Hochul says Corwin doesn't support equal pay for women

Hissss, hissss, aaaaiiiiieeeeeeesssssss! Cat fight! All right, pull some hair! High School fights are the best.

The audacity of Corwin. "Jane Corwin believes that small businesses know best how to run their companies, not government bureaucrats." Women deserve the same pay for the same job, period. The days of women suplimenting their husbands' pay is long over.

Shame on Jane Corwin! Hell would have to freeze over before I voted for her antiquated ideals.

George Bush hates black people

I hate George Bush and I'm white. Probably whiter than you, I don't like the sun.

Matthew Harakal and Corwin are living in another dimension. Today's women are heads of households. They are not just working to wile away their time or supplimenting their spouse's income.
They have the education, the training, and the ability to do the job and deserve equal pay for the job done.

Janis, (sorry Janice, I had Joplin on the brain) When my dad would get wound up over some political issue he would sometimes say: "Why the orgassity of some people" my mom would mock him behind his back and it just endeared me to him stronger than ever. At least he was trying to expand his vocabulary and he got close enough that we knew what he meant, if we knew what audacity meant. I do, you do and I would hope everyone does, but they don't. That's the real reason we are in the mess we are in.

Today is the day that represents how far into the year that women have to work to earn the equivalent of their male counterparts. Four months into 2011.

Businesses should know best and should be paying women equal pay for equal work, but they don't. I guess in Jane Corwin's and Chris Lee's world of trust funds, equal pay just isn't a priority.

My wife has always made more money than I have. If she worked equally as hard as I did/do not I would be mad. But I have always done half as much as she does so it stays fair.
Works for me and she aint bitchin' that much anymore either. I take that as the calm before the storm.

Equal pay for the same work, done to the same standard, good.

But equal pay for "comparable worth", what's "comparable worth"? Who determines that?

John, where in this thread is an argument regarding "comparable worth"? Are you throwing something in that wasn't there?

Bea,
Look again, under background, that's where. Maybe you can explain what that means?

I was first intrigued by Kathy Hochul based on her record as county clerk and her apparent independence from her party. I am disappointed by this type of politics, however. To make the quantum leap in logic that takes Corwins vote from an anti-government intrusion into business to she is anti-equality is what turn many voters off (thus the Kanye West reference). This was a classic example of wording a bill so that opponents could be labled as villains for voting a totally different principle. I was hoping Hochul was above that, and I am still waiting for her platform on social issues, why is this so difficult to get?

you are right, John. I did miss that.

I agree that women should receive equal pay for equal work but I believe that the overall discrepancy is skewed by in large because they aren't doing the same work. Other variables are involved in women's selection of career paths such as; flexibility of schedule, regular hours, choosing occupations with fewer risks, etc.

I can think of numerous careers where the pay is identical and just as many where the overwhelming percentage of workers are men. How many women long to be out on the Bering Sea, fishing for crab? There is also the matter of lowering standards in order to allow women access to specific career opportunities to begin with; a civil service physical agility test to become a firefighter, for example.

So lets talk about comparable worth.

What's wrong with a point system?

If a truck driver (traditionally male) and an office assistant (traditionally female) score the same points in worth to a company, why shouldn't they be paid equally? This is about evaluating worth of employee's and setting fair pay scales to match that worth.

Why should an office assistant make the same as a truck driver or vise versa? Now If you were to say that a male truck driver and a female truck driver who are equally important to the company they work for and are equally as productive then yeah they absolutely deserve equal pay.
Same thing for the office assistant.
Maybe I misunderstood your post Lorie but I'm all for equality across the board. Just as long as were are comparing equal jobs.

Lorie,
Who would set your point system? That's the issue. If the company thinks both are of equal value, they would already be paid the same.

So, will it be the government that sets the points? Is that what this is about, a big brother approach? Is this what Hochul thinks?

Posted by Jeremiah Pedro on April 12, 2011 - 11:11pm
Why should an office assistant make the same as a truck driver or vise versa? Now If you were to say that a male truck driver and a female truck driver who are equally important to the company they work for and are equally as productive then yeah they absolutely deserve equal pay.
Same thing for the office assistant.
Maybe I misunderstood your post Lorie but I'm all for equality across the board. Just as long as were are comparing equal jobs.

I agree. Sadly, it doesn't always work that way.
Women are still battling that glass ceiling.

I think the obvious point here is that Corwin stands for keeping that glass ceiling in place, or she needs to jerk the chain of her Communications Director and have him stop making press releases on her behalf

Kyle,
Do you like the idea of a point system for pay?

Not really John....

If you are filling a job position, then the pay should be the same. Point systems and lowering expectations for positions is all bs to me you either can or cant do the job.

The only difference in pay for the same job should come from merit bonuses or seniority bonuses where applicable.

What's wrong with a point system?

