WalMart in the news again...

[Thomas Rogers]

Class action lawsuit by (ex) female employees goes to the supreme court.



The lawsuit claims gender discrimation in the workplace.



Now, there is no getting around the fact that women, on average, make less than men even for the same job and that has always been the case. Studies have shown this. The news report below likes the $.77 on the $1 ratio that shows the disparity between women and men in the workplace (again, on average).



Is that discrepency still justified? Was it ever?



Feel free to discuss...



TJR

 

[H D]

In my experience, the work has never been equal. The courts cannot see that, though. Wal-Mart will lose this one if it is that straight forward. I would need to read what exactly is going before the SCOTUS to determine what constitutional matter is at hand and how it was written in the suit. I don't feel like doing that now, but maybe later...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



I suspect you and I see eye-to-eye on this. Like it or not, I think a major part of the historical disparity is due to the fact that until recently man has been largely viewed as, and has been the primary bread winner and financial provider of the family, while the woman has been viewed as the "additional income" spouse and the one that will come in late, leave early and call in sick when needed home for the kids. Then there is the whole maternity leave thing, and how that can affect a woman's earning potential.



The key words in what I say above are "largely viewed", because obviously those things mentioned above aren't always the case (single women, no kids, mr mom, etc).



However, I think that as women entered the workforce in large numbers in the 50s, 60s and 70s, that was the general attitude and believe.



Now, at this time, many studies show that that are more women employed then men (but, to be fair, more men are self-employed then women). Also, in many households the wife makes more money than the husband. So, where does that leave us?



Is the disparity such due to the fact that we have largely felt that we SHOULD, we MUST pay men more because of their role? If so, what happens when that role changes? Has that role changed (man as primary bread winner)?



Similar questions: Do we on average pay slightly older people more for doing the same job than a younger person? A person with children more than one without? If we do (either), is it right? Wrong?



TJR

 

[H D]

All up to the individual employer, IMO. Everyone has the opportunity to take or leave the job during the hiring process, which always involves an understanding of the salary. If it's unfair, say so or walk away.



And I don't want to seem like I condone the discrepancy or even care why it exists. I just don't think this is a government issue. It's a company/employee issue. But here we go, it's in the SCOTUS. Either way this one goes, I see little relevance to my life. My fiance is an entrepreneur and will likely always work for herself as an interior designer, especially in small town southern USA. I sure hope she pays herself fairly!

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



I tend to agree. If an employer wants to pay a married man with kids 20% more for the same job than he would a single guy, then I don't necessarily see a problem with that. Many would say that is discrimination. They would probably chant: "equal pay for equal work" or some other platitude. But, as you say, all things are rarely equal.



What if an employer VALUES having employees that are male, married, with children? What if that same employer values the maturity and stability that someone fitting that profile provides as an employee? Shouldn't an employer be able to compensate for that value?



Our laws would say they cannot. But don't we all suspect that SOME employers actually do value these things and compensate accordingly? Doesn't that mean we have set up a system with our laws that can't help but create abuse?



TJR

 

[DaninVa]

Slightly off-topic but... the federal government is the single biggest discriminator in this country. Whether by age, income, race or any other criteria. When our government starts treating all citizens the same under the law, then we can start worrying about private employers.

 

[EddieS'04]

Im not sure what side to take on this.

This is my experiance at the plant I retired from. When they started hiring women. Everyone made the same wage for job title.



Exception for a few very strong women. There was an imediate difference in physical capability. It still continues to this day. I would say 2 out of ten women employees did not need any help with physical tasks.



There are always issues even with some men, not being as strong as the next. The problem that existed, was. The physical tasks that any man can do. The other 8 women employees, were not strong enough. So that put their men counterparts doing both jobs. Sometimes that could be something as simple as shoveling fertlizer spills and wheel barrowing it away. Most of the women could not even lift the wheel barrow when loaded. There were many other things though. I question the equal pay issue right there.



We were a fertiler plant. We made our own acids and chemicals for the proccess. Except the NH3.



It is a messy and dirty proccess. It required alot of heavy manual labor. Even from all the operators in the units. I seen time and time again the male counter part doing his share and his female counter parts. The women didnt have the strength required. I didnt see that as fair. Equal pay though.



