President Barack Obama in 2014 directed the Labor Department to collect data from federal contractors about what they pay employees, sorted by gender, race and ethnicity. Obama's new proposal will cover all businesses with 100 or more employees, regardless of whether they contract with the government. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will collect the data.

The government will use the data to help identify companies that should be investigated for failing to pay workers fairly. The first reports from companies will be due in September 2017.

By the way. "the gap" is poppycock once you normalize for all factors. -- AP

2017 ? How convenient that Obama waits until after He leaves office to put any blame for any inequality in pay on the next POTUS while many of the failures are likely occurring under His watch the past 8 years. What an A Hole ! Never pass up an Opportunity to criticize others. He would make a "Wonderful Supreme Court Justice" if Hillary gets elected.

(01-29-2016 06:09 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  2017 ? How convenient that Obama waits until after He leaves office to put any blame for any inequality in pay on the next POTUS while many of the failures are likely occurring under His watch the past 8 years. What an A Hole ! Never pass up an Opportunity to criticize others. He would make a "Wonderful Supreme Court Justice" if Hillary gets elected.

the politics 0'day is exponentially worthless as prohibition and the drug war combined

tards love 'em some tards....they can't get enough of 'em

The wage gap is very real inside the Obama whitehouse....

"Equal pay for equal work" is questionable, because in most professions not all workers are of equal 'value' to the company.

Some bring a wider background of experience, education, skill sets, etc., than others, whereas the business would take a bigger hit in losing them versus other workers (despite having relatively similar job descriptions). If this happens to be a woman, then she gets paid more than a man.

Now, someone shouldn't be given a reduced salary because they are a woman. That's wrong no matter how you slice it. Gender should play no role in determining compensation.

But forcing "equal pay" is ridiculous.

So the porn industry will have to pay men the same as women? They will either go broke, or the women are about to take a huge pay cut.

Where did Obama specifically request this data be collected?

He did issue EO 13665 back in 2014 which sort of touches on this, but that calls for no direct data collection.

Is it part of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? If so, that's a law passed by congress, and that happened nearly 7 years ago.

What I do know is this. This is currently only a proposal. It's not required currently. And it was a proposal set forth by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The reason it won't possibly start until 2017 is that they are asking for public comments first.

Quote:WASHINGTON --The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today made public a proposed revision to the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) to include collecting pay data from employers, including federal contractors, with more than 100 employees. This new data will assist the agency in identifying possible pay discrimination and assist employers in promoting equal pay in their workplaces. The revised EEO-1 will be announced today in conjunction with the White House commemoration of the seventh anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

EEO-1 data provides the federal government with workforce profiles from private sector employers by race, ethnicity, sex, and job category. This proposal would add aggregate data on pay ranges and hours worked to the information collected, beginning with the September 2017 report. Proposed changes are available for inspection on the Federal Register website and will be officially published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2016. Members of the public have 60 days from that date April 1, 2016, to submit comments.

EEOC Announces Proposed Addition of Pay Data to Annual EEO-1 Reports

(01-29-2016 08:48 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  "Equal pay for equal work" is questionable, because in most professions not all workers are of equal 'value' to the company.

Some bring a wider background of experience, education, skill sets, etc., than others, whereas the business would take a bigger hit in losing them versus other workers (despite having relatively similar job descriptions). If this happens to be a woman, then she gets paid more than a man.

Now, someone shouldn't be given a reduced salary because they are a woman. That's wrong no matter how you slice it. Gender should play no role in determining compensation.

But forcing "equal pay" is ridiculous.

another version of title IX

all xx, xy, X are not created equal...

I am now living in the parallel universe of hell.....

(01-29-2016 10:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Where did Obama specifically request this data be collected?

He did issue EO 13665 back in 2014 which sort of touches on this, but that calls for no direct data collection.

Is it part of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? If so, that's a law passed by congress, and that happened nearly 7 years ago.

What I do know is this. This is currently only a proposal. It's not required currently. And it was a proposal set forth by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The reason it won't possibly start until 2017 is that they are asking for public comments first.

Quote:WASHINGTON --The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today made public a proposed revision to the Employer Information Report (EEO-1) to include collecting pay data from employers, including federal contractors, with more than 100 employees. This new data will assist the agency in identifying possible pay discrimination and assist employers in promoting equal pay in their workplaces. The revised EEO-1 will be announced today in conjunction with the White House commemoration of the seventh anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

EEO-1 data provides the federal government with workforce profiles from private sector employers by race, ethnicity, sex, and job category. This proposal would add aggregate data on pay ranges and hours worked to the information collected, beginning with the September 2017 report. Proposed changes are available for inspection on the Federal Register website and will be officially published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2016. Members of the public have 60 days from that date April 1, 2016, to submit comments.

EEOC Announces Proposed Addition of Pay Data to Annual EEO-1 Reports

what's sad is you think any of that matters to anyone.....

(01-29-2016 09:19 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So the porn industry will have to pay men the same as women? They will either go broke, or the women are about to take a huge pay cut.

Haha, nailed it.