For starters, it may offer an end run around the Governor's wage freeze for State employees because it will effectively raise State employees wages.(the list of those lobbying for this bill might lead one to believe that this was the real purpose of the bill)

Secondly, not all pay inequities are male vs female. Anyone that has ever worked within the Civil Service system can attest that not all employees within the same job title are created equal and seniority doesn't necessarily mean a higher "value" employee. Not only does this bill does not address that inequity; it expressly excludes it.

This bill would force small businesses, at considerable expense, to implement seniority or merit-based pay systems, similar to the civil service system, so they could adequately comply with the statute or risk non-compliance with a less formal system.

Small businesses would also be forced to determine the "value" of their employees based upon an arbitrary set of government standards rather than based on their own personal observation, requirements and unique business needs.

The bill, as an unintended consequence, may also supress wages. If an employer knows that he has to hire a new secretary, he may have to forgo giving the truck driver a raise in order to start the secretary out at a lower entry level salary.

I would have to agree with Jeff's comment:

This was a classic example of wording a bill so that opponents could be labled as villains for voting a totally different principle.

I too am disappointed that Kathy Hochul went there.

Sorry JoAnn as the past has proven, sometimes you have to keep the system simple. The more complex it is then the more chance to twist it into somthing it's not. Small businesses know their business better than the Govt. Look at it this way how would you like it if the state dictated to you how to run your household, who is gonna know the nuances of your household needs, a beaurcat in the state capital or you yourself?

Same thing has happened with children nowadays, we eliminated competion, because of a few abusers some kids get away with doing whatever they want becuse the State and counties can tell you how to discipline your child. In schools and instruction instead of learning to deal with skills that are lacking or with difficulties in class or social situation we "homogenize" things so then every one is treated equally which leads to feelings of inequity or downright anger cause of frustration, but thats the way beaurcats want it.

Life isnt like this you make everything too easy or to generalized then when they grow up and get out of college the world beats the hell out of them because as much as we would like it to be that isn't how reality is. And our children really dont know how to deal with it.

Some things Govt is better left on the outside of.

Interesting piece in the Wall Street Journal...and written by a woman.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487044151045762506725047070…

Kyle, I agree. That was the whole point of my post. This bill would be an unnecessary intrusion into small business.

It would seem that Hochul favors the government setting wage rates. Maybe one of her supporters can clear this up?

In 1979, women earned 59.7 cents for every dollar men earned. In 1996, women were earning 72 cents for every dollar men earned. Things haven't improved much since then, with women's earnings hovering around 76-77 percent of men's.

http://www.pay-equity.org/info-Q&A.html
Will the wages of white men be reduced if pay equity is implemented?

A: No, Federal law prohibits reducing pay for any employee to remedy discrimination. Furthermore, male workers in female-dominated jobs benefit when sex discrimination is eliminated, as do white workers in minority-dominated jobs. Pay equity means equal treatment for all workers.

Will achieving pay equity require a national wage-setting system?

A: No, pay equity does not mandate across-the-board salaries for any occupation, nor does it tamper with supply and demand. It merely means that wages must be based on job requirements like skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions without consideration of race, sex, or ethnicity.

The fact remains that women make 20%+ less than men. I want pay equity for my daughter and granddaughter.

Lorie,
Then where does this "comparable worth" come in? Who decides what "like skill" is, the government? Some government imposed point system?

Again, I support equal pay for the same job, in the same place and done to the same standard. But do I want Hochul to decide what a job is worth, I don't think so.

Lorie, your Q & A is for the federal statute, not the NYS statute. NYS added the "comparable value" component which attempts to mathematically equalize apples and oranges(2 different jobs).

As long as men and women have an equal opportunity to apply for the same job at the same starting salary, I see no basis for discrimination.

John, here is my own personal example:

In the early 80's I worked in a high tech job in the semi conductor industry. My job was high skill and the pay was living wage with good benefits. No complaints there. I was part of the electrical department -- mostly women. The mechanical department, made up of men (heavy lifting), paid a rate of about .30 an hour more. The electrical department was just as important to the manufacturing of the product as the mechanical department. The job titles were electrical assembly and mechanical assembly. There should not have been inequity in pay, but there was.

Lorie, let me ask this, if The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits unequal pay for equal or "substantially equal" work performed by men and women and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits wage discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin, why do we need another costly debate and enactment of a statute to enforce two similar laws that are already in place?
I am all for pay equality, but I just can't see the expense of enacting more legislation that is redundant. Just to offer a counter to your example, while the electrical department may have been just as valuable to the end product, the mechanical jobs with, as you said, heavy lifting carry more inherent risk for injury and shortened career longevity than technical. It does not diminish the importance of technical, it simply recognizes and compensates the liability of the mechanical position. That is coming from someone with enough hardware in their back to know the value and liability of risk.

