Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Should women be paid as much as men?
89 views
Skip to first unread message
Islander
May 24, 2012, 7:24:01 PM5/24/12
to
While Obama was able to get the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed when
he took office, that was a big step ahead for women who are
discriminated against, basically changing the window of time that can be
used in a suit for pay discrimination.
But, there are still significant loopholes in the original Equal Pay Act
of 1963. Women are still paid 77 cents on the dollar and in higher
paying professions, the gap is much larger.
So, now the Democrats are once again advancing the Paycheck Fairness
Act. This is not new, but when it was last advanced, Republicans
blocked it in the Senate.
Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
What war on women?
he took office, that was a big step ahead for women who are
discriminated against, basically changing the window of time that can be
used in a suit for pay discrimination.
But, there are still significant loopholes in the original Equal Pay Act
of 1963. Women are still paid 77 cents on the dollar and in higher
paying professions, the gap is much larger.
So, now the Democrats are once again advancing the Paycheck Fairness
Act. This is not new, but when it was last advanced, Republicans
blocked it in the Senate.
Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?
What war on women?
mg
May 24, 2012, 7:35:01 PM5/24/12
to
of characteristics of fascism. At the time, though, when Bush was in
office, I didn't really see it surfacing. In fact, I figured that this
was the one exception to the case that you could make that Republicans
have morphed into fascists. Now, of course, they have really showed
their true colors and all the characteristics fit. Here's the list:
Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler
(Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and
several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining
characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make
constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other
paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on
clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of
enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are
persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of
"need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of
torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of
prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The
people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or
religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists,
etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of
government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and
military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be
almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional
gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality
are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian
of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled
by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly
controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople
and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational
tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist
nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool
to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is
common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the
religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or
actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business
aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the
government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/
government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor
is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are
either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to
promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia.
It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored
or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly
attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the
police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people
are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil
liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police
force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always
are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each
other to government positions and use governmental power and authority
to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in
fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be
appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are
a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear
campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use
of legislation to control voting numbers or political district
boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also
typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
From Liberty Forum
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution&Number=642109&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1
"
http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm
JerryD(upstateNY)
May 24, 2012, 7:36:30 PM5/24/12
to
"Islander" wrote in message So, now the Democrats are once
the bill might not have anything to do with women's wages.
Democrats name bills so they can fool the uninformed (read democrat voters)
into thinking they know what the bill is about.
Remember Clinton's "Assault weapon Ban" ?
It had NOTHING to do with assault weapons.
The Obamacare bill is named "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act".
I don't know what they are protecting the patients from, but it sure isn't
affordable.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
again advancing the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is not new,
but when it was last advanced, Republicans blocked it in the Senate.
Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?<<<<<<<<<<
Just because the bill's name is "the Paycheck Fairness Act",
but when it was last advanced, Republicans blocked it in the Senate.
Anyone want to bet that they will block it again?<<<<<<<<<<
the bill might not have anything to do with women's wages.
Democrats name bills so they can fool the uninformed (read democrat voters)
into thinking they know what the bill is about.
Remember Clinton's "Assault weapon Ban" ?
It had NOTHING to do with assault weapons.
The Obamacare bill is named "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care
Act".
I don't know what they are protecting the patients from, but it sure isn't
affordable.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
GLOBALIST
May 24, 2012, 7:46:03 PM5/24/12
to
If 'anyone' wants more money, you ask for it
or go get another job. No employer owes you
jack shit, more pay, or any and all benefits.
You can whine and moan or go get another job.
or go get another job. No employer owes you
jack shit, more pay, or any and all benefits.
You can whine and moan or go get another job.
David1950
May 24, 2012, 9:05:06 PM5/24/12
to
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <jer...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jpmgm1$k3u$1...@jerryd.eternal-september.org...
