advertisement

DAVID ROSMAN: Support for Paycheck Fairness Act doesn't deserve fear-mongering attacks

Thursday, June 14, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CDT

I trashed my original column Tuesday after I read the responses to Rose Nolen's column.

This is not a defense of Rose, but a defense of fairness and common sense, something her detractors seem to have lost, along with a portion of their sanity.

The issue is the Paycheck Fairness Act and the red herring, false dichotomy, fear mongering and slippery-slope arguments being forced into the discussion. It should be a discussion concerning fairness and gender bias, not one of name calling and false accusations.

H.R.1519, now in the U.S. Senate, "amends the portion of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 known as the Equal Pay Act to revise remedies for, enforcement of and exceptions to prohibitions against sex discrimination in the payment of wages."

I am especially angered at the response from Missourian commenter Ray Shapiro. "I wonder if the person who titled the heading for this article of propaganda read past the first few paragraphs? Personally, I would have titled it, 'Why Rose wants women and blacks to keep Obama around.'"

For Ray and others of his ilk …, well, no, I will not lower myself to Mr. Shapiro's level of anger, inhumanity and use of argument devices to avoid the focus of the discussion — equal pay for equal work.

I doubt he and others read the proposed law, the summary or news reports, other than those from the ultra-conservative pundits who are known more for misstating, misquoting or redirecting the conversation, like Mr. Shapiro, to topics that have nothing to do with the original discussion.

The Paycheck Fairness Act has nothing to do with the president, though most extremists in the conservative movement claim such.

In fact, there is no reason to oppose this bill other than it was introduced and supported by Democrats, a tactic that has simply run its sickly course. Blaming everything on the president or the "angry radical feminists, the gay movement and black radicals" or the "liberal progressive communist(s)" no longer works.

The fact that men, with the same education and work experience, make about 25 percent more than their female counterparts is the problem, but it's not the only one.

Congress is righting its own wrong, stating in the Paycheck Fairness Act that "the Equal Pay Act of 1963 has not worked as Congress originally intended. Improvements and modifications … are necessary to ensure that the provisions provide effective protection to those subject to pay discrimination on the basis of their sex."

Missourian commenter John Schultz's claim that women will be given special preference over men is simply hogwash. Mr. Schultz seems to believe education, experience and training will no longer have weight in the wage decision. He is wrong. There is no provision in this proposal nor in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that even suggests that conspiracy theory.

A woman and a man, with the same education, the same experience, the same training, who are equal in every sense of the word, should be paid equally.

Why is that a problem? And what the heck is wrong with fairness? That seems to be the bottom line here. It is not an issue of politics. It is not an issue of employers going out of business because of equal treatment of all employees. It is not an issue of religion, unless one wants to cite the biblical passages that say man is superior to women in all ways. There is Genesis 2:18, Ephesians 5:22–23, 1 Corinthians 11:3 and others, but our societal morals and norms no longer accept those gender-bias values.

We would not need these laws if those in power and the money-makers understood the term "moral" and the concept of right versus wrong. Discrimination based on religion, race, ethnicity, gender or any other differences would not exist, for that matter.

There is plenty of proof that gender discrimination is alive and well. These proposed changes are either fair or not, and there is no proof of the latter.

There is no reason to accept the language of hate in our discussion of the morality of fair pay.

David Rosman is an award winning editor, writer, professional speaker and college instructor in Communications, Ethics, Business and Politics. You can read more of Rosman’s commentaries at ColumbiaMissourian.com and InkandVoice.com and New York Journal of Books.com.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Jerry Boggs June 14, 2012 | 9:49 a.m.

Re: "In fact, there is no reason to oppose this bill"

May I suggest there are many reasons?

See "Will the Ledbetter Act Help Women?" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011...

Excerpts:

Women's 77 cents to men's dollar does NOT mean women are paid less than men in the same jobs. Nor does it mean, even more incredibly in the vein of “men are stronger than women” (which to many people translates into "every man is stronger than every woman"), that every woman earns 23% less than every man, perhaps leading some of the more benighted and the blinkered ideological to believe Diane Sawyer of ABC News earns less than the young man walking up and down the street wearing a “Pizzas $5” sign.

Women's 77 cents to men's dollar is arrived at by comparing the sexes' median incomes: women's median is 77 percent of men's. In 2009, the median income of full-time, year-round workers was $47,127 for men, compared to $36,278 for women or 77 percent of men's median. http://www.catalyst.org/publication/217/...

