Are women equal yet?

it still has its place, but the IT Certification industry has faced some systemic problems that no one has addressed since its emergence. ...

The study guide source with correct test and exam questions. Find Study Guides and practice tests for your IT Certification Exams . ...

high quality replica watches of well known brands - Jacob & Co, TAG Heuer, Cartier, Panerai and much more.

*If you want to buy replica watch, you have come to the right place! We are leading supplier of all kinds of REPLICA WATCHES.

Just thought I'd share the top debate piece from helium.

by Paul Elam

To answer this we must first get the question stated more accurately. The question really asks, "Should we force companies to pay based on sex rather than performance?"

Of course the correct answer is "no," at least for people who want to live in a culture free of sexism, especially when that sexism is mandated by the state. Governmentally enforced sexual discrimination is exactly what this type of question implies.

We live in a culture that is quick to rush into things that appear egalitarian, especially if they are perceived as ameliorating a problem suffered by groups already associated with some historical wrongs. This is a prime example of something that might appear promote progress while it actually serves to undermine it. The trick is to place reason over reactionism.

To make a point, let's examine a hypothetical.

John and Mary work at the XYZ Corporation doing the same job. John is to work early, completes his assignments on time and turns in work that is at or above the expectations of his job description. Mary is also at work early, completes most of her assignments on time, but for whatever reason only completes about 85% of the work that John does.

Under the guidelines proposed by the question XYZ will have a hard time giving John a raise unless they raise the pay of Mary as well. They will also be subject to litigation and bad publicity if they do the right thing by rewarding John. Companies usually make very quick decisions when choosing between fairness and cold cash. The latter wins every time.

Under the threat of such invasive laws, the company will be hamstrung in any efforts to recognize and reward top producers. Unless, of course, those producers happen to be women.

Sexist to the very core. And illegal by our current laws.

They tried this in Ontario, Canada, where every employer must rate every job to make sure women are getting paid as much as men. The law resulted in cumbersome and complicated sets of rules from the Canadian Pay Equity Commission.

Sheldon Kaplan, of a large Canadian company that sows and sells sofa cushions lamented in an ABC News 20/20 interview, "We spent months and tens of thousands of dollars to do a 3-cent adjustment that may not have even been necessary."

A follow-up study by the Canadian Bureau of Economics concluded the law "had no effect on aggregate wages in female jobs or the gender wage gap,"

It shouldn't be surprising. It's hard to have an impact on something that doesn't exist. That supposed gender wage gap, like the one reported in America by the American Association of University Women, is predicated on faulty methodology resulting in very misleading conclusions.

The statistics are based on a raw average of men's and women's income. Thus a female file clerk who works forty hours a week is averaged in with a male chemical engineer who works fifty-five hours a week.

Pay difference, yes. Gender based discrimination, no. And it is convincing of why the legislation failed to impact the alleged gap in pay.

Until we make laws that force women to pursue different career choices, they will never earn what men do. Calling that discrimination is a duck and fade on the real issues.

Not that it would pay any company to practice such discrimination in the first place. If women were really paid only .77-cents for every dollar paid to men for the same work, as the AAUW erroneously concludes, the wise entrepreneur would only hire women.

"I hope my competitors discriminate," says Kaplan. "I want my competitors to discriminate because they will go out of business."

For companies fighting for the competitive edge, the only bottom line is the bottom line. The reality is that pay discrimination adds to the cost of doing business. Whether that happens as a result of gender bias or legal imposition doesn't make any difference.

If some companies are still foolish enough to pay women less for the same work, their increased costs and legal vulnerabilities already in place will hinder their ability to compete. Mimicking that same foolishness at the level of government is not an answer.

And speaking of answers, they tend to make a lot more sense when we are asking the right questions.

The truth is if women did the same work for less a smart company would just higher all women and get a competitive edge. Obviously that's not the case. I hate it when the same study is done over and over again. Yes, it's true women get payed 80% of what men do. Why? Because... (I'm going to copy and paste straight from helium since they had a great debate there on this very same matter.)

"
The fact of the matter is that when they compare the amount that women make to the amount that men make, they look at education. A woman with a degree should make the same as a man with a degree, according to them. They view a degree in art history the equivalent of a degree in computer science and don't take into account market demand. Nor do they take into account the difference in seniority levels - men often have far more seniority than women, because women often drop out of the work force earlier, to raise a family. They also don't take into account the fact that men put in more hours, because women often spend more time with their family, and don't want to put in 60 hours a week at the office.