: "Islander" wrote in message So, now the Democrats are once
yes it is
dumb ass
Will Janoschka
May 24, 2012, 10:06:16 PM5/24/12
to
to do and vice-versa! The whole idea of equality between a women,
and a man is truly bullshit. Each, "not an average", has different.
ideas,
desires, aspirations, thoughts, plumbing, wishes and everything else!
Earthlings need celibrate these differences, not equality!
Rita
May 24, 2012, 10:19:34 PM5/24/12
to
different? In many ways.
We are talking specifically about equal pay for equal work. If a
man or a woman does a comparable job, he or she should have
the same pay scale for that particular work.
Not being female, you seem to have somehow have missed along the way
that was not always the case. On newspaper I worked on, women
reporters and editors were paid signficantly less than the men. I
produced twice the work as one guy who was lazy as sin and sat back
and yawned in his office chair, blew his nose and then examined his
handkerchief minutely all day but I learned I was paid significantly
less. Because women just were -- in the era before the ERA.
Late when I finally joined the printer's union, my pay was finally
equal to that of the m en I worked with.
Runge 666
May 25, 2012, 1:22:43 AM5/25/12
to
Lol bring any topic out and here comes obama...
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <jer...@rochester.rr.com> a écrit dans le message de
groupe de discussion : jpmgm1$k3u$1...@jerryd.eternal-september.org...
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <jer...@rochester.rr.com> a écrit dans le message de
groupe de discussion : jpmgm1$k3u$1...@jerryd.eternal-september.org...
Earl Evleth
May 25, 2012, 7:16:14 AM5/25/12
to
On 25/05/12 1:24, in article jpmfuo$gkd$1...@dont-email.me, "Islander"
This is a tough one to get operational
However, in civil service equal treatment is mandated.
Even in the 1950s in California, when my wife
worked for the state (Unemployment) for the same position
equal pay. In the University of California, a Associate
Professor step 3 (for example), men and women get the same
salary.
The problems reaching that level. In lower level civil service
there is no problem.
But in private employment the bosses play the labor market and
offer what they have to to get a position filled. At the time
my wife went to work for the state offers from private industry
were not great, the state paid more.
This is a tough one to get operational
However, in civil service equal treatment is mandated.
Even in the 1950s in California, when my wife
worked for the state (Unemployment) for the same position
equal pay. In the University of California, a Associate
Professor step 3 (for example), men and women get the same
salary.
The problems reaching that level. In lower level civil service
there is no problem.
But in private employment the bosses play the labor market and
offer what they have to to get a position filled. At the time
my wife went to work for the state offers from private industry
were not great, the state paid more.
GLOBALIST
May 25, 2012, 7:13:38 AM5/25/12
to
Men often know that some other man is getting paid
more money. He does not immediately think it's
because his breasts are too big.
LIFE IS NOT FAIR. It never was and never will be.
Boys are often treated as inferior in the class
room because they are active, fun and act up.
Girls are more submissive and easier for the
teacher to control.
more money. He does not immediately think it's
because his breasts are too big.
LIFE IS NOT FAIR. It never was and never will be.
Boys are often treated as inferior in the class
room because they are active, fun and act up.
Girls are more submissive and easier for the
teacher to control.
Will Janoschka
May 25, 2012, 10:34:33 AM5/25/12
to
to anyone else? That only works if everyone is doing as little as
possible.
Anyone doing as little as possible on the job, should get no pay..
Rita
May 25, 2012, 10:44:19 AM5/25/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 09:34:33 -0500, wil...@nospam.pobox.com (Will
You totally miss the point -- women were hired to do the exact
same jobs as men did but were paid less not based on performance
but because they were women. In other simple words they were
discriminated against not because of what they did or did not do
once on the job but because many employers simply set lower
pay scales for women employees, regardless of the job.
This is history but if you choose to ignore it, no skin off my nose.
>
>>
>
same jobs as men did but were paid less not based on performance
but because they were women. In other simple words they were
discriminated against not because of what they did or did not do
once on the job but because many employers simply set lower
pay scales for women employees, regardless of the job.