Median income is defined thusly: 50% of workers earn above the figure and 50% below. Think about what this means: A lot of female workers in the higher ranges of women's median make more money than a lot of male workers in the lower ranges of men's median.

Moreover, “women's 77 cents to men's dollar” doesn't account for the number of hours worked each week, experience, seniority, training, education or even the job description itself. It compares all women to all men, not people in the same job with the same experience. So the salary of a 60-year-old male computer engineer with 30 years at his company is weighed against that of a young first-year female teacher. Also, men are much more likely than women to work two jobs; hence, more often than women, a man earning $50,000 from his two jobs is weighed against a women earning $25,000 from her one job, so that he appears to be unfairly earning twice as much as she.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 14, 2012 | 10:51 a.m.

First, Rose's column was poorly written, which is one reason many of us posted negatively on it. If the Paycheck Fairness Act was the topic of her discussion, we didn't find out about it until her third-from-last paragraph which, by the way, included the rather obnoxious sentence "Women in this party will undoubtedly go along with the men to prove their hatred for the president." If she had left out that sentence and paragraph, we'd have never known her real agenda as noted by Ray Shapiro. Fact is (Mr Rosman not withstanding), Ray was spot on with his analysis.

Second, Dave and Rose base their whole premise upon this 77% value...a value which is suspect as many noted (including me) in some fine references when the many variables are teased out.

Third, "equal pay for equal work" is a great soundbite and rallying cry, but it's sure difficult to put into practice. Sure, it's easy to say this male hamburger flipper should make the same as that female hamburger flipper if they are both flippin' the same number of burgers/unit time and not flippin' one another off, but if I'm hiring a new male chemist who will do essentially the same job at the bench as a female chemist who enjoys wonderful relationships with $500K/year paying clients, should they get paid the same? Absolutely not! Their daily jobs may be the same and their final products may be the same, but many jobs are not just about the actual hands-on work where the final results can easily be seen; it's much, much more.

After all, what is the measure of this thing called "experience"? Define it for me in EXACT words that are universally true in all situations that you can write in a law.

If Mr. Rosman and Mrs Jo Doaks write a 1000 word column, should they be paid the same even though Mrs Jo Doaks has a following 10 times that of Mr Rosman and 20 times the on-line posted comments? Even if they have equal years writing columns? What if the surveys show that Mrs Doaks is increasing profits for the parent firms while Mr Rosman is just filler? Equal pay for equal work?

I think not.

Why?

Because you can't define "equal work".

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 14, 2012 | 11:42 a.m.

Let me start by reviving the words Rose chose...

There will always be a war on women as long as they refuse to understand that men prefer to keep them "in their place," which is behind or underneath the males of the species.

Many women would prefer not to work outside the home. They hope to find a husband who can support them.

I can’t explain what has happened in the history of these men that has led them to believe that they are superior to other people and that they should be in superior positions.

One of our political parties is unwilling to compromise on any bill. Women in this party will undoubtedly go along with the men to prove their hatred for the president.
_____________________________________________________

So, we have an unabashed attack piece declaring all men are sexist scumbags. (She didn't say "some men". She said, "men prefer to keep them "in their place," which is behind or underneath...")

An inconsistent message that goes from feminazi to, "women hope to find a man to support them".

And, the only reason a women would not be for this bill is because they will go along with their men who oppose because they hate the president???

This is what inspired me to comment. If there is a war going on Rose has both guns blazing!

I think her words were somewhat incendiary and that could be what inspired some strong responses.

Now I will say in her defense, there is no doubt in my mind that she experienced prejudices that I will never know. I can not judge her as a person for I do not know what she has endured and I might have a chip on my shoulder as well.

As far as the act goes, the poster above did an excellent job.

Reminders: 100 years ago women weren't voting on acts such as this, much less working in industry. (We have made much progress and can continue if we work together...)

If a muslim women is raped, she is the guilty party and gets a stoning for her troubles. Remember this when applying your politics to international affairs. (I can't rationalize the liberal acceptance of cultures that really do treat women as less than a person... help?)

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking June 14, 2012 | 12:58 p.m.

Judgements in family courts heavily favor women, with anywhere from 65 to 80% of women receiving custody and child support/alimony, and often a primary residence if available. Why is this not an equality issue with feminists (or anyone)? Whee's the legislation to correct this injustice?

Probably because there are a lot of factors other than gender.

Michael is right when he points out the difficulty of defining "equal work". There are also many factors, including women's typical focus on day-to-day family matters ahead of their jobs, that play into this.

