Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41941 - 41960 of total 45428 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
dirtbag

climber
Apr 11, 2014 - 09:47am PT
I'm utterly convinced the conservatives driving the Republican Party have lost their minds.

k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Apr 11, 2014 - 10:46am PT
Let's be clear, the bill, called the Paycheck Fairness Act, would bring transparency to worker pay by making it illegal for employers to penalize employees who discuss their salaries and by requiring the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect pay information from employers.

True, one of the goals is to enable women (and minorities) to get equal pay, but the bill does nothing to really enforce that equal pay.

Ain't it crazy, folks like John E. want it to be illegal for you to discuss your pay with fellow workers.


Why John, why?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Apr 11, 2014 - 10:53am PT
because he is a blind partisan hack

remember, it wasn't his Republicans that shut down the government, it was the Dems
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 11, 2014 - 10:55am PT
The whole 'don't talk about your comp plan' taboo is a ridiculous piece of sh#t con job perpetrated by employers, for whom the last thing they want is various employees comparing notes! OMG!!!!!

I would sign a comp condidentiality agreement, for an additional $100k per year. Otherwise, F*#K OFF.

I will tell my fellow employees what I make, if asked and if they will share in-kind.

True story - Tammy and I worked for the same company, doing the same job, starting about the same time, though she had some seniority over me. One day she was obviously upset and I asked her why and she said she asked for a rise and was told they were giving none away. She told me she hadn't a rise in like 5-years.

"That's odd, I got a couple during that time." (I did) She asked me what I made and then paled even further when she realized she was making $20k less than me! For the same job. Now we each had our strengths and weaknesses. Equal but not the same, right? She deserved and I mean deserved the same level of comp as me, perhaps more. I thought so.

Anyway, properly informed and armed for her next encounter with the Bossman?

She got her rise.

GO TAMMY!!!!1111 :)

DMT

ps. I will NEVER forget the look of outrage and underneath all that? HURT. I will never forget her hurt at realizing our Philadelphia-based, east-coast-liberal-owned privately held company was screwing her. She was hurt, to the core and I don't think she ever got over it either, her sense of betrayal.

pps. Another fellow employee, we'll call him Curt (cause that's his name!) - after the Tammy incident I asked him over drinks what he made. He declined to answer even after I told him it was in our collective (COLLECTIVE, BY GOD!) best interest to do so. I shrugged and we forgot about it. Later I found out he was screwing himself in his confidentiality. I never told him.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 11, 2014 - 11:07am PT
I found that link Philo

http://www.Bookwormrapesendangeredturtles.com

and I also found this
http://www.bookwormhatestheamericangovernment.com
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Apr 11, 2014 - 11:23am PT
did you guys watch the video of a shoe being thrown at hillary! lol!
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 11, 2014 - 11:36am PT
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Apr 11, 2014 - 11:38am PT
Hilary seemed to be willing to engage there.... why'd the coward run away?

was he a right winger perhaps?
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 11, 2014 - 11:50am PT
yep, i have so little you won't even engage the issue...just call me names and make infantile sexual jokes


i'll make my point clear: libs claim voter id laws are racist; clinton supports the idea but libs say nothing


i find it ironic that libs consider the south racist even though blacks have greater pay parity with whites in SOUTHERN cities (probably why more blacks are moving into the "racist" south) than in northern cities...libs don't want to respond because they will find a correlation (i'd argue causation) with conservative economic policies--see texas vs cali

similar to the way libs ignore barry's own gender pay disparity and fawningly accept his explanation even though it's the exact same explanation corporations use

or the way libs ignore the fact that mandatory minimum wage laws have a disproportionate negative effect on poor minorities

or the way libs ignore barry's lies about health care and his unconstitutional rewriting of health care legislation to postpone implementation until after the elections (if it's so awesome, why not let us have all of it right now?)

i could go on, of course, but...
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Apr 11, 2014 - 12:14pm PT
So bookie, are you concerned about fair pay in our society?

Or any issues for that matter?

Or are you only concerned with demonizing "libs" ?

Seems like your posts are always about "libs" - the issues are incidental.

Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 11, 2014 - 12:23pm PT
or the way libs ignore the fact that mandatory minimum wage laws have a disproportionate negative effect on poor minorities

Bookworm

Please try and prove any your lame ass points booky
Just posting a bunch of BS doesn't sway us much.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Apr 11, 2014 - 01:15pm PT
Thought Police on Patrol
No longer trying to win the debate, the Left is trying to stop debate altogether.

By Charles Krauthammer

Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to the Washington Post demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.

The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the Left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

Sometimes the word comes from on high, as when the president of the United States declares the science of global warming to be “settled.” Anyone who disagrees is then branded “anti-science.” And better still, a “denier” — a brilliantly chosen calumny meant to impute to the climate skeptic the opprobrium normally reserved for the hatemongers and crackpots who deny the Holocaust.

Then last week, another outbreak. The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.

Like the CEO of Mozilla who resigned under pressure just ten days into his job when it was disclosed that six years earlier he had donated to California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

But why stop with Brendan Eich, the victim of this high-tech lynching? Prop 8 passed by half a million votes. Six million Californians joined Eich in the crime of “privileging” traditional marriage. So did Barack Obama. In that same year, he declared that his Christian beliefs made him oppose gay marriage.

Yet under the new dispensation, this is outright bigotry. By that logic, the man whom the Left so ecstatically carried to the White House in 2008 was equally a bigot.

The whole thing is so stupid as to be unworthy of exegesis. There is no logic. What’s at play is sheer ideological prejudice — and the enforcement of the new totalitarian norm that declares, unilaterally, certain issues to be closed.

To this magic circle of forced conformity, the Left would like to add certain other policies, resistance to which is deemed a “war on women.” It’s a colorful synonym for sexism. Leveling the charge is a crude way to cut off debate.

Thus, to oppose late-term abortion is to make war on women’s “reproductive health.” Similarly, to question Obamacare’s mandate of free contraception for all.

Some oppose the regulation because of its impingement on the free exercise of religion. Others on the simpler (non-theological) grounds of a skewed hierarchy of values. Under the new law, everything is covered, but a few choice things are given away free. To what does contraception owe its exalted status? Why should it rank above, say, antibiotics for a sick child, for which that same mother must co-pay?

Say that, however, and you are accused of denying women “access to contraception.”

Or try objecting to the new so-called Paycheck Fairness Act for women, which is little more than a full-employment act for trial lawyers. Sex discrimination is already illegal. What these new laws do is relieve the plaintiffs of proving intentional discrimination. To bring suit, they need only to show that women make less in that workplace.

Like the White House, where women make 88 cents to the men’s dollar?

That’s called “disparate impact.” Does anyone really think Obama consciously discriminates against female employees, rather than the disparity being a reflection of experience, work history, etc.? But just to raise such questions is to betray heretical tendencies.

The good news is that the “war on women” charge is mostly cynicism, fodder for campaign-year demagoguery. But the trend is growing. Oppose the current consensus and you’re a denier, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, an enemy of the people.

Long a staple of academia, the totalitarian impulse is spreading. What to do? Defend the dissenters, even if — perhaps, especially if — you disagree with their policy. It is — it was? — the American way.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2014 The Washington Post Writers Group
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Apr 11, 2014 - 01:20pm PT
A shoe thrown at Hillary.

How many times have you replayed that video for yourself, TGT & booky?

I hope you wash your hands before you use the keyboard again.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Apr 11, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
It declares certain controversies over

in terms of AGW, it is. Fact. There is no controversy among those who understand it.


The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

OK less certain but I'm glad you / he brought it up. Under what framing of morality is gay marriage considered an inferior morality, other than religious dogma?

Use as many of your own words as you feel needed Hookworm.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Apr 11, 2014 - 02:55pm PT
Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to the Washington Post demanding a ban on any article questioning the existence of the tooth fairy.

Why are people afraid to debate the existence of the tooth fairy?
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Apr 11, 2014 - 03:18pm PT
Bookster, most of what you post is no more relevant than the fact you rape endangered turtles.



photo not found
Missing photo ID#353703
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Apr 11, 2014 - 04:34pm PT
The Democrats' "Paycheck Fairness Act" purports to provide greater transparency in pay of employees, but it would really provide for a bonanza for the plaintiffs' bar, increased work for the defense bar, and much more unfair compensation.

