We’ve long known that the so-called Republican war on women was simply a contrived issue designed to provide some way in which Democrats, and in particular, (NMP) Obama, something to campaign on this year, since they really do not want to campaign on the vast majority of their records. And this one proves it
(The Hill) Senate Democrats are planning a new ploy to put Mitt Romney and Republicans on the defensive with female voters.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will bring to the floor in coming weeks legislation to protect women from retaliation by employers if they inquire about salaries paid to male colleagues.
Republicans voted in unison to block the bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, when it came to the floor in November of 2010.
Democrats say it will be difficult for GOP senators to back out of their opposition, especially because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has staunchly opposed the legislation.
Mitt Romney will either have to split with Republicans and an important business group or take a position that could further erode his support among women.
“Romney’s going to be on defense on the Paycheck Fairness Act,” said a senior Democratic aide.
Women should take note that Democrats really do not care about paycheck fairness for women, and they do not care about women except in terms of getting them to vote Democrat so that Democrats keep their elected positions. Women are simply a voting group to Democrats, and women should be appalled by the manner in which Democrats patronize and attempt to use them.
This also highlights that Democrats do not understand the way business works, not particularly shocking, since most of them have never worked an honest day in their lives. For one thing, when does retaliation occur when one person asks a supervisor about the salary of another worker? Mostly, this ends with a speech which can be paraphrased as “none of your business.” I’ve said this to many workers many times.
I also had many men who made more than women, who did the exact same sales representative job and had exactly the same responsibilities. Do you know why? There are many reasons, and none were sexist. One reason is that the company often changed what new hires were paid, which meant that new hires, some of which were men, were paid more than women (and men) hired years before (they did, at one point, move those salaries up for all to be equal). Then there is time in service. Men who are there longer would get raises. And, based on their performance, one could get a bigger raise than another. (I also had women who were paid way more than men)
There’s another issue with time in service: unions. Workers get automatic wage increases. Those who have been there longer will make more, regardless of competency. If a man is hired a year before a woman, the man will always make more. So, unions are sexist! Well, not really. This simply highlights how “pay disparity” is not really about sex. Any company that intentionally pays women less due to sex is asking for a lawsuit. But, it rarely ever happens.
The Paycheck Fairness Act creates unnatural business practices. As Forbes pointed out in 2010, what if John asks for a pay raise, which is granted, but Sally doesn’t bother to ask? Under the PFA, it would be illegal to not give Sally a raise, even though she didn’t take the initiative to ask. Also, what if, prior to being hired, John had worked for 4 years in a similar job, and for Sally, this was her first job right our of college? Under current law, John could be given a higher salary than Sally. Under the PFA, that experience could not be considered.
“Fairness” is not necessarily fair. What if Sally has the experience, and John doesn’t? Is Sally happy that John gets the same starting salary? I think we can 100% say “hell no, she’s not happy.” There are many reasons for pay disparity, 99% not based on sex (or race, color, creed, religion). This legislation is being introduced again simply to extend the Democrats pandering and patronization of women. If there is real wage discrimination, there are existing laws to cover that. Interestingly, The Hill includes this
A GOP aide suggested Obama could be hit with criticisms of hypocrisy if Democrats pursue the Paycheck Fairness Act. The aide noted an annual report on White House staff showed female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000 and male employees earned a median salary of $71,000, a statistic reported by The Washington Free Beacon.
The Free Beacon’s report, however, did not take into account the varying levels of seniority held by female and male White House employees.
Wait, “varying levels of seniority”? Well, under the FPA, they would have to be paid the same as the men. Perhaps Obama should lead the way.