The value of family raising and care, while valuable to society as a whole, is usually a liability to an employer. It makes an employee less productive on average than someone that does not have these responsibilities. Many employers accept this, but that doesn't change the basic economics.

Another issue is social. Men are more inclined to identify with their careers than women do, and many wives encourage that so their husbands can bring home more money. Also, women are more likely to stay home with kids than men, and this also has to do with the above. Women prefer to be the caregivers as a general rule. Moreover, many women still consider a househusband a bum. All of this plays into the wage equation, and none of it involves discrimination.

The fact that this gap has persisted in spite of legislation to correct it suggests that it is something intrinsic to the labor market, having to do more with choices than with discrimination. This bill may well cause more unfairness for workers and employers than it corrects.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 14, 2012 | 1:14 p.m.

David:
That which was split-second obvious to me about the content, organization of ideas and apparent agenda of Rose's article is exactly why I no longer trust the dynamics which have taken over those who profess themselves to be members of the Democrat Party.
Perhaps it's time for the progressives, like yourself, to acknowledge that independent/outside the box thinking from former liberal Blue Dog-types no longer have the kind of Democrat Party they can associate themselves with. As more Dems leave the party, they choose to be even more sensitive and revealing in their opinions about those in the party where members like yourself, could just have the decency to form their own Rainbow Coalition Progressive Party instead of forcing people like myself out of the Democrat Party.
Thanks for the article though.
It just illustrates to me how a Missourian newspaperman would rather target a Davey from the peanut gallery, (a person who has been reduced to the lowest dominator of using the Missourian comment section as my own journaling and therapy outlet), instead of just emailing me, setting up a meeting, or joining in on the discussion in the comment section, like you've done in the past.
For example in the comment section following this article by Rose:
("COLUMN: If the country is a mess, it's our fault
Tuesday, January 5, 2010")
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...
But, then in a way, I'm glad I hit a nerve.
(Gee, I miss Jake Sherlock. At least he was an objective, well-balanced and fair representative of the Missourian. He would never "abuse" his power to push whatever political agenda he had, while working at the Missourian, at the "embarrassment" of a hack comment section user, like myself.)
Also, who wrote your article's title relating to the emotion of fear?
Unless it's about the fear of truth.
But then again, you have more resources in revealing the truth than I do.
(Hey Rosman, how about coming over to my church and joining me for a cup of coffee?)

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 14, 2012 | 4:18 p.m.

("This year, America will face one of the most important elections in history. But in the whirlwind of all the debates, attack ads, and super-PAC money, something that Americans used to hold in high regard has been lost: the truth. Glenn Beck believes that those who control the information—from the media to our politicians—are scared to tell the public the truth because of narrow, selfish interests, such as an impact on their ratings, or lobbying agendas, or re-election campaigns. People and organizations have agendas— but the truth does not.

In Cowards, Beck provides a shockingly honest assessment of issues, ranging from border violence to Shariah law, from George Soros and the threat of economic terrorism to Frances Fox Piven and her strategy for collapsing our welfare system. Beck delivers the unvarnished truth about these little-covered topics. By the end, it will become clear why Beck often likes to quote President Garfield: The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable.")
http://www.glennbeck.com/book/cowards/

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders June 14, 2012 | 5:27 p.m.

Funny, I find your articles to be the very epitome of hate speech, wrapped with a thin veneer of holier-than-thou smugness in an effort to hide the fact.

Simply put, you use false arguments and misleading statistics to create a facade that appeals to harmony, all while fueling the divide and conquer nature of newspaper editorial space.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 14, 2012 | 7:12 p.m.

Speaking of "fair" pay generally, folks seldom consider their own worth to a company. Let's put some numbers to it.

Let's say you work for $20.00/hour for a business. In my experience, the average business pays 40-45% of their gross revenues as salaries; the actual value can vary quite a bit from this, depending upon the business, but this is a good average number. A further 40-45% is other expenses ranging from purchase of raw materials, office supplies, benefits, electricity, interest, propane, etc. The remainder (10-20%) is before-tax profit.

So, if you work for someone at $20.00/hour, you need to be generating $20.00 divided by...say 45%...equals $44.44 in gross revenue, be it clothing, hot dogs, sample analysis, clerking, etc....anything that is billable Otherwise, there is no profit and there may not even be enough to pay expenses; ergo, there is no longer any reason to employ you.

You're fired.