This reminds me of the old BS I used to hear about "comparable worth." Comparable under whose criteria? In a country where we're free to work or not work as we see fit, and where we see fit, if you don't like what your current employer pays, no one is forcing you to stay.

About the only place where a "comparable worth" concept has merit would be a situation such as prison guards, if the law precludes preclude women from working as guards in a men's prison and vice versa. In such a situation, the employees lack the legal ability to switch to the allegedly better-compensated job, and consequently no force to penalize an employer for unfairly favoring one gender over another. Otherwise, the market provides an exceedingly powerful punishment for those who discriminate unfairly.

I find it particularly ironic that so many who rail against "corporate greed" (an interesting concept coming from those who remind us that those metaphysical entities aren't "people") simultaneously allege that those same "greedy" businesses unfairly discriminate in payment for the same job. If they were to do so, they would be overpaying someone, and greed abhors overpayment of others.

Economic logic aside (since so few in the Democratic party seem to possess economic logic of late), the likely outcome of such legislation, and the lawsuits that inevitably follow, would be compensation such as we currently see in public education and government employment. Rather than attempting to compensate people based on their worth to the organization, we would compensate them based on the crudest "objective" criteria such as seniority, degrees or certificates earned, etc. They almost never base compensation on productivity, competence, or any other proxy for true merit, because that depends on subjective measures.

No thank you. I'd much rather work for an organization where my compensation depends on pleasing my boss (or, when I'm self-employed, my customers or clients), because those organizations tend to produce more responsive service, better results, and ultimately higher compensation. In contrast, lockstep compensation (called using objective criteria by its apologists) creates powerful peer pressure to perform at the level of the least effective.

While I have no doubt that relative salaries get discussed among co-workers, I never did so, and never thought it was a good idea to do so. I know what competitors pay, and that was a good enough measure for me to determine the fairness of my pay, rather than stirring up potential resentment.

Again, the only likely effect of the Senate's bill would be to cause litigation over people alleging they were the victims of unfair pay discrimination. The real purpose of the bill is for the Democrats to play up the mythical Republican War on Women.

Of course, in doing so, the President and the Democratic Senators (with their lackeys and running dogs in the media) play up the fact that women earn, on average, 77% of what men earn. Of course, they don't mention that the data from which they derive that alleged gap also show that men work more.

It should surprise no one that a group working longer earns more on average than an otherwise comparable group working shorter. When one accounts for the difference in relevant experience, the alleged gap disappears. And heaven forbid that anyone mention that among single people in their 20's, women earn more than men. They should; more of them go on to college.

The cynicism of politics is nothing new, but the feigned passion for this nonsense disappoints me.

John
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Apr 11, 2014 - 04:50pm PT
you dodged the legislation's main issue, John, with your largely irrelevant rant

explain why employers should be allowed to continue to penalize any employee from comparing their pay to a co workers

specifically the intent of the bill, to ensure women get paid the same as men for the same work, without fear of recrimination from their employer
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 11, 2014 - 04:55pm PT
While I have no doubt that relative salaries get discussed among co-workers, I never did so, and never thought it was a good idea to do so.

Bizarre.

DMT
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Apr 11, 2014 - 04:57pm PT
While I have no doubt that relative salaries get discussed among co-workers, I never did so, and never thought it was a good idea to do so.

I've made it a practice to share my salary with a close circle of coworkers over the years and I have no doubt that this practice has been quite beneficial to me.

The net benefit I've received from the increased negotiating power of knowing where I stand relative to others is very valuable.

It's really simple: Knowledge is power.

Employers who try to discourage employees from having knowledge are not doing it for the benefit of the employee.

Nevertheless, I am reluctant to support legislation that tries to force wage fairness across arbitrary groups (gender, race, etc.) Outside of minimum wage requirements I don't believe prices should be regulated in the employment market, particularly the white-collar market.
Messages 41941 - 41960 of total 45428 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews