+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Women's equal pay bill would "place unnecessary burdens on businesses" (/showthread.php?tid=137106)
Re: Women's equal pay bill would "place unnecessary burdens on businesses" - john dough - 06-07-2012
The upper crust of lower intellect.
Re: Women's equal pay bill would "place unnecessary burdens on businesses" - Avenger - 06-07-2012
$tevie wrote:
You didn't read the synopsis of the bill, did you, Avenger?
Matter of fact I did, but not the part you wanted me to read.
"Under the Paycheck Fairness Act, businesses would have had to prove that a wage gap was job related, rather than gender based, and women who sued for discrimination could be awarded punitive damages."
If you ask me this pretty much guarantees women not to be hired in the first place. Why subject yourself to lawsuits? Of course, the natural next step is to write a law mandating businesses to hire women. And don't think they are not thinking about it.
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/why-did-paycheck-fairness-act-voted-down-223200396.html
Re: Women's equal pay bill would "place unnecessary burdens on businesses" - $tevie - 06-07-2012
"States that the bona fide factor defense shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor: (1) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, (2) is job-related with respect to the position in question, and (3) is consistent with business necessity."
So, simple intelligence tells us that salary differences not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation, which are job-related with respect to the position in question, and are consistent with business necessity, are in fact not covered by the bill. In short, if you ain't doing anything wrong you won't get in trouble.