I was talking to an employer the other day who overheard his office staff laughing and joking about how the electronic age had enabled line workers to take on some of the office record-keeping responsibilities. Electronically, it was more efficient to do it that way and more accurate to boot. What perplexed him was that the office staff was enjoying this and having a merry ol' time thinking electronics had made their jobs easier while they retained the same salary and "stuck" it to the line workers.

How can they not see the handwriting on the wall? Can you say "telephone operators"?

Within 5 years, most will no longer have a job.

And they don't even know it.

Sad.

PS: If you are not a member of the corporate "core" group, the group of people the company will desperately need once the economy improves, you are on the lay-off list. No company...I repeat, NO company....lays off its core unless it is belly-up.

Best to make sure you are in the core group. Many folks think they are, but find they aren't with the arrival of a pink slip. That perception is usually the result of a faulty value assignment of their worth to the company. Do the calcs.

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates June 14, 2012 | 11:44 p.m.

Rose is the one that threw the politics into this. And David joins. Curious isn't it they do not also question why, when Democrats controlled everything for two years, the Presidency for three, and the senate for the last four, why is this suddenly an urgent issue in the 2012 election year? But, why question what we all know!

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking June 15, 2012 | 3:19 a.m.

Here's a report prepared for the US Department of Labor that explores the issue, and comes to the conclusion that there may not be anything that should be corrected:

http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Ge...

DK

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush June 15, 2012 | 8:36 a.m.

No surprise here: the
Same male choir psalming praise
Of the status quo.

Not one mentions the
Facts of Lilly Ledbetter's
Documented case.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 15, 2012 | 9:07 a.m.

MarkF: That's one helluva link, especially the foreward by our own Dept of Labor.

The last paragraph of the foreward is striking: Our own Department of Labor says that the raw wage gap should not be used for corrective action, and that any gap that does exist is almost entirely the result of individual worker choices, not male neanderthalian misogyny.

Our own government...in January 2009...says Rosman and Rose's belief that the 77% value is anti-female bias by males is faulty and bogus, the result of a political analysis that is statistically unsophisticated, misleading, and just plain wrong.

They drank Kool-Aid.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking June 15, 2012 | 9:09 a.m.

Gregg:

Lilly Ledbetter
Is one person. No one says
It never happens

Discrimination
Is not common enough to
Flood courts with lawsuits

DK

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 15, 2012 | 9:30 a.m.

MarkF: Right.

Federal laws should address national problems that are systemic, and this one isn't.

Our own Department of Labor says so.

Not that I expect any minds will be changed. After all, folks can believe any damnphool thing they want to.

But I sure appreciate that link.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz June 15, 2012 | 9:51 a.m.

I kindly demand that David explicitly point out my "hogwash" in my comment on Rose's column where I "claim that women will be given special preference over men." I made no such statement, but now thanks to his careless writing, the Missourian's writers may think me a misogynist and a conspiracy theorist thanks to his bully pulpit.

Joy Mayer has recently talked about fact-checking local elections and other matters; sounds like we need to start with the op-ed columnists who twist other's statements with no avenue for defense.

Oh, and if David's claims about the failed Act are true, perhaps Rose should have included a link to the legislation. The links in David's article (maybe not his doing) are not valid, and searching at Thomas seems brutally difficult. Here's the PDF from the Government Printing Office that I tracked down:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr...

The beginning of the bill makes this claim:

"In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination."

The proof is where, Mr. Rosman?

Skimming the text of the bill, the thought comes to me that the sponsors of the bill realize previous governmental action did not create wage parity and their solution is even more government!

(Report Comment)
Laura Johnston June 15, 2012 | 10:23 a.m.

@John Schultz: We'd welcome a rebuttal to David and Rose if you'd like to write one.
Contact me directly: johnstonlc@missouri.edu

Laura Johnston, senior news editor
ColumbiaMissourian.com

(Report Comment)
Jack Hamm June 15, 2012 | 10:33 a.m.

Now Rosman is taking cues on writing from the Karl Miller school? The Missourian is turning into a rag.

As classless as Ray Shapiro's comments were this commentary is no better. Nothing more than a whining tattle tale piece.

You may not have intended to Mr. Rosman, but you certainly did lower yourself to Ray's level.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush June 15, 2012 | 11:03 a.m.

Please refute more claims
That are not made - it's fun to
Talk right past the facts.

Fixing a loop-holed
Statute of limitations
Is what the Act fixed.

Seems men know best when
It comes to women's career
Experiences.

My daughters could be
Three-fifths of an employee -
Okay by these men?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 15, 2012 | 1:45 p.m.

