fellis:

It is possible that employers pay women less because they want to dissuade women from applying for the jobs (gender discrimination). Its a possibility.
In this case, employers will continue to hire men because they believe that males can do the job better but they keep paying women less to dissuade them from applying for the jobs.

Mr anony:
No I am arguing that Lily was not necessarily discriminated against i.e. we don't have enough evidence to say that she was.

Ledbetter claimed that she had been evaluated unfairly because of her sex and therefore had been paid significantly less than her male colleagues. Goodyear claimed that their evaluations were non-discriminatory and focused only on worker competence. The jury found for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and damages. Goodyear appealed, arguing that all claims to damages before September 26, 1997 were void due to the statute of limitations placed on discrimination claims.

Mr anony:
No I am not using blanket statements like this. I am arguing that before we come to such a conclusion, we must consider a few more factors than just the amount of their paycheck.



I argued neither

fellis:

Mr Anony, why do you expect that men's report will be more realistic?

CAMEROONPRIDE:

Humm, abeg explain better, I have been reading this for like the 5th time and I still don't get your analogy esp if you are trying to buttress anonis point

Mr anony:
Because they won't have a vested interest in making themselves look like the oppressors.

Mr anony:
This is just idle conspiracy theory, do you really think that a businessman who is serious about making money really cares about what gender is bringing him profit?

Gbam

CAMEROONPRIDE: pleep and him replied the way I was excepting any sane human to do my comment was sarcastic, you were actually not making any sense. Wake up.

Logicboy03:

Your argument is still void. So you are arguing that there is not enough evidence to say that she was discriminated against?
How did she then win the case in the lower court? She won the case without evidence for discrimination?
Guy, you are just being plain silly.

A few more factors? Like what? If two people are doing the exact same job and puttng the same effort, they should be paid the same. Simple and short.

Women are paid less for doing the same job- plain and simple.

fellis:
What if they have a vested interest in making sure the unequal pay situation persists just so they can keep having the upper hand?

Mr anony:
Ah I see, but you haven't told the full story. Let us look at it in more depth shall we?

In 1979 Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff, began work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama location, a union plant. She started with the same pay as male employees, but by retirement, she was earning $3,727 per month compared to 15 men who earned from $4,286 per month (lowest paid man) to $5,236 per month (highest paid man).[4] During her years at the factory as a salaried worker, raises were given and denied based partly on evaluations and recommendations regarding worker performance. From 1979-1981 Ledbetter received a series of negative evaluations, which she later claimed were discriminatory. Although her subsequent evaluations were good, in part as a result of those early negative evaluations, her pay never reached the level of similar male employees. All merit increases had to be substantiated by a formal evaluation. In March 1998, Ledbetter inquired into the possible sexual discrimination of the Goodyear Tire Company. In July she filed formal charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In November 1998, after early retirement, Ledbetter sued claiming pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The Supreme Court did not rule on whether this was discrimination, just the statute of limitations to sue.

The District Court found in favor of Goodyear on the Equal Pay Act claim, because that Act allows pay differences that are based on merit. The court allowed the Title VII and other claims to proceed to trial. Ledbetter claimed that she had been evaluated unfairly because of her sex and therefore had been paid significantly less than her male colleagues. Goodyear claimed that their evaluations were non-discriminatory and focused only on worker competence. The jury found for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and damages. Goodyear appealed, arguing that all claims to damages before September 26, 1997 were void due to the statute of limitations placed on discrimination claims.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court's decision stating that Ledbetter could sue only for allegations regarding pay decisions that occurred less than 180 days before her beginning the EEOC process in March 1998. Ledbetter, as the court ruled, could not sue on decisions that merely affected pay in the 180 day period. Furthermore, all decisions made concerning pay in the 180 day period could not be unequivocally linked to her gender. Ledbetter sought a writ of certiorari, but did not contest the sufficiency of the evidence concerning decisions in the 180 day period. The Supreme Court granted the writ and heard the appeal.

