Is the equal pay act the stupidest of all laws?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Pi-Sudoku, Oct 6, 2006.

  1. Pi-Sudoku Slightly extreme Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    526
    The equal pay act states that two people who are doing equal work should recieve equal pay regardless of race, religion or gender.

    I think that this is the craziest of all laws because it assumes that either:

    1. An employer knows that they have two types of people that can do equal work, yet they decide to employ both groups despite paying one more than the other. If this was the case then surely they would choose to employ the cheaper labour

    2. That the employer believes that one type of person is superior to the other and therefore deserves more pay than the other. Surely in this case the law does not apply because equal work is not being done.




    I can't think of a situation where this law is usefull. I try hard

    Can anyone else?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    This sounds stupid because people negotiate for salary. If I'm a better negotiator, or if the employer is more desperate to fill a position, I should benefit.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, the law also doesn't take into account the employees longevity with the company and thus possible advancement to a more valuable position. Ie., if a woman applies for the job, but is pregnant, the employer will know damned well that she'll be taking "fat-woman" leave in a few months!

    What about one employee's personality being better or more easy going ...thus making the work place more enjoyable?

    What if the position is for a public position, greeting the public, etc. Would the employer want a fat, sweaty, ugly, bitchy-personality or a cute, sexy, well-built, smiling, helpful, flirting kind of person?

    Baron Max
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    People are paid for the value they contribute, not simply the "work" that they do. That includes everything you've all mentioned. Predicted longevity, which reduces the expense of training someone to replace you. Ability to get along, which reduces the chance of somebody else resigning because they can't stand you. Ambition and aptitude, which increase the chance that they'll be able to promote you to a higher position instead of going to the expense of training an outsider for it. The value you place on your own contribution--being paid less or more than you think you're worth has an effect on your own morale and everyone else's.
     
  8. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    Yes, I can:
    Equal pay laws have done a lot to redress male-female pay inequality - and it is the gender gap that is the main source of the imbalance, not differences between ethnic or religious groups (unless you compare 1st-world nations with their 3rd-world counterparts). These kinds of inequalities are still very common, so it's a bit premature to be thinking of scrapping the protection yet. Also, equal pay laws are much easier to enforce than anti-discrimination laws, which would be the only recourse for dissatisfied employees if equal pay laws were scrapped.
    What if they were a fat, sweaty, ugly, smiling, helpful, flirting kind of person?
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Women have been shown, time and time again, to fall in love and leave the company to get married and have children ...not to mention leaving the company to follow her husband to his new job in another state.

    Hiring a man is a gamble for a company, but hiring a woman is a very much larger gamble. Of course the company is going to try to lessen the impact of that gamble ...and be leery of hiring a woman.

    Baron Max
     
  10. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Nope! Fat, sweaty and ugly is automatic disqualifiers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Baron Max
     
  11. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I'd hire a woman any day over a self righteous, delusional boor such as yourself.
     
  12. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    But that doesn't answer the question posed at all, does it. You can't use a single example to prove some theoretical or philosophical point.

    So ....you post is not just worthless in the discussion, it's also a personal attack just for the sake of making a personal attack. Nice, huh?

    Baron Max
     
  13. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    You invite personal attack. As a sociable sort I am happy to oblige.

    The extreme prejudice of your views, evident through even a cursory examination of your posts, renders any argument you present suspect. Hence, a personal attack on you is an attack on the value of your statements. If you don't like the application of debating techniques, go somewhere else.
     
  14. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    My points and comments were precisely about the topic being discussed. And if you think for one minute that "attractiveness" is not a major factor in hiring, then you have a great deal to learn about life.

    Baron Max
     
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I've hired several hundred people in my life. I know something about the dynamics of interviews and selection. Do you have an equivalent, or superior experience level?
     
  16. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Baron:
    I don't agree with this...
     
  17. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Well, it would be a pretty sad, boring world if everyone on Earth agreed, now wouldn't it?

    But I've been involved in the hiring processes with several different companies and hiring personnel ......and it's a simple fact of life, and it's also one that's borne out in national statistics on hiring practices.

    No, you don't have to agree. In fact, you don't have to agree with the facts or the statistics ....all you have to say is, "I don't agree with this!" Easy, huh?

    Baron Max
     
  18. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    Hi Baron Max. It appears that you skipped reading comprehension class again. Go back and read the quote again, please. It states quite specifically that the data omits part-time workers, and compares like with like.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2006
  19. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Baron:
    What statistics? Can you post them, or give a specific reference?
     
  20. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Oh, geez, .....where the fuck do you think they got the info and data in order to pass the fuckin' law in the first fuckin' place!! Use your fuckin' head ...those stats wouldn't be published today ...they'd be faked in order to get around the laws!! Are you being totally stupid intentionally?

    Baron Max
     
  21. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Baron Max, can you provide the national statistics that you claim support your assertion? Yes or No?
     
  22. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Of course not, you idiot! Who would acknowledge such illegalities??? God, Hare, you're really something if you think that hiring practices are perfectly equal between men and women! Tell me, do you actually, truly, believe that???? ....for one single moment?

    Baron Max
     
  23. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Baron:
    In case we don't understand each other, I'm asking for 'national statistics' which demonstrate that hiring women is more of a gamble than hiring men.
     

Share This Page