This is history but if you choose to ignore it, no skin off my nose.
>
>>
>
Werner
May 25, 2012, 12:35:53 PM5/25/12
to
I think you miss the point, Rita. You confuse holding a position to doing a job.
Islander
May 25, 2012, 1:01:51 PM5/25/12
to
more rigorous than the private sector - and they were enforced!
mg
May 25, 2012, 1:11:29 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 10:35 am, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
> I think you miss the point, Rita. You confuse holding a position to doing a job.
Are you claiming that men, on average, do a better job than women do
> I think you miss the point, Rita. You confuse holding a position to doing a job.
on jobs that don't involve heavy, physical labor or strength, for
instance?
Werner
May 25, 2012, 2:09:55 PM5/25/12
to
Not at all. I'm claiming that setting pay, or equal pay, has little relationship to performance. It does not equate to equal performance. This would be the case for men and women. In public schools, for example, you will find set wage scales. Often the higher wage scales are found in the worse performing schools. So legislating equal performance is as reasonable, or unreasonable, as legislating equal pay. Why is no one demanding equal performance wages?
Will Janoschka
May 25, 2012, 8:30:00 PM5/25/12
to
equal
or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
is !00% Bull Shit.
>
> >>
> >
mg
May 25, 2012, 8:48:00 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 12:09 pm, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
> Not at all. I'm claiming that setting pay, or equal pay, has little relationship to performance. It does not equate to equal performance. This would be the case for men and women. In public schools, for example, you will find set wage scales. Often the higher wage scales are found in the worse performing schools. So legislating equal performance is as reasonable, or unreasonable, as legislating equal pay. Why is no one demanding equal performance wages?
Except for minimum wage requirements, I don't think the federal
> Not at all. I'm claiming that setting pay, or equal pay, has little relationship to performance. It does not equate to equal performance. This would be the case for men and women. In public schools, for example, you will find set wage scales. Often the higher wage scales are found in the worse performing schools. So legislating equal performance is as reasonable, or unreasonable, as legislating equal pay. Why is no one demanding equal performance wages?
government should be involved in telling private employers how much
money they should pay different individuals. I do think the federal
government should be involved in preventing discrimination against
groups of people based on their color, gender, religion, or ethnicity,
etc.
Islander
May 25, 2012, 9:05:37 PM5/25/12
to
all unique, even down to the DNA that defines us.
More to the point, does every human deserve equal rights. This is
fundamental to our culture as is stated in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Contemporary political philosopher John Rawls goes a bit further:
"Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from
their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who
have lost out."
Rawls poses an interesting thesis that moral rules can only be assured
if the individuals making the rules do not know ahead of time whether or
not those rules will be applied to them.
So, Rawls acknowledges that we are not all equal, but that those more
fortunate have an obligation to help those less fortunate. Needless to
say, Libertarians and most Republicans disagree in that they object to
being forced to do their share.
rumpelstiltskin
May 25, 2012, 11:53:35 PM5/25/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:05:37 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net> '
>> All that is certanly not my point, My point is that no earthling is
>> equal
>> or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
>> is !00% Bull Shit.
>>>
>
>You are correct in stating that no two humans are exactly equal. We are
>all unique, even down to the DNA that defines us.
>
>More to the point, does every human deserve equal rights. This is
>fundamental to our culture as is stated in the Declaration of Independence:
>
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
>
>Contemporary political philosopher John Rawls goes a bit further:
>
>"Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from
>their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who
>have lost out."
>
>Rawls poses an interesting thesis that moral rules can only be assured
>if the individuals making the rules do not know ahead of time whether or
>not those rules will be applied to them.
>
>So, Rawls acknowledges that we are not all equal, but that those more
>fortunate have an obligation to help those less fortunate. Needless to
>say, Libertarians and most Republicans disagree in that they object to
>being forced to do their share.