Points from the write up above
1. Goodyear did not discriminate against her. She started on equal pay with her male counterparts
2. Pay rises were given based on performance in evaluations
3. She did poorly in her early evaluations and that was the reason why she didn't earn as much as her colleagues by the time she became branch manager.
4. She claimed she failed her evaluation tests because she was female. The Jury agreed with her.

Now notice that:
1. Goodyear had an equal opportunity merit based pay system that was not gender biased.
2. If she actually failed because of her gender, it wouldn't be because it was company policy rather it would more likely be because her specific examiner at the time was sexist.
3.Notice she didn't fail subsequent evaluations.

As I said, I am yet to see an establishment that pays workers differently based on their gender and not the work they actually do.





While this is true, factors like experience, the contacts you have, and your negotiating skills can earn you considerably more money than another guy or girl doing the same job as you.


This is not true

The District Court found in favor of Goodyear on the Equal Pay Act claim, because that Act allows pay differences that are based on merit. The court allowed the Title VII and other claims to proceed to trial. Ledbetter claimed that she had been evaluated unfairly because of her sex and therefore had been paid significantly less than her male colleagues. Goodyear claimed that their evaluations were non-discriminatory and focused only on worker competence. The jury found for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and damages. Goodyear appealed, arguing that all claims to damages before September 26, 1997 were void due to the statute of limitations placed on discrimination claims.

Logicboy03:
I dont have time to start listing out your falsehoods. Seriously.


Your points 1-4 are all FALSE.


Lets take the quote which you misread, quote-mined and only bolded the part that you liked.



Notice that you bolded the part that you liked but failed to realise that it is very incomplete. The Company didnt win the court case- the court only accepted the company's first argument on equal pay act on merit based pay. However, at the end of the case, Lilly won and the court accepted that their evaluations of her were discriminatory.


1) Goodyear did discriminate against her and she won the case. (it was only appealed at a higher court
2) You have no proof that it was just one examiner or that their evaluations were not inherently discriminatory


Guy, I am done with your nonsense.

This kind of denial is not only immoral but sick. Someone was clearly discriminated against and you stand here lying just to win an argument because of you unreal belief that there is no equal pay discrimination

pleep: At this point we have to ask ourselves what is logicboys vested interest in pretending that women are oppressed. Someone who is really trying to find the truth to this issue would have conceded defeat by now.

logicboy are you female?

manny4life: Theoretically, YES, Practical NO.

I have two coworkers who call me chauvinist, I said I wasn't but was only applying the simple rules. For instance, @ work, when the water runs out, I'll expect the ladies to go into the room where we stock up snacks and drinks, but no, it's the male coworkers who change the bottle water on the filter.

Out of curiosity, I asked one time in a meeting why is it only male workers that change water bottles, one reply was, females can't lift the bottle of water, so the males got to do it. I replied, there u go, I guess we're aren't equal after all.

Again, this is a minute example to broader scenarios why women are not equal to men.

Mr anony:
While this is true, factors like experience, the contacts you have, and your negotiating skills can earn you considerably more money than another guy or girl doing the same job as you.
This is not true

Mr anony:
Lol, I can assure you he is male

fellis:
So you are still rejecting the AAUW findings just because women did the research?

fellis: How on earth will you be able to find men that do similar research work to what AAUW did when this is they are likely to get responses such as this one?

Mr anony:
Have you been paying any attention at all. That ia not what I said

Logicboy03: women are paid less for doing the same work-plain and simple

Mr anony: This is not true

fellis:
in this post:
https://www.nairaland.com/1126410/believe-gender-equality-yes-no/16#16233748
your response to logicboy's statement of
was


thats why I asked you if you are rejecting the AAUW finding that they are actually paid less even when they do the same kind of work and have the same college qualifications.

Logicboy03:


See what I deal with in the religion section?

This guy remixes and spins like a DJ.

