First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Obama to force Employers to disclose employee salaries
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16

dotsforlife wrote:

Not that this is going to prove their myth or anything, but I hope this isn't on a personal level that these salaries are being revealed and more so at a grade level. It doesn't sound like it is. I didn't read the article.


The articles do not say how salaries will be compared, so I cannot say for certain.
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16

sarteck wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


sarteck wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Personally, at first, it may have solved something. Be ware it was 60s when it was initiated, and people I believe were more racist back then, hence my disclaimer, "at that time".


There is no doubt in my mind (although I don't have immediate proof to support it) that you are correct in that people in general were racist to a higher degree during the 60's than they were today.

However, forced diversity is never an acceptable solution.

"Hi, we don't care about who can actually do the job, you need to hire [insert minority] to be diverse."

We live in a meritocracy, in a capitalist society. Unless you can make an argument for hiring minorities being MORE EXPENSIVE than hiring the majority, you cannot argue that "minorities are being kept out of jobs because they are a minority."

If corporations could get away with paying women or black people or any other minority less, don't you think they'd exploit that in a heartbeat? The roles would be completely reversed.


That's not how it works. By hiring them you'd be treating them as equals, not as slaves. Many workers would object to being considered the equal of black folk. It did accomplish its goal of getting people to hire minorities, and I don't see where it went wrong. What, did a race war erupt or something? One could say the desegregation of schools was made in a similar vein (Although some aren't merited, but rather required.)


Then (just as now) there are claims (however legit or not) about people getting a position because of their skin color, or NOT getting a position because of their lack of melanin. Hell, this actually happened to me, and the guy that DID get the job is one of my best friends, and even he doesn't understand how he got it over me. (He actually quit about a year later and came to work where I work now.)

"Did race wars erupt," you ask? No, but just as today, diversity quotas are a HUGE factor in cross-race tensions and lately even cross-gender tensions. It is still today a huge topic, especially among those seeking employment.

And yeah, that -is- how capitalism works. YOu do what will make you the most money for your company. If you can get away with paying one group of people less for the same job, you do it.

"De-segregation" in public schools is not the same as "forced diversity" in jobs. Do you compete for the position of 3rd grader? No, of course not. IS your status of being a 9th grader hinging on someone else NOT making it to 9th grade? No. Two completely different beasts. I'm completely against segregation.



Black people were consistently denied economic opportunities. Forced diversity solved this. I'm not arguing for it now, I'm arguing for it then. To deny it as saying "well, maybe it wasn't because he's black" is to say racism didn't exist. One could also say that he got the job because "he was qualified, not black."


and I don't think you realize how far a person will take their racism. I was a racist at one point, and would not touch food made by blacks. What, you honestly expect people to employ blacks because hail capitalism? I sorely doubt THAT would happen immediately.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16

sarteck wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

Not that this is going to prove their myth or anything, but I hope this isn't on a personal level that these salaries are being revealed and more so at a grade level. It doesn't sound like it is. I didn't read the article.


The articles do not say how salaries will be compared, so I cannot say for certain.


I doubt they would go around revealing one exmployees pay compared to another. At least not 1 to 1. Especially when people in the same grade may get paid differently based on years employed/raises/etc. Well, unless you want to blatantly skew the results (which I guess wouldn't be surprising).

Seems like that would be a breach of privacy of sorts to go around telling people what I make personally. I personally don't care if people know what I make, considering you can easily look up the average base salary for my job and get a rough idea. I imagine that would piss off a lot of people though.
22322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Floridamned
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16
This does seem like an unnecessary call for work to get people to definitively shut up about an issue. Though even if it gives much better figures to debunk wage gap, there are still going to be ignorant people out there crying and those that pander to them. There will surely be some cases that people can use as an example and it will be disproportionately blown up by the media. I feel this will solve things for a minute amount of people. As the people who get more informed by their own determination generally don't seem to have a problem with the wage gap idea.

(Affirmative action never solved discrimination. It just worked around it by changing who was discriminated to a less offensive standpoint.
Edit: There may have been some people that said, "Hey, they're not so bad." Beyond that though it gets rather shallow.)
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16
PeripheralVisionary, I want to address the issue with this and clarify it.

