Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
like I said, I wasn't sure.
but also like I said, it's not the point.
you said that you didn't have a problem with punitive damages, and didn't see why the current law should be changed.
that's a non-sequitur the way you posted it, so I asked why you were brining it into the discussion.
the current law doesn't need to be changed with regard to punitive damages, it needs to be changed because you can't sue someone six months after the first discriminatory paycheck.
so go back to your argument, and reframe it without the logical fallacy.
|
My interprtation of the bills proposed was to make it more punitive for employers guilty of pay discrimination based on sex. The connection in my view is that punitive damages are already available. I don't see other values of the bills proposed. Perhaps there would be added value to trial lawyers, but I do not advocate for them.
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 11 : 53 : 12-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
If you don't work for someone, then they can't discriminate against you via pay. How could someone quit their job, wait a while, and then sue their former employer for back pay?
|
I don't find the wording clear, if your interpretation is correct, I agree. However, if the law allows for more than nominal damages during employment, proved compensatory damages, and Punitive damages if applicable, then I disagree. And I guess it goes back to - what is the point of the proposed legislation?
Quote:
|
I agree that one shouldn't twiddle their thumbs where there are employers to sue. But in most cases, the salaries aren't public. How would you propose someone respond in a situation where they don't find out that the discrimination occurred until it is too late to actually do anything about it?
|
The old...if a tree falls in the forest...question. If you don't know you were discriminated against, how do you find out, how do you prove it. It takes effort.
But again, I go back to McCain and his point about education and training. People who are educated, trained and have marketable job skills, will be able to easily leave an employer paying them 70% on the dollar and go to an employer paying the full market rate. Being proactive is the best way to eliminate wage discrimination, assuming all other factors are equal.
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 11 : 58 : 18-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
the reason women's pay has become closer in line with men's pay is primarily a function of decreasing male wages.
yeah, we're reaching parity...because men are finally getting shafted nearly as much as women.
that's what the data says.
don't think anyone other than employers should celebrate it.
|
In a competitive market for employees, how can employers get away with paying people less than what they are worth? Do you assume the market for employees is not competitive? Could there be other factors affecting real wages? Factors like globalization, immigration, increases in non-wage costs for employees, slowed productivity growth, mechanization, etc.