The concept for Equal Pay is very, very simple...

Why are people trying to make it sound so freaking complicated???

If I am a manager at McDonald's, I expect the SAME pay as a male counter-part would get if he were doing the SAME job.

If I were a high school principal, I expect the same pay as a male would get.

Right now, in my profession I started out with a 29K salary. My (ex) father-in-law was making 40K salary for the exact SAME job in.....1980!!!


Women have to endure discrimination, sexual harassment, and other obstacles as it is so WHY IN THE HELL CAN WE NOT AT THE VERY LEAST GET PAID THE SAME AS MEN???



:argh:

According to people who deserve to be paid more, you should get it only if you are "qualified".
We all know what that means, WHITE MALE. As far as I can tell they all believe they are qualified for any job, it is the rest of us who need to prove ourselves. Really disgusted and fed up with their bullshit, at least for me, I wish I would have realized things at 20 like I do now at 40.

In fact, it amazes me (sort of) that this is still even an issue in this day and age! It's a very basic concept and one which should apply across the board.

and then it becomes a frenzy of arguments and clashing opinions.

Why is it so hard for some men to acknowledge that sexism exists and that women do not get paid as much as men?

Equality is so simple that it hurts to have to argue the point. nt

we have to make sure that it is also equal work. If the job at McDonalds requires the employee to say, lift and stack 50lb boxes of frozen burgers, but the employee cannot accomplish this because he or she is not strong enough, then its not the same amount of work.

I know that I am opening up myself to a serious flaming here, but I do take issue with the call for equal pay when the work is not equal. When I was in the military and attending Naval Aircrewman training, we had to pass the obstacle course to graduate. In this course was an 8ft wall and pull up bars requiring 10 full pull ups. The women were not required to climb the wall or do the pull ups. Why? I flew with women my entire career and have no complaints, as most performed their jobs quite well (the ratio of women who did not perform well was about the same as men who did not perform well) so it seems to me that the requirements to climb that wall and do the pull ups was not necessary. Now, we received additional pay for flying, everyone got the same amount depending on how long you had been flying. My concern is that those men who could not perform the wall climb and pull ups were washed out, and those who could received the same pay as women who did not have to do the same thing. Is this fair? Is this equal pay for equal work?

The point is that it doesn't matter if I am a man, a woman, black, white, or purple if I am hired by someone to do a PARTICULAR job, then I expect EQUAL pay for doing the SAME job.

If I have to lift 50 lb boxes of chicken at Tyson and cannot fullfill that requirement, then I (as an individual) am not fit to be doing such a job.

The simplicity should be obvious. It took a fight to even allow women to join the military and now that we are able to serve our country, we should be paid the same. You know as well as I that when Basic Training is over, everyone has their own duties and roles as soldiers.

As long as the person is willing and able to do the job they were hired for, then the pay should be equal. Men AND women.

As I understand it, the military has revised its overall physical fitness requirements to be more appropriate to gender and body types with some room for special cases.

Since being a pilot is not like being a stevedore, I am not sure anyone should have had to perform them, just pass the existing PFTs.

I am in full agreement with you: Equal pay for Equal work. If the job requires you to climb over a wall and you cant do it, then you dont get the job, man or woman, black or white.
Here's another example. Several years ago (early 90's I think)there was a lawsuit from a male office assistant who complained that his counterpart, a femal office assistant, was paid the same as him but performed less work. The job required the office assistants to manage, inventory and store, the office supplies. His complaint was that in the process of those duties, boxes of copy paper and other heavy items needed to be lifted above their heads and stored on shelves. The woman either was not, or said she was not, strong enough to do that so he had to do it. Now, I know its trivial, but its an example of equal pay for non-equal work.
I'm not trying to argue this particular case, because I think its trivial and the guy was only trying to make a point, but what was his point? He did more work yet got paid the same.
I will say it again: I am 100% for equal pay for equal work.

To address my example before: if the women did not need to climb the wall or do the pull ups, why did the men have to? In 20 years of flying, I never had to do a pull up or climb a wall as part of my job, so what was the point? The standards were (are) different for both sexes yet the job is the same. Does this qualify as equal pay for equal work?

But it shouldn't matter what gender they are. There are also lots of men who are physically weaker than women.

The perception that women are "weaker" physically than men is bleak. As a woman I have had to cover my ears when men (and other women) would say that I could not do something as good or better than a man.

When you are told constantly that you are the weaker sex, psychologically you begin to BELIEVE it.

That is where equality comes in. It should not even be a debate. If I can do the exact same work, then give me as much pay as a man for doing the work. If a man can do the exact work as I, then give him the same pay that I get. Simplicity.

but you refuse to acknowledge that there are lots of instances where there is equal pay for unequal work. I dont care if its a man or a woman, if one cannot do the same work as the other, then they shouldnt be paid the same.
Do you agree or disagree with my examples? Are these cases of equal pay for unequal work? why or why not?

But that spans BOTH sexes.

A woman who gets paid the same as another woman, but does not share in the work load is unfair to other employees and the management should take those instances on as a case-by case scenario. Same as a man working harder than another man or a woman.

I get what you are saying, but my point is very simple.

Women have had to struggle to get every right that we have and in order to progress into full equality when it comes to pay and the philosophy is straightforward.

Pay women who do the same job as a man the same wage. Period.

and pay those (men or women) who have the same job description, but actually perform different jobs, different wages, based on the job not on the gender.

Some people get paid the same or more to do less physical work all the the time. The amount one lifts is not always considered "more work". Some people might find it easier, for example, to lift boxes than answer phones or type letters or any other duties that office assistants might do. If the task was significantly easier for him ( like it would be if my husband and I were the office assistants) and she had plenty of other office assistant work to do while he was lifting boxes, I don't see how he was doing "more work". I suppose that it might have just been the two of them and maybe he had a hard time lifting the boxes too. In that case, perhaps the company should have reconsidered where they stored heavy items or bought the in smaller increments or divided them before storing.

simply repackaging the burgers into smaller boxes will save the company heaps of money on workmen's comp?
How about providing mechanical devices to do the hoisting?

I could lift a canoe and put it on my shoulders and haul it off my car and into the river. I just didn't do it the same way the guys did. The guys would just hoist the canoe onto their shoulders. I tipped one end of the canoe onto the ground. Got under the canoe right in the middle and balanced it very carefully on my shoulders. Then I eased the nose off the car and then the tail off the ground. Voila... mechanical advantage trumps brute strength.

I could deal with those 50 lb boxes by repackaging them. If I couldn't repackage, I'd look for some mechanical device to help me out.

Brains beats Brawn.

Most jobs don't involve brute strength anymore... and for those that do, they should be re-engineered with lighter materials and labor saving devices. ... Especially the military. Light, fast troops beat slow moving heavy ones every time.

I am sure that a cavewoman invented the lever after watching her male counterpart sweat.

The military has fuck all relevance to the vast majority of jobs out there. Most jobs nowadays don't require much physical strength and no one, male or female, should be stacking 50lb boxes without assistance or a mechanical device. An employer that requires that is asking for a large workers comp claim.

And as a former physical fitness coordinator in the Navy, I can tell you that the reason for the PT tests was not to determine how well you could physically do your job. They existed to promote and maintain the health of the troops. And though they'd never admit it openly, to a large extent it's also about appearance. Which is why there are different standards for men and women. Men are naturally stronger and have more muscle mass so if a man can't do pullups or climb a wall chances are he's in poor shape, whereas a woman can be unable to do those things and still be fit.

be making what you do or not?

I work in the funeral industry where women are frequently undervalued and underpaid. It is also the only industry I know of that has its own "yellow pages book" in which black and white funeral homes are clearly marked as such.

When I was working my apprenticeship I was making 8.00 per hour after two years of work. They hired another apprentice (who had no experience at all) and started him out at 8.00 per hour.
I wrote my letter of resignation, handed it personally to my boss, and expressed my distaste for his payroll antics.
He acted like he didn't know about it (accounting error BS) and offered me more money, but I did not want to work for such a person. (I could use the job now, though, ironically)

because you married into it? Is that maybe why they thought they could take advantage of you (pay wise).

I was not working for anyone I was related to or knew previously employed.

It is ALREADY illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex. "Equal pay for equal work" does not mean only in the same job in the same establishment but "similar" work across industries. That's where the headache comes in...deciding what jobs are "similar" enough and then ignoring any supply/demand issues to pay solely based on gender.

I know that it's happening because it has happened to me personally and because of the rhetoric women get for standing up for themselves. I understand fully well that a "computer programmer" in New York will get paid differently than if she/he were in Oklahoma. But what I am trying to make simplified is that the computer programmer should be paid the same regardless of sex.

I agree that women and men should be treated equally. However, I also approach my job has a supply and demand situation. I identify what my skills are, how in demand they are and what I think is fair pay for this. Obviously, I am going to try and get as much money as possible and the company is going to try and pay me as little as possible. In every job I have had, there were discussions, give and takes, and, ultimately, an agreement.
Now, I have seen studies that show women are more apt to settle on a lower amount. This begs the question as to why. Is it because society has trained women to be more accommodating? Are the people doing the hiring in fact sexist and willing to pull the offer if the woman demands what they would accept from a man? I honestly don’t know. Clearly, I would never tolerate the latter, but if someone settles for less when they could have gotten more, I have much less empathy.