Kamala Harris Wants To Make Companies Guilty Till Proven Innocent On “Wage Gap”

This is why we have a Constitution, to stop this kind of thing (via Twitchy)

That WSJ piece notes

Under Ms. Harris’s plan, every business with 100 workers or more would have to get an “Equal Pay Certification” from the federal government. To earn this gold star, they must “prove they’re not paying women less than men for equal work.”

That means demonstrating, to the satisfaction of some bureaucrat, that any wage gap “is based on merit, performance, or seniority—not gender.” The penalty for failure is a steep fine: “1% of their profits for every 1% wage gap they allow to persist.”

North of 100,000 companies in the U.S. have at least 100 workers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says. Together they employ some 80 million people. How in the name of Post Office efficiency does Ms. Harris expect the government to expertly second guess all of their performance reviews? She says certification must be completed in three years. The process would be run by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has a staff of about 2,000.

And the certification must be redone every two years. Good luck with that.

(Daily Caller) Harris is right that the law prohibits discriminating against men or women in pay, but it does permit a man and a woman to be paid differently for valid reasons. Harris just ignores those reasons, which explain why men on average earn more than women.

When we control for factors such as hours worked each day, education, occupation, seniority, and time out of the workforce, the pay gap shrinks to a few cents. For example, women work fewer hours than men (an average of 8.3 hours compared to 7.8 hours per day) and fewer women work full-time than men. Controlling just for hours worked reduces the pay gap to 11 percent.

Hours worked, industry, and occupation are all choices women make to maximize flexibility or find fulfillment in work. The pay gap is not a sign of rampant gender discrimination, but the impact of the aggregated choices and preferences of women.

It shouldn’t need to be said again and again and again, but, Democrat politicians and big wigs like to lie and pander to their base, and their base has no interest in learning the real facts (to put it nicely). What will they do in situations where it is all about commissions? What if the women are not earning the same as the men? That’s all about work and skill.

What if women are being paid less due to time in position? In my past days in wireless, should a newly hired female store manager have been paid the same as I was, after being in position for 5 years (not too mention the extra money earned from being with the company for a long time)?

Harris aims to solve what is really not a problem. If a woman feels she has been discriminated against, the law is already on her side to pursue legal redress. In a great economy like this one, she can obtain better-paying opportunities. Harris would create big problems for women who value flexibility and non-traditional work opportunities.

Like many on the left, Harris is intentionally exploiting the gender pay gap to promote a liberal agenda that expands government control over the employee-employer relationship. When ideas like this win, women are the ones who will lose out.

Anyone think that more Governmental control of the economy and private sector isn’t really the main reason? This is what these Modern Socialists want.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Kamala Harris Wants To Make Companies Guilty Till Proven Innocent On “Wage Gap””

  1. Kye says:

    Why is it always Democrat Communists who have never owned nor run a business nor had to make a payroll who pretend to know so much about them? I was in business almost 40 years and if I could have saved 25% of my payroll expense by hiring only women I would have. Hell, any business person knows payroll is an expense and as such any savings goes straight into the owners pocket. My payrolls ran about $6-$8K per week or $300 to $400,000 per year. If I could have put an extra $60-$100,000 in my pocket you wouldn’t have seen a male name anywhere near my payroll.

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Senator Harris is making silly suggestions as part of her campaign. Sort of like the Republico-Fascist trump and his Wall that Mexico will Pay For, Repeal and Replace with Better/Cheaper, No Nukes in N Korea, Higher taxes on the rich etc.

    Kye makes a good point regarding the practicalities of payroll. There ARE differences in pay between groups but little can be fixed at the level of the individual business. But would you have hired a Muslim for lower pay?

  3. DD More says:

    No ‘Gold Star’ for Kamala ‘under the brown Desk’ Harris then. Gonna have to kick back about 12% of her donations and 5% of the Senate Salary?

    The Washington Free Beacon analyzed pay for those who received paychecks “for the entirety of the pay periods.” Yes, men made more money:

    In her Senate office’s most recent six-month disclosure, covering the period from April 1, 2018, through Sept. 31, 2018, the median male salary disbursement was $34,999 and the median female salary disbursement was $32,999, leaving women with just 94 cents of every dollar paid to men.

    The gender pay gap for the previous six-month period, during which the median male salary was $27,167 and the median female salary was $25,749.97, was a nearly identical 6 percent.

    The pay gap was even greater during the first full month of Harris’s presidential campaign in February—the median female salary disbursement for the month, $5,763.97, was about 87 percent of the median male salary disbursement, $6,632.23, a further analysis of her campaign filing found.


    Do as She Says, Not as She Dues.

  4. Professor Hale says:

    Isn’t Harris already an elected official? Can’t she already propose her great ideas in the form of a bill and convince a majority of her friends to vote for it and then pass it into law? Has she even tried? Talk is cheap. Why should the voters care about giving her more power when she hasn’t used a thimbleful of the power she already has? Why should the voters elect her to lead them when she can’t even convince the other Senators in her own party to follow her? I suspect this is just all about collecting the campaign donations (bribes) and she has no intention of being her party nominee..

  5. Dana says:

    I’ve seen the complaint a hundred ties, and there’s no right answer: is it right to pay a new hire the same as an employee in the same position, with twenty years seniority. The senior employee has experience and knowledge that the rookie doesn’t have, so of course he should be paid more.

    But the new employee is being paid to do the same job; why should he be paid less? Both points are valid, and they are inherently contradictory.

    Senatrix Harris’ notion comes down firmly on the side of the second argument, that holding the same job means that the employees should always be paid the same, with no account taken of seniority, company loyalty or something really radical, productivity.

  6. Kye says:

    There are many, many more components to how much to pay a person than just job description. Since none of these azz holes are business people they have no clue what they are. And don’t care BTW. Their only interest is in votes.

Pirate's Cove