("You may not have intended to Mr. Rosman, but you certainly did lower yourself to Ray's level.")
I agree.
I would definitely expect more class from David.
(Just what HAS become of our role models?)
Must be a campaign year.

(Report Comment)
Ida Fogle June 15, 2012 | 1:46 p.m.

http://tinyurl.com/3chkudf. The differences in pay begin immediately and continue, with above mentioned variables accounted for, throughout life.

Thank you, Mr. Rosman for cutting through the diversionary tactics.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 15, 2012 | 2:04 p.m.

While I rarely agree with Mr Rosman, people with a little fire in their belly make the world go round. I am not going to judge him for acting like me ;-)

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 15, 2012 | 2:11 p.m.

Obama's, Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act gave more aid to trial lawyers in their quest for "Pay", than to any woman in our work force. The obstructions placed upon hiring in business were well described when he signed it. Lawyers received unprecedented grounds to dig into a businesses pay records with the advent of only one complaintant. (possibly advertized for, nationally) if evidence of other errors are found, can you say class action lawsuit? Do you suppose our two concerned columnists have looked at any of these descriptions of the harm attached to the act?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/02/smallbus...
HR1519 seems the Democrat action to create the bureaucracy and training of new bureaucrats to reap the havoc.

According to Mr. Mentor, I suppose this will be labeled "trash talk".

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 15, 2012 | 2:13 p.m.

@Gregg
If you have your way your daughters will work along side men getting paid the same wage for the work that they do. However, whatever "fair" pay they get will not buy them a comfortable, happy life. Eventually, all wage earners will be the poor and the only rich or well off will be the government officials that have been raping people like you for centuries. Your daughters will wait in bread lines for their bread to be doled out to them by big brother. The ones who choose not to work will stand right by your daughters side, not working, yet still get paid the same wage. Our country evolved to a better system. Not too late for you to read up...

(Report Comment)
mike mentor June 15, 2012 | 2:19 p.m.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
On the contrary Frank. Excellent post! You brought up a significant point that was on topic and new to the thread and all without calling anyone names. In fact, I think you have behaved yourself better than me today! Did you let your kid have the password ???

He he, just kidding...

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 15, 2012 | 5:36 p.m.

@ Mike Mentor:

Your description of how things could end up sounds like a historical dissertation on the final years of the Soviet Union - except in the Soviet Union there were other possible fates for those who didn't want to work at the jobs the state assigned them - or they dared to have independent thoughts. Nanny State hates and punishes those who think.

How soon we forget!

Good post, Mike, but next time put it in haiku. A little class, please (very little).

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 15, 2012 | 7:11 p.m.

Ellis - Imo, "How soon we forget!" is no longer the problem. May I assume that you and we others having received education prior to 1960 are aware that most American youth, educated since, may never have been Told the details of this "historical dissertation on the final years of the Soviet Union -"?

Imo, this information must be provided in the across the kitchen table, English, to all our youth, not in haiku, for the pleasure of our pseudo-intellectuals, whose only pleasure is the gobbledy goop, crap they can produce to complain.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith June 16, 2012 | 5:15 a.m.

@ Frank:

Points well made.

Actually, I question whether we have any intellectuals posting on this venue, even the "pseudo" variety. Self delusion ought to be added to the standard list of deadly sins.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin June 16, 2012 | 6:34 a.m.

Unless something has changed, neither David Rosman nor Rose Nolen is paid a cent for any of the many columns they write for this newspaper, which is supposed to be in the business of training professional journalists.

How ironic, then, that a discussion over fair pay has emerged from their recent columns (unless you consider their own pay equity -- each making zero).

This practice has harmed our industry immeasurably, and so I bring it up when issues of fair play -- and fair pay -- come up on these pages.

A new documentary, "Fit to Print," illustrates journalism's rising woes with an eye-opening look at the economic decline of newspapers, and why anyone in the journalism business should be doing their utmost to see that reasonable compensation is received for work performed:

Fit To Print clip
http://passer.by/films/1

Add lack of pay to Missourian columnists to other mis-priorities that include shuttering the University of Missouri Press, and this recent head-scratching George Kennedy column asking that we spend millions more on -- guess what -- the Athletic Department, ostensibly to keep up with "palatial southeastern verandas."

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

Meanwhile, all this is driven by an unsustainable student debt bubble made all the more unsustainable by the demand for payments on the front end (from rising tuition to over-priced student apartments to pricey Tiger tickets) coupled with lack of opportunities on the back end (e.g., work after graduation -- unless you want to work for free, or at wages that have become terribly depressed partly because of free labor).