I don't object to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal ..." despite that it is of course a
complete fiction, made out of thin air. It's not "self-evident"
at all as is claimed. The real state of humanity is very much
the opposite in fact - inequality of station and of talent is
everywhere. The hyperbolic language in the Declaration can
be justified IMV by the urgent necessity at the time to
advocate that the United States be founded, if only as a
shining ideal that will never be fully realized, on a sensibility
of offering people a shot at comfort and fulfillment, as opposed
to the horrors and brutalities of lawless and feudal and
"aristocratic" societies.
We should stay aware, though, IMV, that the statement is
fiction. It's a noble fiction, so pleasing and beneficial that I'm
glad humanity up with it, but a noble fiction is still a fiction.
>On 5/25/2012 5:30 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
<snip>
>> All that is certanly not my point, My point is that no earthling is
>> equal
>> or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
>> is !00% Bull Shit.
>>>
>
>You are correct in stating that no two humans are exactly equal. We are
>all unique, even down to the DNA that defines us.
>
>More to the point, does every human deserve equal rights. This is
>fundamental to our culture as is stated in the Declaration of Independence:
>
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
>
>Contemporary political philosopher John Rawls goes a bit further:
>
>"Those who have been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from
>their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who
>have lost out."
>
>Rawls poses an interesting thesis that moral rules can only be assured
>if the individuals making the rules do not know ahead of time whether or
>not those rules will be applied to them.
>
>So, Rawls acknowledges that we are not all equal, but that those more
>fortunate have an obligation to help those less fortunate. Needless to
>say, Libertarians and most Republicans disagree in that they object to
>being forced to do their share.
all men are created equal ..." despite that it is of course a
complete fiction, made out of thin air. It's not "self-evident"
at all as is claimed. The real state of humanity is very much
the opposite in fact - inequality of station and of talent is
everywhere. The hyperbolic language in the Declaration can
be justified IMV by the urgent necessity at the time to
advocate that the United States be founded, if only as a
shining ideal that will never be fully realized, on a sensibility
of offering people a shot at comfort and fulfillment, as opposed
to the horrors and brutalities of lawless and feudal and
"aristocratic" societies.
We should stay aware, though, IMV, that the statement is
fiction. It's a noble fiction, so pleasing and beneficial that I'm
glad humanity up with it, but a noble fiction is still a fiction.
Earl Evleth
May 26, 2012, 3:18:59 AM5/26/12
to
On 25/05/12 19:01, in article jpodtv$kd4$2...@dont-email.me, "Islander"
reviews of those judging the candidates. As a result, even in
the 1950s in California women held high positions in the Department
of Human Resources (I think it was called). Where the problem
is in academia is that to getting tenure you have to nearly be
a monk and work a very long day for years (5 or 6). Women who
also want children are at a disadvantage, it is a definite
handicapped. In my field, chemistry, now about 50% or a little
more of the four year BS degrees are given to women, so their
is equality there, but for the PhD you find far fewer, maybe 30%
Those getting academic positions at trop research universities is
not over 10%.
While I was chairman we hired two woman, neither of them eventually
got tenure. Now the situation is a bit better.
When I came to France in the 1960s I was surprised to find so many
women in CNRS positions, about 30% and some were professors also
running their own research groups. At that time it was rare
to see a women attending a seminar, so the contrast hit me
when I gave seminars in France, facing so many women. The only
woman grad student I had was Algerian, she had a academic position
in Algeria but did not have a doctorate. So to get advancement
she had to get a doctorate. She was about 40 and her children
raised. Her husband was a modern Moslem and did not object
to her coming to France for months at a time to do here work
(mainly computational using our computers). They had an agreement,
get the children raised and then pursue "your career". She was
intelligent and hard working and eventually got her doctorat d'etat,
which is a degree no longer offered now but workwise about equivalent
to a US PhD + two years of postdoctoral research.
Women expect prejudice, don't like it, and don't expect preferential
treatment since they don't get it. Some men do.
<nos...@priracy.net> wrote:
> My experience with the federal government was that the rules were much
> more rigorous than the private sector - and they were enforced!
The procedure for advancement is established via exams and committee
> My experience with the federal government was that the rules were much
> more rigorous than the private sector - and they were enforced!
reviews of those judging the candidates. As a result, even in
the 1950s in California women held high positions in the Department
of Human Resources (I think it was called). Where the problem
is in academia is that to getting tenure you have to nearly be
a monk and work a very long day for years (5 or 6). Women who
also want children are at a disadvantage, it is a definite
handicapped. In my field, chemistry, now about 50% or a little
more of the four year BS degrees are given to women, so their
is equality there, but for the PhD you find far fewer, maybe 30%
Those getting academic positions at trop research universities is
not over 10%.
While I was chairman we hired two woman, neither of them eventually
got tenure. Now the situation is a bit better.
When I came to France in the 1960s I was surprised to find so many
women in CNRS positions, about 30% and some were professors also
running their own research groups. At that time it was rare
to see a women attending a seminar, so the contrast hit me
when I gave seminars in France, facing so many women. The only
woman grad student I had was Algerian, she had a academic position
in Algeria but did not have a doctorate. So to get advancement
she had to get a doctorate. She was about 40 and her children
raised. Her husband was a modern Moslem and did not object
to her coming to France for months at a time to do here work
(mainly computational using our computers). They had an agreement,
get the children raised and then pursue "your career". She was
intelligent and hard working and eventually got her doctorat d'etat,
which is a degree no longer offered now but workwise about equivalent
to a US PhD + two years of postdoctoral research.
Women expect prejudice, don't like it, and don't expect preferential
treatment since they don't get it. Some men do.
Earl Evleth
May 26, 2012, 3:29:50 AM5/26/12
to
On 26/05/12 2:30, in article
DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-208.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
On the time in the 1950s when my wife went to Stanford, girls
had to have an A high school average to get in. The boys did not.
That was before grade inflation. At that time the cultural
expectations were that women went to college to find a husband
so few slots were open to them.
From 1950-1954 I went to Caltech, it was all male. The idea it
why waste a slot in a top institution on a woman? At that time
the smartest person in my high school was a girl. She had to
to go to UCLA although if she had been born later she would
have gotten into Caltech. I always had the feeling that if
at the time she could have gotten in, she would have taken
my slot.
So indeed she was not my equal but superior to it. But
because I was male I got special treatment. She was handicapped
by her gender.
So Will, it is about equal opportunity not equality.
DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-208.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:
> All that is certanly not my point, My point is that no earthling is
> equal or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
> is !00% Bull Shit.
This issue is about equal opportunity, a leveled playing field.
> All that is certanly not my point, My point is that no earthling is
> equal or equvalant to any other earthling. The whole thing about "equal"
> is !00% Bull Shit.
On the time in the 1950s when my wife went to Stanford, girls
had to have an A high school average to get in. The boys did not.
That was before grade inflation. At that time the cultural
expectations were that women went to college to find a husband
so few slots were open to them.
From 1950-1954 I went to Caltech, it was all male. The idea it
why waste a slot in a top institution on a woman? At that time
the smartest person in my high school was a girl. She had to
to go to UCLA although if she had been born later she would
have gotten into Caltech. I always had the feeling that if
at the time she could have gotten in, she would have taken
my slot.
So indeed she was not my equal but superior to it. But
because I was male I got special treatment. She was handicapped
by her gender.
So Will, it is about equal opportunity not equality.
High Miles
May 26, 2012, 8:56:40 AM5/26/12
to
Or - perhaps not so noble, but self serving ?