The guy even claims that lilly ledbetter was not discriminated against in her job....then when pressed....he says there is no evidence......I wonder then how she deceived the district court court to win the case on the basis of gender discrimination

True2myself24:

How does that make women unequal to men? It just makes them different. And why is the ability to do what a man can do the standard to determine whether or not a woman is equal to a man? What if I said a man cannot give birth therefore he is not equal to a woman? What defines equal?

fellis:
in this post:
https://www.nairaland.com/1126410/believe-gender-equality-yes-no/16#16233748
your response to logicboy's statement of
was


thats why I asked you if you are rejecting the AAUW finding that they are actually paid less even when they do the same kind of work and have the same college qualifications.

Mr anony:
I think you should read the link in this post here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1126410/believe-gender-equality-yes-no/15#16232478

You'll find that the AAUW found that when compared to the same kind of work and college qualifications, the wage gap shrank from 23% to 7%. In fact the AAUW blamed this 7% on the inability of women to negotiate higher salaries for themselves.
As I have said before, the only equality I subscribe to is equal opportunity. If a woman cannot negotiate a better salary for herself, she only has herself to blame

There are a few reasons cited. One is potential gender discrimination, according to the authors, who say more women are filing complaints about their work condition.
"Experimental evidence confirm that many people continue to hold biases against women in the workplace, especially those who work in traditionally male fields"

fellis:
Anony why are you lying?
AAUW didn't blame the wage gap on women's inability to negotiate for themselves. They cited two possible reasons for it, excerpt from that link:

Yet you came to say that AAUW blamed the wage gap entirely on women's inability to negotiate.

Negotiating a salary can make a difference in earnings. But some research has found that women are less likely to negotiate for higher salaries, and other studies have shown that women who do negotiate are perceived differently than men and may be penalized, Graves says . . . . .What can be done about the pay gap? "Women could pick higher-paying majors, such as nursing, computer science, math, science and engineering" Hartmann says. "The employer has the responsibility to ensure that they do not treat men and women differently.

Mr anony: @fellis, I think it is time we had a mature conversation about numbers. We shall be using numbers from the United States Department of Labour which by the way is where the AAUW ought to ultimately get there research from.

Now bring out your calculator and let's rock shall we?

According to the Bureau of Labour Statistics as at the year 2009:

1. Women on average earn 80.2% of Men's wages per week.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable19-2010.htm

Is that discrimination? well, let us look at how many hours they are working

2. Women work an average of 35.3 hours per week compared to Men who work 40.2 hours on average. Basically women work 87.8% as long as men per week.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable21-2010.htm

Well isn't there still some discrepancy in the numbers? well, let us look at who has the most experience

3. As at 2008, (2009 results were not available at this time) The percentage of men working fulltime with more than 1 year of experience was 71.2% compared to 59.3% of women who had more than one year experience at their jobs. Assuming the numbers of prospective employees are split even between the sexes, basically, women have on average 83.3% as much experienced workers as men.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable22-2010.htm

Now please tell me why should any business owner pay a worker who works fewer hours and has less experience an equal salary to another worker who works longer hours and has more experience?

Mr anony: @fellis, I think it is time we had a mature conversation about numbers. We shall be using numbers from the United States Department of Labour which by the way is where the AAUW ought to ultimately get there research from.

Now bring out your calculator and let's rock shall we?

According to the Bureau of Labour Statistics as at the year 2009:

1. Women on average earn 80.2% of Men's wages per week.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable19-2010.htm

Is that discrimination? well, let us look at how many hours they are working

2. Women work an average of 35.3 hours per week compared to Men who work 40.2 hours on average. Basically women work 87.8% as long as men per week.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable21-2010.htm

Well isn't there still some discrepancy in the numbers? well, let us look at who has the most experience

3. As at 2008, (2009 results were not available at this time) The percentage of men working fulltime with more than 1 year of experience was 71.2% compared to 59.3% of women who had more than one year experience at their jobs. Assuming the numbers of prospective employees are split even between the sexes, basically, women have on average 83.3% as much experienced workers as men.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlftable22-2010.htm

Now please tell me why should any business owner pay a worker who works fewer hours and has less experience an equal salary to another worker who works longer hours and has more experience?