The wage gap is a myth, for the most part. Once you factor in field of study, experience, and hours worked, it's pretty even - and of course, far more women than men make gratutities, which rarely get reported to the Statistics bureau. All we see is that the poor waitress is making 5$ an hour, and that lucky short order cook is making 6$ an hour. The 15$/hour she makes in tips isn't factored in.

Now, no one wants to see someone get less of a wage simply because of their gender, but the statistics being presented are misleading, and the proposed 'equality'legislatio n, would actually give women a big advantage over men, as opposed to making things equal.

No, things are not all rosy for women, but forcing employers to pay more for less is not the answer. The answer is:

- making sure that single parents have affordable daycare.
- making sure that women are not penalized for taking maternity leave.
- getting men to take on 50% of the child-rearing responsibility.

Until these things happen, and equal-wage proponents start recognizing the truth, women will never have equality.
"

I'm not naive, I'm sure discrimination exists. For example, imagine starting a company and you can only hire one engineer. You'll have to invest a lot of time and money training this employee and it will take years of hard work to pay dividends. This is your company and you only have one shot at it. Now imagine two equally qualified male and female applicants. Both just married. Now let's be honest. In the best interest of your company who are you going to hire??? I know if I'm honest with myself I would be worried that the woman might decide to have a baby. I might be WRONG but do I chance it? This simple scenario is just one example of valuing one sex over the other. There are many more and until we can expect truly equal work in terms of hours worked, years of uninterrupted work, types of jobs taken, meaning until we see just as many construction workers, oil riggers, computer programmers, engineers, traveling jobs being had by women there will NEVER be equal pay. Period. And there shouldn't be. Look, I've worked at a few big companies. HR is dominated by females. Don't you think they would all raise flags if there weren't valid reasons for the pay discrepancies?

There was nothing wrong with his quote. If I, as a man are committed to a job or project, and bust my butt, I don't have a problem with an 8-5'er not being paid like me. We aren't all government-type workers. In private industry, you can work harder than other people to get ahead.

Nice. Real nice.

As I understand it, the issue was the law. She lost her case because she waited too late to complain- and it fell outside of the court's jurisdiction since it was beyond the statute of limitation for that act (pay discrimination).

Since, Congress acted to increase the length of time one can claim pay discrimination. I think their act makes every paycheck a new "incident", and therefore starts the date over again.

As I understand it, it isn't a simple question of pay women less= bad. In the real world it is really subjective as to how much someone contributes to an organization. In government it is usually easy: you are paid based on a rank and time in service.

In the civilian world, one must look at a person's credentials, figure how much they contribute currently, and how much they will contribute potentially in the future- and pay that person comensurate to a level that will keep them in the company and working hard. It is fundamentally a judgment call- and any attempt to make it "fair" or "equal" is a lost cause. To bunch all the stats together and make a blanket statement that sommething isn't fair is something only advocates and politicians do. To try to force this concept of "equality" may help a few women who were truly discriminated against, but I am of the opinion that the main outcome of this legislation will be to burden businesses unnecessarily.

But- like the concept of "equality"- my opinion is subjective, and you may disagree with it...

- Grant Martin
Midwest Voices Guest Columnist, class of '09

You make a dimwitted comment, you get to buddy up with troglodytes like KCGrunt.

Oh, yeah, it's dimwitted. Unless you have Secret Knowledge that Ledbetter was a slacker, or unless you're implying that women are particularly prone to goof off but want the same pay as men, the fact that on average, nationwide, women get paid 80% of what men do for the same work means that women get paid less than men for the same work. For KCGrunt, that's that lib book-larnin' agin, not that good ol' practickul common sense that he's full of, but for everybody else it means that women get paid less than men for the same work. You like that? Great. You think that trying to change that is liberal interference with the marketplace? Great. Try not to bruise yourself on the doorframe as you make your tenth trip to the restroom this morning while all the hardworking men in your office glare at you.

It’s good that we don’t carry any here.

We approach this from personal perspectives often. Employers do not often participate in this blog. In this “buyers market” the employee’s risk is higher in raising one’s voice against inequality.

Some businesses are clubs with exclusionary cultures, above the law, where profit is king. But for every critic of this article, currently with 110 reads, there is a score or more nodding in approval, not nodding off dismissing the reality.

“The Revolution will not be televised…” (Gil Scott-Heron).

Tom Ryan
The Crossroads
Kansas City, MO

However, you are correct in saying you are out of the club. Real-life experience doesn't count for the book-smart lib who knows the differences have just got to be some type of discrimination. Never could it be skill or actual work performance.

Victimhood equals lib jobs, pay for performance equals lib unemployment.