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 16, 2012 | 12:46 p.m.

Laura Johnston says (to John Schultz), "We'd welcome a rebuttal to David and Rose if you'd like to write one."
_____________________

In point of fact, this would be the only way for John (or Ray, for that matter) to rebut Rosman to the local Columbia readership. We few folks reading these comments can and do read their rebuttals and can evaluate their merit, but all others within the paper-only readership can't without going online. Most don't, I would guess. Since not all of your readers view the online comments, perhaps it would be better if angry opinion writers confine their complaints to "Letters to the Editor" that ALL readers will see.

Whatever the case, Rosman's missive was tacky and best filed under "F" for "Famous Missourian Hissy Fits."

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 16, 2012 | 12:56 p.m.

("Ida Fogle June 15, 2012 | 1:46 p.m.
http://tinyurl.com/3chkudf. The differences in pay begin immediately and continue, with above mentioned variables accounted for, throughout life.")
Of course this report, to and at the charge of Nancy Pelosi, is filled with bias.
In fact, after reading it, I would propose that instead of the litigious "Paycheck Fairness Act" Obama would better serve NOW by pushing through a mandate that all public high schools withhold diplomas from prospective women graduates until they pass a Federal Negotiations Competency/ Proficiency Test so that women can properly compete in a market, which seems to have enough checks & balances, (considering the laws passed since 1963, which now provide women fair and just opportunities), as they compete with not only men but amongst themselves as well.
http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/0...
Of course, at the same time, I will form a coalition of men to band together against NOW to lobby for a litigious bill to seek reparations for those men who feel they've been passed over jobs by personnel departments which hired black women in order to get "Double Brownie Points" from Affirmative Action/EOE practices.
http://www.uri.edu/affirmative_action/te...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro June 16, 2012 | 1:30 p.m.

@Michael Williams:
You mean that Rosman's column made hard copy "front page" news?
I Am - Somebody!

Although, I got that same feeling when the new phone book arrived.
("I'm somebody now! Millions of people look at this book every day! This is the kind of spontaneous publicity, you're name in print, that makes people. I'm in print!")
http://corky.net/scripts/jerk.html
("In 1969, 400 poorly paid black women -- hospital workers in Charleston, South Carolina -- went on strike to demand union recognition and a wage increase, only to find themselves in a confrontation with the National Guard and the state government.")
http://icarusfilms.com/cat97/f-j/i_am_so...
And yet, the early years I spent supporting the Phil Donahues, the Alan Aldas and "the cause" now gives me regret as NOW refuses to acknowledge that they are to blame for what is currently wrong with the workplace and man/woman relationships.
Perhaps, just as the NAACP needs some reforming, so to NOW.
But then again, the progressives are relentless and would not allow such to happen.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 16, 2012 | 3:32 p.m.

Ray laments, "....And yet, the early years I spent supporting the Phil Donahues, the Alan Aldas and "the cause" now gives me regret."
_______________________

Hey, I was a McGovern democrat for a while.

I still cry in my beer over that misappropriation of neurons.

I, too, read the Dept of Labor-sponsored paper and I read Ida's linked paper.

It's like reading a scientific paper versus a high school rah-rah support-the-team pamphlet.

PS: The Dept of Labor's missive is the scientific paper, for those who might want to confuse the issue.

There was good, hard data in Ida's linked paper, but it fell far short of scientifically teasing out the variables.

I have a question for Ida and others: If Joe Doaks makes $100K as a bankruptcy attorney in the same firm as Jane Doaks as a bankruptcy attorney who makes $125K, is this sex discrimination? Why or why not?

(Report Comment)
frank christian June 16, 2012 | 10:38 p.m.

"Hey, I was a McGovern democrat for a while." Even tho that nut wanted to give every American fifty bucks in an effort to end the recession? He was laughed out of that election, but then, where are we now? We have given All Americans 5T$ new debt, we are now trying to decide if 1T+$ new debt every year (in the hope it will be "reduced", sometime) is the way we want to go. Those that require "fact checks" about our politics and economy, need not wait on Missourian facilities. Our problems and solutions are easy to discern, just ask the proper questions and accept the proven answers.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams June 17, 2012 | 8:45 a.m.

Frank: Actually, I think it was $1000.

Hey, to a young...and deserving...college student, that sounded very entitling.

And entitled folks tend to vote with their sugar daddy.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements