T Nation

McCain and Equal Pay?


As things get closer, I want to be clear on some issues; and at least TRY to weed trough all the noise.

There is no way that I think that either of the candidates is against equal pay for equal work, so don’t any of you try it.

My question is about the legislation McCain vetoed that would guarantee it.

My understanding is that he vetoed it because of a) lack of statues of limitations and b) it didn’t set damage limits.

Since legal reform is high on my list, I’m now saying:

PLUS for McCain on this one.

Thoughts?

Mufasa

Since when did congressmen get veto power?

Okay, RJ:

My bad!

(Don’t trip me up on words, Brother! I’m not running for office!)

“Didn’t support Legislation”/ “Voted Against Legislation”…/…

(You get the point!)

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Okay, RJ:

My bad!

(Don’t trip me up on words, Brother! I’m not running for office!)

“Didn’t support Legislation”/ “Voted Against Legislation”…/…

(You get the point!)

Mufasa[/quote]

I just wanted to make sure. Besides, I don’t need a bunch of left-wingers reading your post and taking off on some pointless tangent (as if this won’t get bulldogged into something about Iraq anyway).

In all honesty, there should not be a logical person on earth against equal pay for equal work. There had to be something in the wording, or in the details that gave McCain pause.

I don’t think women should be paid the same as men in jobs where they are nothing but EEOC babies such as firefighters.

I know I’m going to piss off a lot of bleeding hearts out there, but women are not as strong as men, and in jobs where strength is sometimes the difference between the life and death of an innocent person - I want the best qualified person on the job - regardless of which bathroom they frequent.

I know there are some strong women on this sight, and I am not talking about them. I think that if a woman wants equal pay - she should perform at the minimum standard that the men are required to.

No discounts for push ups, pull ups, and running unless the pay is downwardly adjusted right along with the standards.

But in the business world, there is no difference between males and females, so there need not be any difference in compensation.

Now let the gnashing and waling begin.

IF I’M NOT MISTAKEN, I think that what McCain wanted to avert was the mess that sexual harassment laws have become; taking good laws and necessary laws (watch “Mad Men”!) and turning them into Gold Mines for lawyers and headaches for employers.

In other words, over-reaching their original intent until sexual harassment can mean almost anything anyone wants it to be, with lawyers ready and willing to stir the pot.

IS this what McCain was against?

To RJ’s point; I can see where “equal work” can get into some VERY gray areas in certain professions. Knowing how laws are often written, I can imagine that this most likely has been a murky area in any Bill that has come up.

Mufasa

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Okay, RJ:

My bad!

(Don’t trip me up on words, Brother! I’m not running for office!)

“Didn’t support Legislation”/ “Voted Against Legislation”…/…

(You get the point!)

Mufasa

I just wanted to make sure. Besides, I don’t need a bunch of left-wingers reading your post and taking off on some pointless tangent (as if this won’t get bulldogged into something about Iraq anyway).

In all honesty, there should not be a logical person on earth against equal pay for equal work. There had to be something in the wording, or in the details that gave McCain pause.

I don’t think women should be paid the same as men in jobs where they are nothing but EEOC babies such as firefighters.

I know I’m going to piss off a lot of bleeding hearts out there, but women are not as strong as men, and in jobs where strength is sometimes the difference between the life and death of an innocent person - I want the best qualified person on the job - regardless of which bathroom they frequent.

I know there are some strong women on this sight, and I am not talking about them. I think that if a woman wants equal pay - she should perform at the minimum standard that the men are required to.

No discounts for push ups, pull ups, and running unless the pay is downwardly adjusted right along with the standards.

But in the business world, there is no difference between males and females, so there need not be any difference in compensation.

Now let the gnashing and waling begin. [/quote]

I agree 100% with one caveat:

Men ask for raises more often, and are more aggressive about pursuing pay raises. If you don’t have the balls to ask for a raise, you don’t get one, that’s just that. Nothing to do with your gender, just your resolve.

So if you’re doing the same work for less pay, why exactly aren’t you asking for more money then?

Otherwise: Good post.

So basically he voted against an on slaughter of laws suits for back pay and damages. That would be the last thing the US court system would need. At least the man can think on multiple levels.

streamline:

That’s how I’m reading it; but I wanted some more opinions.

Mufasa

Any person who argues in favor of equal pay should also logically argue in favor of equal prices of all goods and services.

No.

Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Any person who argues in favor of equal pay should also logically argue in favor of equal prices of all goods and services.[/quote]

What in the fuck does that even mean?

Please - if you want to go off to the land of made up definitions, and bullshit theories, then start one of your idiotic threads. Please don’t take a shit in Mufasa’s thread.

And make no mistake, your ramblings are nothing but fecal excrement.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Any person who argues in favor of equal pay should also logically argue in favor of equal prices of all goods and services.

What in the fuck does that even mean?

Please - if you want to go off to the land of made up definitions, and bullshit theories, then start one of your idiotic threads. Please don’t take a shit in Mufasa’s thread.

And make no mistake, your ramblings are nothing but fecal excrement. [/quote]

Wages are prices.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa[/quote]

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.[/quote]

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?[/quote]

Don’t encourage him. Now he’s going to go and start making up new meanings to words so that he will be right.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?[/quote]

There is no equality. Everyone is different and brings different values and productivity to their job. People should be free to compete for whatever wage they can get. The government has no business deciding who should get payed what for any reason. If you argue for equal pay for labor then you also must argue for equal pay for equal goods and services – otherwise your argument is inconsistent.

Prices and wages are the same exact thing. Not only that, the fallacy of equal pay would make you also argue in favor of equal stock-prices too. Coke and Pepsi both make colas so they should also have equal stock prices.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?

There is no equality. Everyone is different and brings different values and productivity to their job. People should be free to compete for whatever wage they can get. The government has no business deciding who should get payed what for any reason. If you argue for equal pay for labor then you also must argue for equal pay for equal goods and services – otherwise your argument is inconsistent.

Prices and wages are the same exact thing. Not only that, the fallacy of equal pay would make you also argue in favor of equal stock-prices too. Coke and Pepsi both make colas so they should also have equal stock prices.[/quote]

Good God - you are about a stupid motherfucker.

The argument here is about sex discrimination. Unless you can prove that the differentiation in goods offered for retail sale - hell - even wholesale are based strictly on the customer’s sex, you have about zero argument.

Can you do that?

Then shut the fuck up and go preach your butt-cheese coated tripe somewhere else.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Its equal pay FOR EQUAL JOBS.

(That’s the debate. I just wanted to clarify).

Mufasa

Yes. So then logically I should be able to walk into a Target and pay the same price for the exact same product in Wal-Mart.

Equal pay for a PERFECTLY equal job. Ceteris Peribus. That means at the same company in the same place in the same building with the same boss with the same personality ect ect only difference being gender.

Happy?

There is no equality. Everyone is different and brings different values and productivity to their job. People should be free to compete for whatever wage they can get. The government has no business deciding who should get payed what for any reason. If you argue for equal pay for labor then you also must argue for equal pay for equal goods and services – otherwise your argument is inconsistent.

Prices and wages are the same exact thing. Not only that, the fallacy of equal pay would make you also argue in favor of equal stock-prices too. Coke and Pepsi both make colas so they should also have equal stock prices.[/quote]

Exactly what planet are you from. Equal pay is an individual business practice. Equal pay is within your own company. Not that of the competition. Everyone in a given company should make the exact same pay as every other employee doing the same job discription. You are not entitled to the same pay as someone working for a different company.

Lifticus’ argumentation is sound.
If you live in a world where man and woman are perfectly equal and you feel the need to enforce equal pay, you should also enforce that a company workforce is compromised of men & women in a 1:1 ratio.