The "Don't Hire Women" Bill
If you don't hire 'em, they can't sue you for wage discrimination under the new "Paycheck Fairness Act," which makes it easier for women to file class-action suits for punitive damages against employers they accuse of sex-based pay discrimination. Christina Hoff Sommers writes in The New York Times:
The bill is based on the premise that the 1963 Equal Pay Act, which bans sex discrimination in the workplace, has failed; for proof, proponents point out that for every dollar men earn, women earn just 77 cents.But that wage gap isn't necessarily the result of discrimination. On the contrary, there are lots of other reasons men might earn more than women, including differences in education, experience and job tenure.
When these factors are taken into account the gap narrows considerably -- in some studies, to the point of vanishing. A recent survey found that young, childless, single urban women earn 8 percent more than their male counterparts, mostly because more of them earn college degrees.
Moreover, a 2009 analysis of wage-gap studies commissioned by the Labor Department evaluated more than 50 peer-reviewed papers and concluded that the aggregate wage gap "may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."
...Under the bill, it's not enough for an employer to guard against intentional discrimination; it also has to police potentially discriminatory assumptions behind market-driven wage disparities that have nothing to do with sexism.
Universities, for example, typically pay professors in their business schools more than they pay those in the school of social work, citing market forces as the justification. But according to the gender theory that informs this bill, sexist attitudes led society to place a higher value on male-centered fields like business than on female-centered fields like social work.
The bill's language regarding these "lingering effects" is vague, but that's the problem: it could prove a legal nightmare for even the best-intentioned employers. The theory will be elaborated in feminist expert testimony when cases go to trial, and it's not hard to imagine a media firestorm developing from it. Faced with multimillion-dollar lawsuits and the attendant publicity, many innocent employers would choose to settle.
Here's how the government meddling works. Diana Furchtgott-Roth writes at the WashEx:
A woman who chooses a job with a flexible schedule, perhaps part-time, in order to have time both for her family and her career thinks of herself as successful. But to President Obama, she is a social problem in search of a government solution because she might earn less than a man.The bill requires the government to collect data from employers on the sex, race and national origin of employees, adding to red tape, paperwork and hiring costs.
It would only allow employers to defend differences in pay between men and women on the grounds of education, training and experience if these factors are justified on the grounds of "business necessity." So male supermarket managers with college degrees couldn't be paid more than female cashiers if the college degree for the manager wasn't consistent with "business necessity."
The solution is simple.
Don't hire a woman.
Think its sexist because a man is saying that?
My former tenant, a single mother who busted her butt to become a restaurant manager for a major chain (for those of you who do not know, food service industry jobs can be very rough) said essentially the exact same thing.
Ladies, everytime they pass laws like this, you get shot in the foot. If we hire you and you don't like a joke...lawsuit. If we hire you and you accept the pay your offered, but then get pissed because someone else negotiated a higher tarting wage...lawsuit, if you take multiple maternity leaves, shoving the work off on coworkers, while still drawing benefits and wages from the company which is getting no work from you, and we let you go...lawsuit.
If we write you up for disciplinary issues...harassment complaint and maybe a lawsuit.
Not to long ago a woman sued a company for assigning her physically demanding work which was usually given to men. So now if we treat you the same...lawsuit, if we treat you differently, lawsuit.
The last recourse to keep out of court is to just not hire a woman.
I hate to be "that guy", but there you are.
Robert at September 23, 2010 5:34 AM
>>"But according to the gender theory that informs this bill, sexist attitudes led society to place a higher value on male-centered fields like business than on female-centered fields like social work."
*sigh* No. It's not "sexist attitudes". It breaks down into the same reason that when the city budget needs cutting, they always turn to the library, arts programs, and children's commissions to start trimming the budget. It's all about revenue. Businesses generate revenue. Social work does not.
There's no vast patriarchy working behind the scenes to keep women down. We just generally choose caretaker fields. Which, because they don't make money, are less valued by the market, even though it's sad. It'd be nice to see a teacher make what they're actually worth, or a social worker who busts ass get paid to make it enviable, versus the football player who spent most of the year on the bench. But that football player generates a metric ass-ton of money with his endorsements, T-shirts, CD's, and public appearances.
It doesn't come down to gender - it comes down to money. And the personal choices we make to earn that money.
cornerdemon at September 23, 2010 6:23 AM
This is an attempt to establish a foothold for what's known as 'comparable worth', which is the concept that there's an abstract hierarchy of 'worth' that job roles can be assigned to in a way that establishes the equivalence of male and female roles. For instance, that a welder is equivalent to a seamstress.
What they're hoping for is a rule defined by a higher court that can then be applied to sorting job descriptions to establish de jure wage and salary bands. Because this principle necessitates that the state define these assignments.
