the BS. It's all talk again. Notice a pattern?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a code of practice on equal pay that employers are expected to follow , which they have access to in order to aid them. My understanding is that those who can be shown to NOT be administering equal pay under those codes, are then in violation and appropriate legal measures may be taken. Many employers dont bother to concern themself with the codes though and just pay whatever they can get away with,,which is pretty ethically abhorrent in my opinion. I might find a babysitter who would be willing to watch three kids for 3 or 4 dollars and hour,,but my ethics would never allow me to rip someone off that way just because they may be ignorant of their real value. Then please let me know when you'll be hiring
Nah, I wish I were. But being my mom was an EEOC officer, I can attain loads of information about EPA laws , how they work, and how they are enforced. On behalf of the employers, they arent easy to prove,,but on the behalf of employees if they can actually prove it they will be entitled to some compensation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
they would also have the burden to prove they performed their duties the same as the men did correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 02/06/10 07:26 AM
|
|
they would also have the burden to prove they performed their duties the same as the men did correct? Maybe, maybe not. If it is a question where RAISES have been involved it would be necessary to prove an equality in performance. If the comparison is between salaries or wages before any review or raises, than it only needs to be shown that the job REQUIREMENTS(seems not to be a concept many employers know about anymore though) were being met. This would be a bit easier to prove because an employer would be expected to FIRE a person not doing their job instead of continuing to retain them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a code of practice on equal pay that employers are expected to follow , which they have access to in order to aid them. My understanding is that those who can be shown to NOT be administering equal pay under those codes, are then in violation and appropriate legal measures may be taken. Many employers dont bother to concern themself with the codes though and just pay whatever they can get away with,,which is pretty ethically abhorrent in my opinion. I might find a babysitter who would be willing to watch three kids for 3 or 4 dollars and hour,,but my ethics would never allow me to rip someone off that way just because they may be ignorant of their real value. what you described is capitalism ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a code of practice on equal pay that employers are expected to follow , which they have access to in order to aid them. My understanding is that those who can be shown to NOT be administering equal pay under those codes, are then in violation and appropriate legal measures may be taken. Many employers dont bother to concern themself with the codes though and just pay whatever they can get away with,,which is pretty ethically abhorrent in my opinion. I might find a babysitter who would be willing to watch three kids for 3 or 4 dollars and hour,,but my ethics would never allow me to rip someone off that way just because they may be ignorant of their real value. what you described is capitalism ... I know , capitalisms flaw is that it is breeding ground for the unethical, the greedy and the selfish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
cashu
on
Sat 02/06/10 08:41 PM
|
|
they would also have the burden to prove they performed their duties the same as the men did correct? NO it won't even be job for job . they came up with a formula for it based on the requirement of a job being equal not the same job . if it takes a high school diploma then any job that requires a high school diploma well be paid the same . capitalism is what made this country great . lack of morally is what put us here today . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This would be a bit easier to prove because an employer would be expected to FIRE a person not doing their job instead of continuing to retain them.
The problem is, a LOT of places that I can name from personal experience will not fire the person who stands around doing nothing, they will go after the one who complains about the one who is doing nothing. Their reasoning? The one doing the complaining is "causing unneeded tension" in the work place. Also, again from personal experience which is why I use this example, a LOT of the time (not all but a lot) the one who is not doing their job adequately is a minority figure, and the employer will not do anything because of this, afraid of being sued for discrimination. The sad fact is, discrimination laws were needed in the past, and still are to a point. HOWEVER, the people who enforce these laws (judges and lawyers) need to quit protecting people just because of their minority status, and start backing up employers who actually do fire a young woman, or a black person because they are not doing their job properly or well enough. There needs to be no {minority} in the work force at all, only legal residents of the country who are human in race. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This would be a bit easier to prove because an employer would be expected to FIRE a person not doing their job instead of continuing to retain them.
The problem is, a LOT of places that I can name from personal experience will not fire the person who stands around doing nothing, they will go after the one who complains about the one who is doing nothing. Their reasoning? The one doing the complaining is "causing unneeded tension" in the work place. Also, again from personal experience which is why I use this example, a LOT of the time (not all but a lot) the one who is not doing their job adequately is a minority figure, and the employer will not do anything because of this, afraid of being sued for discrimination. The sad fact is, discrimination laws were needed in the past, and still are to a point. HOWEVER, the people who enforce these laws (judges and lawyers) need to quit protecting people just because of their minority status, and start backing up employers who actually do fire a young woman, or a black person because they are not doing their job properly or well enough. There needs to be no {minority} in the work force at all, only legal residents of the country who are human in race. Hopefully someday we will be there. Considering how many racists came out of the woodwork lately to hang with the "baggers" racism is still a big problem in this country. To see the racist art and remarks about our president shows we are a long way from equal employment practices. So we will need the laws until the day comes when people grow a brain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This would be a bit easier to prove because an employer would be expected to FIRE a person not doing their job instead of continuing to retain them.
The problem is, a LOT of places that I can name from personal experience will not fire the person who stands around doing nothing, they will go after the one who complains about the one who is doing nothing. Their reasoning? The one doing the complaining is "causing unneeded tension" in the work place. Also, again from personal experience which is why I use this example, a LOT of the time (not all but a lot) the one who is not doing their job adequately is a minority figure, and the employer will not do anything because of this, afraid of being sued for discrimination. The sad fact is, discrimination laws were needed in the past, and still are to a point. HOWEVER, the people who enforce these laws (judges and lawyers) need to quit protecting people just because of their minority status, and start backing up employers who actually do fire a young woman, or a black person because they are not doing their job properly or well enough. There needs to be no {minority} in the work force at all, only legal residents of the country who are human in race. If only people were that unwilling to stereotype race,,,,, I dont wish people to avoid acknowledging racial (ancestral and cultural) differences, I just wish people would not use race alone to pre judge others,,,,which still occurs quite a bit in the workplace and everyday life. My original point about that was if me and sam are doing the same job and yet they are paying him more,,,their excuse that I didnt do my job would not stand because they would be expected to not retain me if that were indeed true. They could try to argue that he does a BETTER job, which would be harder to disprove. |
|
|
|
|