The myth won't be put to rest by 'vague' transparency. Think of a scenario where a group of men had fear they made less than their coworkers. They split them up into groups: A, B, C. You find out that in Group A, you make less than B and C.

Most people will feel disdainful, not conceding that those in B and C work longer hours, have more seniority, higher client approvals, faster work rate, or in higher positions--frankly they may not even know.

Now imagine women composed group A, and men group B and C. It doesn't make the situation any different or better--if anything it makes it worse.

The transparency will only be enough to show that women earn less than men. Which is true, but it doesn't put into transparency why. It will only fuel the myth, not deconstruct it. Enforcing the division and identity politics politicians love to feed on.

Mind you in this case in particular it only gives the government enough ability to say what they have always and fuel division in people--something politicians love to do and I get angry just thinking about this. I can already hear them saying 'we have closely analyzed hundreds of companies and have found that employers are guilty of underpaying women by margin x!!!'. It's the same thing, only worse since it will likely blast out individual companies to publicly pressurize them. They don't have to give the why of such margins...as they've never been held accountable to it.

The general public is stupid to these tactics. Politicians love that.

3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Black people were consistently denied economic opportunities. Forced diversity solved this. I'm not arguing for it now, I'm arguing for it then. To deny it as saying "well, maybe it wasn't because he's black" is to say racism didn't exist. One could also say that he got the job because "he was qualified, not black."


We both agree that it's un-needed now.

Yes, some employers were racist. The vast majority were not. (A great idea would be to get a job where someone doesn't hate you. Which most people did and still do today.)

Racism wasn't made illegal. Racism was condoned. It's just the roles that were reversed. You HAD to treat black people a certain way because they were a different race. You HAD to treat white people a different way.

You can so easily say, "well, there were obviously no problems, and it solved the racism problem," but that's not true at all. You're completely ignoring the plight of those who got (and some who still get) shunted to the side because they're not born with the right amount of melanin.

I do NOT believe it was needed then, but I've already said what I had to say on it. It's really just me saying the same thing with different examples each time.




PeripheralVisionary wrote:

and I don't think you realize how far a person will take their racism. I was a racist at one point, and would not touch food made by blacks. What, you honestly expect people to employ blacks because hail capitalism? I sorely doubt THAT would happen immediately.


Then all I can say is that you're a special kind of weird. XD I know, that probably sounds insulting, but let's look at reality here for a second.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of southern plantation owners had black slaves do the cooking. Racist? Sure, for the most part, they were. Racist to the point where they couldn't eat food touched by blacks? We're not talking the Tenryuubito here--even the biggest racists STILL breath the same air.

And again I'll use plantation owners as an example with employment. They primarily used slave labour because it was cheaper than hiring white farmhands. Is this not correct? How are you going to argue agaisnt that, I wonder?
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16

sarteck wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Black people were consistently denied economic opportunities. Forced diversity solved this. I'm not arguing for it now, I'm arguing for it then. To deny it as saying "well, maybe it wasn't because he's black" is to say racism didn't exist. One could also say that he got the job because "he was qualified, not black."


We both agree that it's un-needed now.

Yes, some employers were racist. The vast majority were not. (A great idea would be to get a job where someone doesn't hate you. Which most people did and still do today.)

Racism wasn't made illegal. Racism was condoned. It's just the roles that were reversed. You HAD to treat black people a certain way because they were a different race. You HAD to treat white people a different way.

You can so easily say, "well, there were obviously no problems, and it solved the racism problem," but that's not true at all. You're completely ignoring the plight of those who got (and some who still get) shunted to the side because they're not born with the right amount of melanin.

I do NOT believe it was needed then, but I've already said what I had to say on it. It's really just me saying the same thing with different examples each time.




PeripheralVisionary wrote:

and I don't think you realize how far a person will take their racism. I was a racist at one point, and would not touch food made by blacks. What, you honestly expect people to employ blacks because hail capitalism? I sorely doubt THAT would happen immediately.


Then all I can say is that you're a special kind of weird. XD I know, that probably sounds insulting, but let's look at reality here for a second.

The overwhelmingly vast majority of southern plantation owners had black slaves do the cooking. Racist? Sure, for the most part, they were. Racist to the point where they couldn't eat food touched by blacks? We're not talking the Tenryuubito here--even the biggest racists STILL breath the same air.