But the advocates for CW typically have a very biased view of comparability - it almost always favors women.
sparky at September 23, 2010 6:36 AM
Amy,
Nice piece. And you are spot on. But our gender feminists will scream and pull out thier hair claiming discrimination.
What I found funny about Lucy Ledbetter is that she waited 20 years to file her lawsuit. AFTER she had retired and was drawing her pension then she went after the employer.
Her motivations were very simple.....money.
The Other Mike D at September 23, 2010 6:58 AM
30Rock, Season 3, Episode 20: "The Natural Order" is the funniest take on workplace equality I have ever seen.
The sad part? I have BEEN that woman who insisted on changing the Culligan bottle in the water cooler, even though I was patently incapable of doing so!
http://www.sidereel.com/30_Rock/season-3/episode-20 for anyone who wants to watch Tina Fey at it.
Melissa G at September 23, 2010 7:18 AM
i'm starting to think that lesbian separatists have the right idea
we men should just take our ball, shovel, backhoe whatever and leave. maybe we could give women the western hemisphere and we'll take the eastern
no more services for women; if they want clean water etc they can just do it themselves - i'm sure they'll do just fine without us
we could get together with women once a year to propagate the species
theOtherJim at September 23, 2010 9:20 AM
Here is a no-brainer for all are scholarly politicians who could screw up a wet dream.
If a company could hire a woman for 77 cents of what it costs for a man companies would be beating the door down to hire woman. It would only make good business sense.
There should be a new government department for the few Elites who can really screw up a wet dream properly. I would nominate Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.
David M. at September 23, 2010 9:38 AM
we could get together with women once a year to propagate the species
With advances in cloning technology, we won't even need to do that.
MonicaP at September 23, 2010 9:39 AM
I was watching some show and they went on about how we need to have equal parity in business leaders, because there aren't enough CEO's that are women...
Which caused me to think 2 things...
1]You have to WANT to go through the Hell-of-80-Hour-Workweeks for many years to become CEO. You have to be willing, probably to bypass having children, because it's cutthroat like that.
2]I work for a Fortune 50ish corp... and in the 7 layers of mgt between me and the CEO there are 4 women, one of whom is the pres of my company, so she would be VP at corporate, her company VP is also a woman, and so is the director of my division. AND it's primarily an engineering firm, NOT services.
This whole thing is about woman making their OWN choices... but there is a small group of women that demand that they should be able to make choices for the rest of women.
as if women as a whole aren't justified in making their own minds up.
and as someone said above, it's also Cost Center versus Revenue Center. Companies are in business to MAKE MONEY, not spend it.
SwissArmyD at September 23, 2010 10:17 AM
SwissArmyD,
Most people who have not had the experience of working with people who perform at very high levels don't understand the sacrifices such people often make. Want to be a Fortune 50 CFO? Go for it. But understand, men and women, that you will sacrifice nearly all of your personal life. If you are lucky, you may stay married to your first (or second) spouse, but that will be about it. All your friends and family (including kids) will just kind of slip away over the years.
Oh, and the tough part: you may lose out on your ambition, and not get that job, but not until after you have sacrificed 25 years of personal life to the quest. So, yeah, you spent your twenties, thirties and forties in 80 hour week grinds and stress, but then get elbowed out right before you get that really great paycheck and title.
In fact, just like any wickedly competitive endeavor, there are many, many more losers than winners in those competitions.
So when you see someone complain "there aren't enough women CEOs or whatever, recognize that they are also saying "there are not enough women giving up 30 years of their life in order to compete for these jobs".
Why we would encourage people to give up so much is beyond me, but the competition will demand it, unless of course, you want a different standard for the gals to achieve those positions.
/raised eyebrow
Spartee at September 23, 2010 12:22 PM
The Democrats are not getting credit for their tremendous accomplishments, efficiency, and attention to detail.
They have passed amazing legislation. They certainly have enacted into law more words in fewer bills than any other Congress in history.
More amazing is that those bills are so intuitive and natural in what they accomplish, that it is not even necessary to read them. The President can now decree what is necessary and right, confident that this power to do good is contained somewhere in these documents. And, there is more good news to come.
The "Do the Right Thing" Bill
========
Future news: [excerpt]
"Do The Right Thing" will give us open, consistent, dynamic government. It grants President Michele Obama (now in her 3rd term in office) all principles and powers to consider all matters and then "Do the right thing". The Congress retains the important function of advising on the President's actions should she desire this.
The Congress is now free to do what it does best, arrange for hospital admissions, allocate liquor licenses, and grant carbohydrate waivers to restaurants.