Message has been deleted
rumpelstiltskin
May 26, 2012, 12:15:10 PM5/26/12
to
The history of religion is a history of blood and intolerance and
injustice. The history of the USA, while spotty, even blotchy,
is at least making an attempt to go in the "right direction" and
makes some progress from time to time. Religion is milder
now not because of itself but because the advancing secular
enlightenment starting with the Renaissance made religion's
previous brutality unacceptable to many people. Most religion,
however, is still in the rearguard of enlightenment and human
kindness, pulled along grudgingly and ill-humouredly behind
the train, continuing to hang on desperately to its hallowed
and evil old paradigms. As a homosexual, one of the last of
the "niggers", I'm in a position to see that all too clearly,
more clearly than most people who aren't as directly affected.
http://tinyurl.com/85thsqr
Werner
May 26, 2012, 12:46:02 PM5/26/12
to
Secular beliefs are also self serving.
JerryD(upstateNY)
May 26, 2012, 1:29:25 PM5/26/12
to
The biggest problem women have is attendance.
They probably take 3-4 times as many days off as a man.
I am not saying they are lazy.
Women are just sick more than men.
Many have problems with their periods.
Because of the way they are built, they are
much more prone to urinary infections.
Everyone here knows of a woman who has had
a urinary infection but how many have heard of a man with one ?
Many women have to stay home when their child is sick.
Say you are the boss and you need to promote someone.
There are 2 people equally qualified, one male, one female.
As you look through their files, you notice the guy has missed 2 days in the
last 3 years.
The woman has missed 10 days in the same period............who are you going
to promote ?
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
They probably take 3-4 times as many days off as a man.
I am not saying they are lazy.
Women are just sick more than men.
Many have problems with their periods.
Because of the way they are built, they are
much more prone to urinary infections.
Everyone here knows of a woman who has had
a urinary infection but how many have heard of a man with one ?
Many women have to stay home when their child is sick.
Say you are the boss and you need to promote someone.
There are 2 people equally qualified, one male, one female.
As you look through their files, you notice the guy has missed 2 days in the
last 3 years.
The woman has missed 10 days in the same period............who are you going
to promote ?
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Alias
May 26, 2012, 1:56:53 PM5/26/12
to
--
Alias
Will Janoschka
May 26, 2012, 3:00:45 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 14:46:23, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:05:37 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
> On Fri, 25 May 2012 18:05:37 -0700, Islander <nos...@priracy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >So, Rawls acknowledges that we are not all equal, but that those more
> >fortunate have an obligation to help those less fortunate. Needless to
> >say, Libertarians and most Republicans disagree in that they object to
> >being forced to do their share.
>
> Possibly the difference is in the definition of "help".
>
> >So, Rawls acknowledges that we are not all equal, but that those more
> >fortunate have an obligation to help those less fortunate. Needless to
> >say, Libertarians and most Republicans disagree in that they object to
> >being forced to do their share.
>
Yes, and equal pay for unequal performance only helps
inflation. Then we all get to pay for the non-help.
I think equall opportunity is fine, but dificult to do in practice.
Pay, however, should be decided upon the quantity, and quality
of work performed. This too is difficult to do in practice, because
of favoritism in the workplace, but pay for performance must be
encouraged. Equal pay, unions, and OSHA, though beneficial
in some ways, are the reasons the US is now on the low side of
productivity. This Idea that stepladders now need to be wider to
get all the safety labels on, is just more gov'ment stupidity.
Islander
May 26, 2012, 5:01:48 PM5/26/12
to
pay for equal jobs, but only if there is a clear measure of performance.
There is a lot of experience in not only defining job duties, but also
performance against those duties. I don't think that anyone is
complaining based on equal performance. It is just to easy to
discriminate without having the opportunity to compare actual performance.
BTW, the US is on the high side of productivity.
JerryD(upstateNY)
May 26, 2012, 6:23:40 PM5/26/12
to
"Alias" wrote in message Bullshit.<<<<<<<<<<<
How many urinary infections have you had ?
Maybe you have had a bunch.
Just because you miss work for yeast infections, doesn't mean every other
man does.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
How many urinary infections have you had ?
Maybe you have had a bunch.
Just because you miss work for yeast infections, doesn't mean every other
man does.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Alias
May 26, 2012, 7:05:41 PM5/26/12
to
On 5/27/2012 12:23 AM, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
> "Alias" wrote in message Bullshit.<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> How many urinary infections have you had ?