Lorie,
I understand you wanted more money. But because you think your department was just as important does not mean management did. Who makes that decision?

Again, are you suggesting that the government step in and tell private enterprise what jobs are equal to each other and what they are worth?

Would you have accepted .30 more per hour if the heavy lifting became part of your job duties? I don't think it's fair that women want to claim equality, then expect the men to still do all the heavy lifting.

Heavy lifting, in my opinion, is enough of a job differential that should warrant an extra .30 per hour due to the inherent risks of injury and possible disability.

Part of my job was climbing into a large chamber to hook up the road map of wires that ran to each assembly. I was very nimble and much thinner than I am now so the awkward positions were easiest for me out of everyone in the department. Other people in my department had a skill set with small components. Both these jobs would have been difficult for the men. So which skill set deserved the higher pay? Or should pay have been equal for both departments since each of us brought our own unique skill sets.

Actually Joanne, I did incur one job related injury due to lifting a heavy power supply that needed to be secured to the chassis in the large chamber that I wired up. Needed a little chiropractic care for a few months and went out on comp for a couple of weeks. Have had trouble with my lower back ever since.

See, now I would have asked a man for assistance. That's what they get paid the big bucks for.

Lorie,
Again, who should decide what a skill set is worth, the employer or the government?

Joanne, lol!

We were in one very large, open space (we built semi conductor crystal growing chambers) and the two departments worked side by side. In hindsight, I should have called over for help, as I had done many other times. The guys were accustomed to calling us over for assistance, as well.

It was highly specialized so our manufacturing department was a small tight knit group of never more than twelve men and women total. We continue to keep in touch to this day.

Do you see how problematic it becomes when we have to start judging an employee's value by the size of their fingers in relation to their ability to handle nimble tasks, body size in relation to ability to fit into tight spaces?

What would that formula look like?

Skinny woman+Slender fingers=ability to bench press 100lbs

Is that really how you want to judge equality?

Lorie,
Who is more valuable to a business, the receptionist or the custodian? Who decides? That's the problem with "comparable worth" supported by Hochul.

You all can parse about point systems all you want, but in the big picture, each job is unique and a part of the whole. The final product doesn't happen without the input of many. Stating that one's job is less essential than another may stroke the ego, but in fact without ALL of the jobs the final product would never happen.

Howard,
Your female, who didn't even get a cost of living raise, will probably find work elsewhere. Not to acknowledge any growth on the job after a year is certainly an invitation to walk away.

By the way, a few years ago, after working on a project for almost two years at a rate of pay negotiated between myself and my department head, I received an email from the new department head (a male). It stated that he realized that my rate of pay was "out of step" with others in the project (I was the only female). I was the first person on that project (senority); I had the most responsibility - working on both the east coast and west coast feeds; I, with the original department head, wrote the protocol for the project.
I watched the new supervisor dismiss all of that in favor of his belief that a man is entitled to a better wage.
Three months later, the men all received substantial raises.
That glass ceiling is a real barrier.

Bea,
Maybe you'll answer, who should determine the value of a job? The owner or the government?

or maybe anyody will answer why we need redundant legislation when pay inequality based on gender is already illegal?(refer to earlier post)

John,
Whenever I started a new project, the first people I would put on my team was the custodian/maintenance. The second was the office assistant.
The custodian/maintenance because it is that staff that will first notice something out of place during the hours when no one is a lab or in the offices. You would be surprised at how many good ideas, regarding security or placement of equipment the custodian can offer. Keeping the custodian in the loop can save a project money and time.
The office assistant/receptionist because he/she is the first face those involved in the project, either internal or external, see. The office assistant is the key to getting meetings scheduled; contacts made; maintain the security of the project and who juggles the myriad of every day tasks that need to be done.
So, a custodian and an office assistant are vital to a project and considered an equal team partner.

Bea,
Did you make sure they both get the same pay based on "comparable worth"? Since you did the hiring, should you have been the one to make pay decisions or should it have been up to the government?

Based on comparable worth, should you have ever been paid more than your male coworkers? And if you deserved more money, should the government be able to say no, that's not fair that you make more? Of course, the males also might have said you only were paid more because you were female.

All of your hypothetical situations and "what if's" are easily resolved as an employer by writing/utilizing an Employee Handbook with clearly defined roles, duties, expectations, and compensation. I never look at any of my staff as men or women. They are River Guides first and foremost. Those that choose to take on added responsibilities and training are compensated accordingly. The ones that don't, aren't.

That would work Kevin, if all of your staff share the same job title. The guidelines allow for a seniority and merit pay system. No one is disputing that point.

How would your Employee Handbook ensure pay equity, based on the NYS guidelines, between your River Guides and your other employees?

Would you be okay with letting the State decide what constitutes a valued employee for you and determining their wages?