This is why we have a Constitution, to stop this kind of thing (via Twitchy)
Instead of having workers claim and then prove discrimination, Kamala Harris wants the opposite: Companies would have to prove a negative—that they aren’t discriminating. https://t.co/YvjBvaesAH
— Wall Street Journal Opinion (@WSJopinion) May 28, 2019
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.â€
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.â€
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.