> Maybe you have had a bunch.
> Just because you miss work for yeast infections, doesn't mean every
> other man does.
>
>
Yada, yada, yada. Glad to see you admit what you posted is bullshit.
> "Alias" wrote in message Bullshit.<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> How many urinary infections have you had ?
> Maybe you have had a bunch.
> Just because you miss work for yeast infections, doesn't mean every
> other man does.
>
>
--
Alias
Earl Evleth
May 27, 2012, 3:07:48 AM5/27/12
to
On 26/05/12 21:00, in article
DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-183.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
or public, one's classification is exact. So having a level 3
Associate Professorship will mean the same pay for a man or a woman
at the same University.
The departure from this occurs when the University Board of Regents
decides to go "off scale" for a particular individual. Usually
this occurs only at the highest level. This is practiced because
the individual is sufficiently exceptional that he/she can be
lured away to another institution which offers not only better
pay but other perks. You can be sure that if a person gets
the Nobel Prize his or her academic market value soars.
At the intermediate level, the Universities practice accelerated
promotion, like jumping a person from Associate Prof level three
(there are 6 levels) to Full Professor two. This will often
keep a younger talented person at the institution.`
So going off scale is a way of mixing a rigid salary schedule
with the real market.
Private industry tries to avoid these rigidities and treats
individuals "ad hoc". This has its weaknesses because it
leaves hiring, salary, and promotion in the hands of a
single person, the head of a particular unit. If that head
is "good" and hands out "rewards" correctly, great, but
also it can lead to abuses. It has to be always remembered
that the individual is normally in a weak position compared
to the massive strength of an organization.`Only exceptional
people can effectively push back.
DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-183.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:
> I think equall opportunity is fine, but dificult to do in practice.
In some settings it is easy. At the University level, whether private
> I think equall opportunity is fine, but dificult to do in practice.
or public, one's classification is exact. So having a level 3
Associate Professorship will mean the same pay for a man or a woman
at the same University.
The departure from this occurs when the University Board of Regents
decides to go "off scale" for a particular individual. Usually
this occurs only at the highest level. This is practiced because
the individual is sufficiently exceptional that he/she can be
lured away to another institution which offers not only better
pay but other perks. You can be sure that if a person gets
the Nobel Prize his or her academic market value soars.
At the intermediate level, the Universities practice accelerated
promotion, like jumping a person from Associate Prof level three
(there are 6 levels) to Full Professor two. This will often
keep a younger talented person at the institution.`
So going off scale is a way of mixing a rigid salary schedule
with the real market.
Private industry tries to avoid these rigidities and treats
individuals "ad hoc". This has its weaknesses because it
leaves hiring, salary, and promotion in the hands of a
single person, the head of a particular unit. If that head
is "good" and hands out "rewards" correctly, great, but
also it can lead to abuses. It has to be always remembered
that the individual is normally in a weak position compared
to the massive strength of an organization.`Only exceptional
people can effectively push back.
Will Janoschka
May 27, 2012, 9:10:36 AM5/27/12
to
for performance are given to the employees first, then to the
stockholders. I worked for one place that always asked, at raise
time, "who deserves a bigger raise than you?". This is how the
boss knew who was doing the best job, plus several other things.
BTW: "I cannot think of anyone" was not a good answer.
Earl Evleth
May 27, 2012, 9:34:13 AM5/27/12
to
On 27/05/12 15:10, in article
DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-226.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
done the work if I was paid less. Scientific research was
more fun than work.
DmJ5SKFdRQph-p...@209-142-179-226.dyn.centurytel.net, "Will
Janoschka" <wil...@nospam.pobox.com> wrote:
> There are places (few) in private industry where the rewards
> for performance are given to the employees first, then to the
> stockholders. I worked for one place that always asked, at raise
> time, "who deserves a bigger raise than you?". This is how the
> boss knew who was doing the best job, plus several other things.
