SB 8609: Paycheck Fairness Act (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:28:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SB 8609: Paycheck Fairness Act (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: SB 8609: Paycheck Fairness Act  (Read 3083 times)
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« on: December 29, 2018, 11:42:40 AM »

Is it normal in New Zealand for your Parliament to increase a tax rate and then 2 months later increase it again?
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2018, 04:00:50 PM »

Why exactly is the supposed gender pay gap a problem. The federal government shouldn't favor certain groups of people on the basis of sex. This is reverse discrimination. Also, these burdensome regulations aren't needed as businesses can make judgements on who gets pay raises.

Im more amused that given our large unfunded budget deficit this bill seeks to waste money on feel-good awards for corporations that heroically comply with the law and patronizing "negotiation training" for only women since they are apparently more weak, frail, and helpless then men or something. In other words corporate welfare and sexist graft. I am actually fine with Sections 1 - 3 and 12 - 13, and had planned on introducing a version of this during the session I had to dial back then resign. It would be wonderful if someone would offer an amendment striking sections 4 - 11. That would preserve the good parts of this bill, cost us nothing, and not result in the dumb policymaking that is changing tax rates every 2 months before most payors even realize they changed the first time.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2018, 08:15:40 PM »

The bill works best when taken as a full package. While I'd be open to clarifying the role of the actual SoIA to avoid overloading them, the different components of the bill are important. There does need to be more research into this issue and greater national understanding and transparency on it(and I was disappointed by dismissive comments that I found uninformed). The steps in this bill are appropriate, and a gutted bill would be less effective at reducing the gender pay gap as there are many contributing issues. I believe the expenditure and funding appropriated to this bill is not unreasonable, and that this bill is beneficial to Atlasia.

Finally, I'd like to confirm that there is a serious problem of a gender pay gap. Currently, women are disadvantaged financially compared to men. I don't want women to be treated better than men and paid more than men, I want to level the playing field so everyone is treated fairly regardless of gender, and given the uneven starting positions the provisions of this bill can't simply make both genders better off but do have to be targeted to ensure fairness in the future. Currently, women in Atlasia working full-time on average earn $0.80 to every dollar earned by a man, and at the current rate of change pay equity won't be reached until 2059(link). The gap is even greater when broken down by race, Black women make $0.63 for every dollar, while Latina women earn $0.54 for every dollar.

Notably, 83% of women do believe there is a pay gap. There is still a pay gap even when accounting for different choices such as whether to raise a family and who takes on the primary family role. What is pretty clear is that there is some level of pay-gap, which both discrimination and differences in how pay negotiations go contribute to. This is a significant problem, the average $0.20 gap comes to on average $10,000 a year, and even in lower-paying professions comes to around $5,000. This is a serious disadvantage and an unfair one, and one that we need to take seriously and address.

Respectfully, saying there is a wage gap (which frankly largely disappears when other factors are controlled for) is not an argument for why the specific programs help "solve" that gap. Does an award program for corporations REALLY do anything to reduce the gap, especially when the above criteria is merely that the award winners do what they are already legally required to do? Does having a discriminatory "negotiation training" slushfund program for only women REALLY do anything to reduce the gap? Does shoehorning race into yet another dumb reporting requirement REALLY do anything to reduce the gender wage gap?

This could be a perfectly good bill that has no budget impact and actually fits into 1 post if we just trim out the bigoted corporate welfare bloat and totally unrelated dead people tax along the lines of Lechs amendment. The meat in this bill is protecting the sharing of wage data with coworkers so discrepancies become apparent. That should be the focus rather than segregated training and corporate welfare. If you adopt Lechs amendment there is no longer anything objectionable in the bill, just a good proposal to protect the freedom of workers to share their pay data.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2019, 05:11:10 PM »

Hang on, what's the objection to Section 10?

Prior wage history is a neutral criteria by which to negotiate salaries.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2019, 09:35:41 AM »

So clearly the vote on this amendment has closed with the amendment passing 2-1 right? Its been like 6 days.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2019, 04:01:24 PM »

Nay on the amendment, seeing as the vote is still open.

The vote closed 72 hrs after it opened.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2019, 10:15:42 AM »


As amended correct?
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2019, 10:56:55 AM »

Abstain. I don’t exactly like the way the playability aspect has been handled; it feels a somewhat lazy fix and I don’t want to set a precedent of doing this.

Abstaining on a 3-2 vote is setting a precedent though by allowing it to pass rather than stopping this version and allowing the House version which largely eliminates the concerns addressed while keeping the good parts of this bill to pass. Remember there is a better version in the house, so its not like the issue would die with a 3-4 tiebreaker here for no.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.