But seriously, what a waste of money and resources. As someone mentioned there are a myriad of reasons someone could be being paid more that can't be determined through sifting through a database in DC. Women shouldn't be paid less for doing the same work because they are a woman. But if you're a woman and have been there for 6 months and the man next you has been with the company for 6 years and makes more, that's fair game.

Found it. Looks like it was a memorandum added to EO 13665

Quote:Presidential Memorandum

The President's Memorandum directs the Secretary of Labor to propose, within 120 days, a rule that would require federal government contractors and subcontractors to submit to the DOL summary data on the compensation paid to their employees, including data by sex and race.

https://www.littler.com/president-obama-...al-pay-day

(01-29-2016 09:19 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So the porn industry will have to pay men the same as women? They will either go broke, or the women are about to take a huge pay cut.

that's my style of analogy....

dick 'em or get dicked...

welcome to the real fk'n world....

fk'n utopia wannabees.....idiots they are as well....

dogs that go woofy only go woofy....the plan isn't plausible with this space in time

(01-29-2016 10:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Found it. Looks like it was a memorandum added to EO 13665

Quote:Presidential Memorandum

The President's Memorandum directs the Secretary of Labor to propose, within 120 days, a rule that would require federal government contractors and subcontractors to submit to the DOL summary data on the compensation paid to their employees, including data by sex and race.

https://www.littler.com/president-obama-...al-pay-day

So was it approved by congress? Or was it something Obama did?

(01-29-2016 10:55 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 10:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Found it. Looks like it was a memorandum added to EO 13665

Quote:Presidential Memorandum

The President's Memorandum directs the Secretary of Labor to propose, within 120 days, a rule that would require federal government contractors and subcontractors to submit to the DOL summary data on the compensation paid to their employees, including data by sex and race.

https://www.littler.com/president-obama-...al-pay-day

So was it approved by congress? Or was it something Obama did?

As written in what I quoted, he's only requesting info from federal contractors which I imagine is totally within his power to authorize. But I have not been able to find the entire memo yet. Still looking...

So not entirely sure why the EEOC proposal is asking for data from all large employers. And I also don't know if anything in the Fair Pay Act calls for this.

Found the entire memo here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles...collection

Relevant text:

Quote:Therefore, I hereby direct you to propose, within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, a rule that would require Federal contractors and subcontractors to submit to DOL summary data on the compensation paid their employees, including data by sex and race. In doing so, you shall consider approaches that: (1) maximize efficiency and effectiveness by enabling DOL to direct its enforcement resources toward entities for which reported data suggest potential discrepancies in worker compensation, and not toward entities for which there is no evidence of potential pay violations; (2) minimize, to the extent feasible, the burden on Federal contractors and subcontractors and in particular small entities, including small businesses and small nonprofit organizations; and (3) use the data to encourage greater voluntary compliance by employers with Federal pay laws and to identify and analyze industry trends. To the extent feasible, you shall avoid new record-keeping requirements and rely on existing reporting frameworks to collect the summary data. In addition, in developing the proposal you should consider independent studies regarding the collection of compensation data.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(01-29-2016 10:55 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 10:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Found it. Looks like it was a memorandum added to EO 13665

Quote:Presidential Memorandum

The President's Memorandum directs the Secretary of Labor to propose, within 120 days, a rule that would require federal government contractors and subcontractors to submit to the DOL summary data on the compensation paid to their employees, including data by sex and race.

https://www.littler.com/president-obama-...al-pay-day

So was it approved by congress? Or was it something Obama did?

Don't you know. Some people (not naming names) are incapable of assigning the responsibility for any action of the executive branch to the guy running the executive branch.

(01-29-2016 11:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Found the entire memo here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles...collection

Relevant text:

Quote:Therefore, I hereby direct you to propose, within 120 days of the date of this memorandum, a rule that would require Federal contractors and subcontractors to submit to DOL summary data on the compensation paid their employees, including data by sex and race. In doing so, you shall consider approaches that: (1) maximize efficiency and effectiveness by enabling DOL to direct its enforcement resources toward entities for which reported data suggest potential discrepancies in worker compensation, and not toward entities for which there is no evidence of potential pay violations; (2) minimize, to the extent feasible, the burden on Federal contractors and subcontractors and in particular small entities, including small businesses and small nonprofit organizations; and (3) use the data to encourage greater voluntary compliance by employers with Federal pay laws and to identify and analyze industry trends. To the extent feasible, you shall avoid new record-keeping requirements and rely on existing reporting frameworks to collect the summary data. In addition, in developing the proposal you should consider independent studies regarding the collection of compensation data.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

gotta love hangin' the hat on that disclaimer....full faith in disclosure...

what a dipshite system this is....

(01-29-2016 10:52 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 09:19 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So the porn industry will have to pay men the same as women? They will either go broke, or the women are about to take a huge pay cut.

Haha, nailed it.

But seriously, what a waste of money and resources. As someone mentioned there are a myriad of reasons someone could be being paid more that can't be determined through sifting through a database in DC. Women shouldn't be paid less for doing the same work because they are a woman. But if you're a woman and have been there for 6 months and the man next you has been with the company for 6 years and makes more, that's fair game.

