Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

What do you think about the Paycheck Fairness Act?

Under the PFA~ employers must have one pay for a job, not only at the entry level, but throughout the organization. For example, what if a year after Fair Pay Shipping Co. hires John and Sally, John comes in and asks for a raise, but Sally does not. Under the existing law, Fair Pay Shipping is probably OK giving John a raise and not Sally. Not so if the Paycheck Fairness Act passes.


Asked by grlygrlz2 at 2:13 PM on Jul. 22, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 39 (106,530 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (26)
  • " are assuming there will be lazy employees who get raises and yet will still slack off? Well...they will probably be fired then. "

    Not necessarily.

    Worker # 1 does their work but nothing else, and never volunteers or takes on extra projects.
    Worker # 2 does their work, helps out new employees, volunteers for special projects, and takes initiative to make positive and profitable changes.

    Worker # 1 is doing the minimum to keep their job, so they can't easily be fired.
    Worker # 2 is doing 110% of their job, and under this law, cannot be rewarded for taking initiative.

    That is a huge flaw.

    Answer by mancosmomma at 3:43 PM on Jul. 22, 2010

  • Redundant and unnecessary legislation, we already have equal pay for equal work and anti-discrimination laws. This is just absurd.

    Answer by aliceinalgonac at 2:24 PM on Jul. 22, 2010

  • Worthless, useless, cumbersome and damaging ... and exactly what I'd expect from this administration.

    Answer by findingharmony at 3:00 PM on Jul. 22, 2010

  • The problem with this law is it addresses only one thing: MONEY. Under this law, the employer could rightly tell Sally no to flexible hours, because John doesn't want/need them. In many ways, it could backfire on women and make the workplace less family-friendly.

    Answer by mancosmomma at 3:21 PM on Jul. 22, 2010

  • This is not a good thing. Raises should be given off performance. No one has the right to a raise for someone else's performance.

    Answer by lovinangels at 2:20 PM on Jul. 22, 2010

  • The Ledbetter Act was pointless and unnecessary. This one is actually harmful. A company could be sued by any pissed off employee on grounds that they hired someone else in for more money because the other person's last job discriminated against someone, and no matter how much BS that was, the company would still have to spend the money defending themselves attempting to prove a negative - that another company DIDN'T discriminate.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 2:54 PM on Jul. 22, 2010

  • Why would supporting Lilly Ledbetter mean i don't think men deserve equal pay for equal work?

    The Ledbetter act is a piece of paper to make Obama look like a nice guy. End of story. People are paid based on their performance, period. Women make less (in general) because women leave work early, come in late and take more days off due to their children (in general). Their co-workers who do not have kids pick up the slack every time they leave, put in more hours, and in return are paid more (in general). The Ledbetter act does nothing to change that, but it will be used to try and paint discrimination there where it does not exist.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 3:03 PM on Jul. 22, 2010

  • I actually agree that people should be paid the same for doing the same work. BUT, and it's a big BUT, having the same job title doesn't mean you do the same work. Some people are just better than others, as politically incorrect as it is to say so.


    Answer by Bezu at 3:00 PM on Jul. 22, 2010

  • Good grief, just 1 more thing to strangle businesses. You know, one of these days I am going to say to hell with it and just pay minimum wage across the board. I don't have to pay good wages, I do it because I want too. If I paid cheap like some employers I could really increase my personal income.

    Honestly, I find this law very disturbing. It will give the govt a lot of backdoor control over wages. The whole thing reeks of Communist Russia imo.

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 3:09 PM on Jul. 22, 2010

  • Therefore, companies will have far less flexibility in addressing different salary histories for new hires, different salary demands from existing employees, the size of pay raises for people promoted into new roles, and so on. The law would make these changes without real evidence that these steps will eliminate pay disparities between men and women or any thought on the impact of restricting a company’s ability to respond to the different needs and demands of its employees.


    Comment by grlygrlz2 (original poster) at 2:14 PM on Jul. 22, 2010