My own experiance was. 11 yrs as a pipefitter. I worked on anything from faucets to 1/4" to 48" pipe and valves. Some of this required the use of large impact guns or hand wrenchs that weighed 1/4th of my own weight. If a women was working with me. Making the same pay. Sometimes all she was good for was stabbing bolts or a runner for parts. I didnt see it as fair. I had to watch my mouth, so I wouldnt get discrimination charges.



I spent my last 25 yrs as a Proccess control Instrument tech. Didnt have to worry with it anymore. No women ever wanted to be a tech, at my plant. Plus the physical part of my tech job dropped by 90%.



I didnt see fairness in the plant, for equal pay. This is just my experiance. I realize not all jobs require the same. I do question the equal pay in some jobs.

 

[Les]

I tend to agree. If an employer wants to pay a married man with kids 20% more for the same job than he would a single guy, then I don't necessarily see a problem with that. Many would say that is discrimination. They would probably chant: "equal pay for equal work" or some other platitude. But, as you say, all things are rarely equal.

This is such a crock. You make a personal decision to have children it's your business, don't drag me into it. I already pay for enough useless people in this country since 47% of them don't pay any taxes.

 

[EddieS'04]

What if an employer VALUES having employees that are male, married, with children? What if that same employer values the maturity and stability that someone fitting that profile provides as an employee? Shouldn't an employer be able to compensate for that value?

No way. That is saying, that a single person is not stable with values. That just insnt the case in my world.



I have worked with many a family man that wasnt stable. Thier values stunk.

At one time. Before many units were shut down. In my 36yrs, we had as many as 380 hourly. You get all kinds in that mix.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Les says:

This is such a crock. You make a personal decision to have children it's your business, don't drag me into it.

So you are the champion of responsibility and people being able to make personal decisions and being held accountable for them. That's cool.



Well, if that is the case, as I said, what exactly is wrong with an employer that wants to make the personal decsion to pay his employees the way he (or she) deems fit? Maybe he wants to give men higher pay than women, or married men higher pay then single guys. How exactly does that employers decision "drag you" into it?



I understand that some get their nose knocked out of joint when they see a married guy, or a mom in the workplace get a benefit, get more, have to do less, whatever, than they do. But, again, if we both believe in the rights of individuals (and the responsibilities that come with those rights), then why can't an employer run their business this way if they want to?



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

Exception for a few very strong women. There was an imediate difference in physical capability. It still continues to this day. I would say 2 out of ten women employees did not need any help with physical tasks.

In my experience, even the women who don't need any help with the physical tasks still get it. UPS was infamous in this regard. UPS is basically low-security prison, and there were few women working any job there (management or labor). However, the few who did work the grunt jobs never had to lift a finger, some whipped dude was always available to lend a hand.



Bosses who thought they'd get to "hit that" would go easy on them, and often times even do their work for them. Same thing with all the grunt work jobs I've had.

if we both believe in the rights of individuals (and the responsibilities that come with those rights), then why can't an employer run their business this way if they want to?

I agree, payment is at the employer's caprice. I don't always like it, but what is the alternative? Government controls on pay, so that everyone gets equal pay? Isn't that socialism?

What if an employer VALUES having employees that are male, married, with children?

Is this set of values still prevalent? I thought it had long died out. I remember growing up hearing about it, but it seems to have died out. Same with the military adage of "Lieutenants can't marry, Captains may marry, Majors must marry".

(Again, if the employer values it, he should be able to offer incentive to retain and attract it)

 

[Tom Schindler]

Well, if that is the case, as I said, what exactly is wrong with an employer that wants to make the personal decsion to pay his employees the way he (or she) deems fit?

So, you think an employer should be able to pay a black man 1/2 of that of a white man and tht is OK?



While I agree an employer should be able to pay what he/she feels is fair, it should be done regardless of the color, sex, religon, sexual orientation, etc.



Unfortunatly, it does not work that way.



If Wal*Mart were union...



As I said, if employers treated their employees fairly with honor and dignity, there would be no such things as unions. The power to eliminate unions is not in the hands of the political system. Employers have full control of it.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen asks:

So, you think an employer should be able to pay a black man 1/2 of that of a white man and tht is OK?

