House passes pay equity bill

[A18]

I almost laughed at the invocation of the 23-cents statistic. That of course shows nothing about pay discrimination whatsoever.

And obviously, I would vote against the legislation.

[A18]

Wrong. What it means is that the median income of a full-time working man exceeds the median income of a full-time working woman by that amount.

[A18]

A common misperception, but a misperception nonetheless. The much-touted statistic merely compares the median wage for each sex with that of the other.

[A18]

There's very little, although doubtless some. There's some against men, as well--largely government-endorsed, of course.

Discrimination against women in employment decisions is already illegal; this has to do with the enforcement mechanisms. While even the present laws should be scrapped entirely, this bill establishes a far more draconian regime. Particularly egregious is the decision to strip away at the education, training, and experience defense, by limiting its scope to cases where "(i) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii) is job-related with respect to the position in question; and (iii) is consistent with business necessity." Needless to say, these vague standards are merely an invitation to judicial legislation--to ex post facto law, of the most pernicious and immoral form. Worse still, the bill allows for unlimited compensatory and even punitive damages.

And those are just some highlights. Rarely has a more appalling piece of legislation received the assent of the House of Representatives.

[A18]

That argument is addressed in my post, to which you did not respond. This ridiculous piece of legislation would, in the first place, change what qualifies as discrimination. It also allows for draconian penalties; a concern that is in no way undermined by your cartoonish statement that "no employer who isn't discriminating against women has to worry." Contrary to popular myth, whether an employer has "discriminated" or not, is not written on his forehead; it is a matter of weighing evidence, and necessary involves the possibility of error.

Additional false claims will almost surely be brought should this legislation become law. (It greatly increases the potential benefit of making a claim.) And even when the employer wins, it will come at a cost.