========
We have a choice in the next few elections. Vote out any legislator, Pub or Dem, who wants to increase control over your life without the clearest necessity. Or, embrace a government which will Do the Right Thing for you, in detail.
Andrew_M_Garland at September 23, 2010 1:57 PM
"there are not enough women giving up 30 years of their life in order to compete for these jobs". Spartee
By GUM! That's it! In order to be equal, women should be FORCED to compete for these same jobs!
:very level look:
Y'know, to some people this prolly even sounds right. Occasionally when a child is throwing a tantrum, you have to ask them "what are you even asking for?"
They look up at you in the midst of tears and snot running down their face, and they really don't know.
SwissArmyD at September 23, 2010 2:38 PM
Spartee and SwissArmyD,
I have been at the senior level in IT for over 10 years. I'm salaried (they couldn't afford my overtime hourly rate).
The number of times I have come close to having anywhere near my "comp" time paid back is minuscule.
I have a lady friend and co-worker that was accelerated to my pay at my last job. That was because she was good -- she didn't put in my wild hours -- but she went above and beyond the call when needed. I never begrudged her. In the meantime we had co-workers that barely made the 40, were idiots and whined when they didn't get raise/bonus/perk.
Jim P. at September 23, 2010 8:20 PM
The way I see it, it stinks on ice for a man to get married these days. Now, they have to worry about hiring women, too.
mpetrie98 at September 23, 2010 8:42 PM
"Occasionally when a child is throwing a tantrum, you have to ask them 'what are you even asking for?' They look up at you in the midst of tears and snot running down their face, and they really don't know."
Lovely image... Well, not actually lovely but certainly memorable.
I was talking to my wife about this just yesterday. It really does come down to whether or not a person wants to totally invest themselves in their job. Men can do this and still have a family, as long as their wife does the kid-minding. Women cannot - at the very least, the woman is the one who gets pregnant.
The other aspect is testosterone. Men are, by nature, more competitive than women. Top-level corporate politics are very competitive. This is a world that suits few people - most of us want to have a life outside of work. Fewer women than men are willing to live this way. What's the problem?
It's always scary when this "comparable worth" crap comes up. It's a front for feel-good leftists who want to "fix" the world, because it does not fit their naive preconceptions. Since their intentions are pure, anyone who disagrees with them must be evil. They've clearly never comprehended the old saying about "The road to hell..."
bradley13 at September 23, 2010 11:29 PM
Robert, you could not have said it any better...I just had this conversation with some of my co-workers the other day. We decided that it is just not worth it to hire women, for the exact reasons you gave. Why do that unless you just want a hot secretary, but even then you're taking a chance she will sue for harrassment. If you hire all men you don't have to worry about any of that crap.
Of course, I work for the govt., so that crap happens here ALL THE TIME. The govt. quota system is ridiculous and should be an insult to all women.
While I'm at it, how about a new catch-phrase:
Equal WORK for equal PAY!!
mike at September 24, 2010 11:18 AM
Yes, women earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn. But they only produce 70% of what men produce. Women work so much less than men do, women's hourly rate of pay is slightly HIGHER than what men make per hour worked.
This is more cultural marxism premised not on the equality of women, but on their (apparently) inherent inferiority. Why do women put up with this? Pathetic.
Jay R at September 25, 2010 4:23 PM
The bottom line is that men are jealous of women because women are smarter on the job especially in technical areas such as computer programming. Therefore they try to keep them out any way possible.
April at October 18, 2010 1:19 PM
Wrong forum April...you need to post over at Feministing or Jezebel to find someone, anyone, who cares about your comment.
What are you April, like in 7th grade or something?
mike at October 25, 2010 10:53 AM
Seems that large US banks are going making drastic changes in thier national policies. Let's hope that is going to be great change.
Soila Vanderzwaag at June 29, 2011 12:17 AM
Don't marry them. Don't hire them. Don't help them get pregnant. Have a happy life and stay out of court.
Lee A at October 8, 2013 7:28 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/09/23/the_dont_hire_w.html#comment-3963331">comment from Lee AOr, instead of acting like every woman is awful, learn to be discerning and don't just choose blindly and then blame womankind. (Easier than taking responsibility for choosing on the "hope it all works out" mode rather than taking the time to learn whether a woman is ethical and a good bet.)
Amy Alkon at October 8, 2013 7:35 AM
I forgot one. Don't trust them with your future. Most can put on a good front long enough to fool almost anyone that they are ethical and a good bet. It's safer and less expensive to stay out of romantic relationships and have protected sex with a call girl.
Lee A at October 8, 2013 12:29 PM
Great post! Been reading a lot about hiring based on gender. Thanks for the info here!
Business Hiring at June 18, 2014 6:44 AM
Leave a comment