Short answer: Yes!



Long answer: I think that if everything else is equal then NO, I don't think an employer SHOULD pay two men differently based solely on skin color.



Even longer answer: Note above that I say that I don't think an employer should. However, no matter what, I think that an employer SHOULD BE ABLE to pay two men differently, even for the same job. The reason I say that is because I firmly believe that there are often intangibles that makes an employer value one employee over another. Maybe one is a PITA. Maybe one is more punctual than the other. Maybe one is more loyal. Maybe one is more presentable, more articulate, etc. Whatever.



There is this notion, and its very much an out-dated notion, IMHO, that a job done to a certain specification defines ones worth, and ones value. In other words, people aren't people, they aren't individuals, they are defined by the job that they can do. I dont subscribe to that notion. I believe different people bring different things to the value exchange of employment, and that "within reason" they should be compensated differently...because they each perform differently, they each provide different value propositions.



The problem with lawsuits like this (or similar ones claiming discrimination of minorities, etc) are that they tend to look at too macro a level. They look across thousands of employees, and across averages of salaries, etc. What if the cold hard fact is that, on average, black employees, or female employees simply haven't proven themselves as valuable to companies as white men. Is that even possible? Or can't we even give that notion consideration?



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Maybe one is more punctual than the other. Maybe one is more loyal. Maybe one is more presentable, more articulate, etc. Whatever.

Maybe the only difference is that his color is black.



That is the issue. I agree with you, pay according to ability and drive, but people are not that way. They will use anything to pay less. Even if it is the old crime is because the gender is femal or the color is black.



That is wrong, IMO!





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

...pay according to ability and drive, but people are not that way. They will use anything to pay less. Even if it is the old crime is because the gender is femal or the color is black.

There you go again.



I feel like we should be playing some variation of "Wheel of Fortune", where I will say: "Caymen, would you like to buy a 'qualifier'"?



For example, just update your last statement above as follows (bold words added) and I can then agree with it:

...pay according to ability and drive, but many people are not that way. They will use just about anything to pay less.

Again, see the difference?



Not "all" people will use "anything"...that simply cannot be true. But, we can begin to agree that there are "many people" that would use "just about anything" as an excuse/reason to pay less.



I am being 100% serious, Tom, when I see that I really think that you have this extremely pessimistic view of people, in general, and it seems to come across in your communication, because it seems to me that most all of the time EVERYONE is bad, EVERYONE tries to screw the other guy, NO ONE can prevail, etc... It's not even that you are a "glass half-empty" kind of guy. You seem to be the "the glass is smashed and all glasses are smashed, broke to sh!t, and none can hold water" kind of guy. Maybe life has made you that way. Maybe it's Ohio. I don't know.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Tom, when I see that I really think that you have this extremely pessimistic view of people, in general, and it seems to come across in your communication, because it seems to me that most all of the time

I am not a pessimestic person. I know I may come across that way, but really I am not.



I see the evil in too many people on a daily basis and I know what people are capable of.



Paying a woman less to do the same job of a man is wrong. Paying a man, or woman, of color, any color, less than a white man is wrong.



If a certain woman is making less than a man is, that is an isolated incidence. If ALL women are making less that ALL men, then it is gender driven and is illegal.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen,



I simply do not think it is black and white, no pun intended. I do NOT think that it is generally wrong to pay two people that do the same job differently. It happens all the time. Employers often pay different workers different pay for the same job for any number of good reasons. The issue as I see it is that it tends to turn our government and our courts into "thought police" when they go after employers that they perceive are discriminating based on sex, race, etc.



As I said, even for the same jobs, there may be real reasons that employers value and therefore pay men more than women, on average. I can't think of good examples or types of work where this might apply, but I can't discount that to certain employers it might make a difference. Young, male elementary vs young female elementary school teachers make for one possible disparity. Some might value the male more than the female because they are more scarce and also less likely to leave after a short term.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



I see many things in black and white. My career field is quality control/quality assurance. there are only two types of answers when it comes to quality.



1, it is acceptable to the specific code

2, it is not acceptable to the specific code



There is not such thing as good enough or this will be fine.



I see a major issue with the average of women workers rate of pay doing the same line of work as a man. I see the same issue with people of color with pay less than that of a man.