And again I'll use plantation owners as an example with employment. They primarily used slave labour because it was cheaper than hiring white farmhands. Is this not correct? How are you going to argue agaisnt that, I wonder?


Okay, I guess you're right. Thanks for condoning me. You're the most tolerable Trump supporter I've met.
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16

PrinceJudar wrote:

PeripheralVisionary, I want to address the issue with this and clarify it.

The myth won't be put to rest by 'vague' transparency. Think of a scenario where a group of men had fear they made less than their coworkers. They split them up into groups: A, B, C. You find out that in Group A, you make less than B and C.

Most people will feel disdainful, not conceding that those in B and C work longer hours, have more seniority, higher client approvals, faster work rate, or in higher positions--frankly they may not even know.

Now imagine women composed group A, and men group B and C. It doesn't make the situation any different or better--if anything it makes it worse.

The transparency will only be enough to show that women earn less than men. Which is true, but it doesn't put into transparency why. It will only fuel the myth, not deconstruct it. Enforcing the division and identity politics politicians love to feed on.

Mind you in this case in particular it only gives the government enough ability to say what they have always and fuel division in people--something politicians love to do and I get angry just thinking about this. I can already hear them saying 'we have closely analyzed hundreds of companies and have found that employers are guilty of underpaying women by margin x!!!'. It's the same thing, only worse since it will likely blast out individual companies to publicly pressurize them. They don't have to give the why of such margins...as they've never been held accountable to it.

The general public is stupid to these tactics. Politicians love that.



Ah, I see. Didn't know if they were investigating why, which I am all for.
15742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16
Given the crappy state of the American economy. It comes to no surprise many are upset about unfair wages from one person to another. Woman vs Men's wages is merely the tip of the iceberg and is more of distraction compared to the real issue.

As it stands we are terribly lacking in terms of job opportunities all across the United States. Degree or no degree, it seems to hardly make a difference these days.
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Okay, I guess you're right. Thanks for condoning me. You're the most tolerable Trump supporter I've met.


I'm not sure at all what you're trying to get across here. O.o Or even if you're being sarcastic or not.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/29/16 , edited 1/29/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Ah, I see. Didn't know if they were investigating why, which I am all for.


They won't because it's more contextual. They're looking at huge companies, and many of them, so they'll only look at the big picture, as always, and present that. Division is more profitable in terms of 'influence'. It is much easier to manipulate divisive minds.



Never trust anyone to do what is 'right'.


Posted 1/29/16

sarteck wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Okay, I guess you're right. Thanks for condoning me. You're the most tolerable Trump supporter I've met.


I'm not sure at all what you're trying to get across here. O.o Or even if you're being sarcastic or not.


I'm serious about the last part. I wouldn't argue with you if I thought you were an idiot.
Posted 1/29/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Ah, I see. Didn't know if they were investigating why, which I am all for.


They won't because it's more contextual. They're looking at huge companies, and many of them, so they'll only look at the big picture, as always, and present that. Division is more profitable in terms of 'influence'. It is much easier to manipulate divisive minds.





I guess you don't have faith in many politicians do you. Depressing. I don't blame you, me either.
3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16

descloud wrote:

As it stands we are terribly lacking in terms of job opportunities all across the United States. Degree or no degree, it seems to hardly make a difference these days.


This is actually quite true in my case. This job I've had for the past four years, when I went in to apply, I was telling the interviewer that yes, I did have a college degree and that I had a certificate in IT proficiency, and he didn't really give a shit. He just cared that I knew how to use Linux and could navigate sufficiently around the command line (things that I wasn't taught in any class).

In other words, he didn't care about my college credits, he only cared about me knowing WTF I was doing.
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/29/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I guess you don't have faith in many politicians do you. Depressing. I don't blame you, me either.


I don't trust people in general.



Politicians are typically even worse than your average person.

3228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/29/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I guess you don't have faith in many politicians do you. Depressing. I don't blame you, me either.


I don't trust people in general.



Politicians are typically even worse than your average person.



I don't trust people because I am one.

Hmmm, I wonder if that makes me an idiot for thinking that all people are like me. :/ Not really sure, hahaha.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.