It's worse than that. This nonsense has been bandied about for decades now, going back to at least 90-92 when I was part of a pretty exhaustive study on this stuff.

It's not addressing the guy and gal sitting two cubicles apart that do basically the same gig and she's not getting paid the same, that rarely happens (anymore) and is actionable already.

It's taking things like a LCSW, licensed clinical social worker, or some other alphabet credentials that require essentially a Masters level degree. She does pretty well after 10 years and is making say, 48 grand (?). (no idea what she would really make.) At the local Community services board, private practice, whatever.

Similarly, Jed has graduated HS, joined the local Fire department, along the way has taken a couple of credentialing things, on line maybe, Fire science degree, some seminar or weekend stuff to put some parchments up on the firehouse wall, whatever. After 10 years he's made his way up, has folks under his charge, but still has nothing approaching a Masters degree in the "real" sense. But, he's making 62.5k a year with some nice benefits, retirement etc.

The argument is- She has the higher level of education, they are in "equal or similar" jobs, have both done these jobs for the same length of time, she hasn't taken family time off, etc etc.

The "Equal pay for 'equal' work" mantra would then say, wait if she has this level education and has been in her field just as long as he has, she should be paid more.

Taken to other comparisons, who's going to make more? The Female teacher with the Masters of Music degree, 6 years higher ed or more and 15 years in the classroom, or the guy straight out of HS that takes a few additional classes, works hard, takes risks and becomes an underwater welder? She makes 50 grand, what should he make? If it's more, that's considered "unfair".

98% of jobs considered "high risk" are occupied by men. And no, watching after unruly High Schoolers isn't considered high risk. Running into a burning building is high risk.

The majority of advanced degrees are now being earned/ awarded to females. Some will go into research fields and the like and command as much or more than their male counterparts. But a LOT of them still pursue, for a vast variety of reasons, fields traditionally female in nature, and those jobs simply don't pay as much.

It's not rocket surgery, really.

(01-29-2016 02:59 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 10:52 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 09:19 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So the porn industry will have to pay men the same as women? They will either go broke, or the women are about to take a huge pay cut.

Haha, nailed it.

But seriously, what a waste of money and resources. As someone mentioned there are a myriad of reasons someone could be being paid more that can't be determined through sifting through a database in DC. Women shouldn't be paid less for doing the same work because they are a woman. But if you're a woman and have been there for 6 months and the man next you has been with the company for 6 years and makes more, that's fair game.

It's worse than that. This nonsense has been bandied about for decades now, going back to at least 90-92 when I was part of a pretty exhaustive study on this stuff.

It's not addressing the guy and gal sitting two cubicles apart that do basically the same gig and she's not getting paid the same, that rarely happens (anymore) and is actionable already.

It's taking things like a LCSW, licensed clinical social worker, or some other alphabet credentials that require essentially a Masters level degree. She does pretty well after 10 years and is making say, 48 grand (?). (no idea what she would really make.) At the local Community services board, private practice, whatever.

Similarly, Jed has graduated HS, joined the local Fire department, along the way has taken a couple of credentialing things, on line maybe, Fire science degree, some seminar or weekend stuff to put some parchments up on the firehouse wall, whatever. After 10 years he's made his way up, has folks under his charge, but still has nothing approaching a Masters degree in the "real" sense. But, he's making 62.5k a year with some nice benefits, retirement etc.

The argument is- She has the higher level of education, they are in "equal or similar" jobs, have both done these jobs for the same length of time, she hasn't taken family time off, etc etc.

The "Equal pay for 'equal' work" mantra would then say, wait if she has this level education and has been in her field just as long as he has, she should be paid more.

Taken to other comparisons, who's going to make more? The Female teacher with the Masters of Music degree, 6 years higher ed or more and 15 years in the classroom, or the guy straight out of HS that takes a few additional classes, works hard, takes risks and becomes an underwater welder? She makes 50 grand, what should he make? If it's more, that's considered "unfair".

98% of jobs considered "high risk" are occupied by men. And no, watching after unruly High Schoolers isn't considered high risk. Running into a burning building is high risk.

The majority of advanced degrees are now being earned/ awarded to females. Some will go into research fields and the like and command as much or more than their male counterparts. But a LOT of them still pursue, for a vast variety of reasons, fields traditionally female in nature, and those jobs simply don't pay as much.

It's not rocket surgery, really.

title IX still pisses me off too....and I have only one daughter that dominates in soccer...

she just got promoted at 16.5 yrs old (her first job....bought her a car and she got a job.....yea!)

that''s my kinda woman that I want to work with....and that's how her mother (am divorced) and I have trained her to think...

developing skills are critical....especially for the female.....they are only different skills BUT CAN BE similar....

physical demanding jobs are not within their forum in scope....regardless of what the 'plugging the dyke set' think

well stated JM

I don't agree with it either. Men don't make the same amount either, when they work the same jobs. I think there are bigger issues to worry about.