I also have an issue with a person of color getting the same job I applied for with less qualifications than I have.



Unfortunatly, people still have hang-ups with color and gender. Because of that, there must be provisions in place to make sure each person has the same chance of getting a job.



These are the reason unions came into existance. Along with equal pay for equal jobs. If a woman is working next to me and can do everything I can do and do it as well as I can do, I do not want her making less money than I do, nor do I want her making more money than I do because she is a woman.



If I choose not to have children, I should not be getting less pay than someone with 10 kids. If I am single, living with my parents, I should not be getting less pay than someone that moved out and is living on their own.



If I can do my job as well as the next guy than we should be getting paid the same. I will not kiss butt with the boss to get a raise. I will not take the boss fishing and hunting in the hope he will reward me.



I go to work for a paycheck. Regardless of my personal situation, if I perform the job the same as the next guy, than I should get the exact pay.



No favors, no special araingements.





Tom

 

[Kevin Lang]

The power to eliminate unions is not in the hands of the political system. Employers have full control of it.

Caymen, this simply isn't true. If Ford could have gotten rid of the UAW, it would have. They've all but said that. Ford is an employer, and it can not eliminate a union.

(So now our Fords have to come from Mexico, Brazil, and Turkey....but that's beating a dead horse)

Regardless of my personal situation, if I perform the job the same as the next guy, than I should get the exact pay.

What if you just perform the minimum asked, and I show ambition and go above and beyond? Under your methodology, I shouldn't get paid more. No incentive to innovate and go that extra mile means that I won't do it, at least not for long. I'm sure my employer won't last long either.

I believe the USSR went down the slippery slope this thinking leads to.

I will not take the boss fishing and hunting in the hope he will reward me.

IMO, No boss should even accept that. There is a separation of power, your boss can't be your friend, for reasons similar to why relationships between coworkers are proscribed. Bosses fraternizing with their subordinates lacks proper decorum, and leads to suck-ups pulling crap like you described.

I see the same issue with people of color with pay less than that of a man.

:rofl: I'm going to assume that you didn't mean it this way, but this sentence says that people of color aren't men. Not true, of course, but still I found the faux pas funny.

As I said, even for the same jobs, there may be real reasons that employers value and therefore pay men more than women, on average.

To this, and the inverse as well, I second it.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Caymen, this simply isn't true. If Ford could have gotten rid of the UAW, it would have. They've all but said that. Ford is an employer, and it can not eliminate a union.

I disagree. The UAW was formed because of the treatment employees recieved in the past and memories die hard, very hard.



Just because a mass of people behave does not mean you lay off your security force. Your security force keeps people in line. Without your secuirty force, the people will misbehave. It may take days, weeks, or even years. This is what being human is all about.

I'm going to assume that you didn't mean it this way, but this sentence says that people of color aren't men. Not true, of course, but still I found the faux pas funny.

Yes, you are correct. I did not intend to mean it this way. All people of color are human beings and men & women. Thanks for noticing that.



I still believe that if employers treated people with the dignity and respect, unions would fail on their own. People do not like seeing a CEO get a mega bonus while being completely out of touch with its workers.



Ever watch the show "Undercover Boss"? It is amaging seeing the attitude of the CEO's and other senior managment from the start and with it change at the end of the show. The CEO of Belfor (I think that was the name of the company) say he is looking for those employees that are working side jobs. he found a guy doing side jobs, but it was brought on by the CEO and his cost cutting measures that made the employee do side jobs. What he thought was best for the company was putting the company at risk and he made changes that helped the employees while helping the company.



I love that show and DVR it every week.



When I got my ST back in 2002, the president of the company made the comment "looks like we are paying you too much". I turned it around on him and said "yea, you are right. I only deserve to live in the ghetto with my parents until the day I die". Later that day, he called me into the office and told me he was sorry for what he said. I warned him of comments like that and pointed out that with the qualifications I have, I should be paid more than I currently am. Shortly later, I recieved a substatial raise in my hourly rate of pay.



At another lab, a woman was making more than the rest of the guys with more qualifications than she had. Their excuse was that she had to drive further than they did.



I don't buy that BS. punish those guys for living closer to work than someone else? Seriously and you see no problems with that?





Tom