>
> BTW: "I cannot think of anyone" was not a good answer.
In the work I did, I felt I was overpaid! I would still have
> There are places (few) in private industry where the rewards
> for performance are given to the employees first, then to the
> stockholders. I worked for one place that always asked, at raise
> time, "who deserves a bigger raise than you?". This is how the
> boss knew who was doing the best job, plus several other things.
>
> BTW: "I cannot think of anyone" was not a good answer.
done the work if I was paid less. Scientific research was
more fun than work.
Message has been deleted
Will Janoschka
May 27, 2012, 3:28:13 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 14:50:34, Emily <Em...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:34:13 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >In the work I did, I felt I was overpaid! I would still have
> >done the work if I was paid less. Scientific research was
> >more fun than work.
>
> I certainly never felt I was overpaid but I really never ran into the
> problem of making less than a man because when I was a nurse I don't
> think I ever ran into a male nurse.
>
> For the last several years of my working life, I did medical
> transcription and we were paid by the line. I loved that. I didn't
> have to grit my teeth when I saw another employee goofing off because
> obviously they were just not making any money while not pounding that
> typewriter or word processor. There was one guy in the office and he
> did make more than I did but it was because he was the only one in the
> office who could type faster than I could and therefore produced more.
>
He 'prolly appreciated your work too!
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 15:34:13 +0200, Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr>
> wrote:
>
> >In the work I did, I felt I was overpaid! I would still have
> >done the work if I was paid less. Scientific research was
> >more fun than work.
>
> problem of making less than a man because when I was a nurse I don't
> think I ever ran into a male nurse.
>
> For the last several years of my working life, I did medical
> transcription and we were paid by the line. I loved that. I didn't
> have to grit my teeth when I saw another employee goofing off because
> obviously they were just not making any money while not pounding that
> typewriter or word processor. There was one guy in the office and he
> did make more than I did but it was because he was the only one in the
> office who could type faster than I could and therefore produced more.
>
He 'prolly appreciated your work too!
Will Janoschka
May 27, 2012, 3:37:37 PM5/27/12
to
I would think that you were also better at it, than most!
Earl Evleth
May 28, 2012, 2:43:09 AM5/28/12
to
On 27/05/12 21:37, in article
Not most, I would guess that among publishing scientists I was
in the middle. I judge that on the basis of number of publications.
A star in my field will have a career number of publications between
200 or above. I had maybe 110, which is possibly higher than the
average but not extraordinary. Industrial chemists don't publish much
because it is not encourage, except for patents which are very important.
So the average lifetime publications among all chemists is about 10,
Probably fewer than 10% of chemists are in the active publishing group.
So I would class myself as average in that 10% group.
My work experience is non-classical since I worked a number of years
in industry (IBM for instance) and had an academic position in the US,
and came to France to take a research position in the French national
research labs. In general research has experienced increasing
globalization together with multi-lingualism. English is the publishing
language of international research although in the lab, the language
spoken will be the language of the country. So an imported scientist
may come into a lab not speaking the language of the country, within
a year or two he/she is. Some job adds for positions in China, which are
in English don't even mention language requirement.
in the middle. I judge that on the basis of number of publications.
A star in my field will have a career number of publications between
200 or above. I had maybe 110, which is possibly higher than the
average but not extraordinary. Industrial chemists don't publish much
because it is not encourage, except for patents which are very important.
So the average lifetime publications among all chemists is about 10,
Probably fewer than 10% of chemists are in the active publishing group.
So I would class myself as average in that 10% group.
My work experience is non-classical since I worked a number of years
in industry (IBM for instance) and had an academic position in the US,
and came to France to take a research position in the French national
research labs. In general research has experienced increasing
globalization together with multi-lingualism. English is the publishing
language of international research although in the lab, the language
spoken will be the language of the country. So an imported scientist
may come into a lab not speaking the language of the country, within
a year or two he/she is. Some job adds for positions in China, which are
in English don't even mention language requirement.
0 new messages