You're just babbling at this point. Go read Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and get back to me.
Hillary "gays shouldn't lose their jobs and women should be paid the same"
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
You're just babbling at this point. Go read Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and get back to me.
But at what cost? He's still a man dressed as a women. You can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day it's still a pig with lipstick on.
That's funny, we just had a similar discussion last month where you were claiming that most people DON'T seek counsel nor seek right to sue letters and this whole process plays out within the EEOC. I see you have changed your mind.
Except that charges MUST be brought to the EEOC before suing, you know, as part of the law. If your complaint is that employers settle before that complaint is filed, how is your complaint with anyone BUT the employer?
Your "vast majority" claim is a) bullshit and b) completely contrary to law. The charge is a prerequisite to filing suit.
I actually posted the answer to your question. Employment discrimination plaintiffs win LESS OFTEN than other plaintiffs from other sorts of civil trials. It is HARDER for them to win than normal in federal court. Employers win more than plaintiffs, which completely contradicts your earlier, false, claim.
You don't get to bring up money, Hoosier took that off the table. But I think this has become popular, anecdotal is not evidence. We are talking about all men vs all women. So again, it's cute but nonsense.
Well certainly any person who is wealthy is more privileged then any person who is poor. And women are often wealthy too. I'm just stating that economics trumps everything here.
Few people seriously wish they where the opposite sex but if you want to know about female privileges let me just give you an abridged list.
Free contraceptive options with ACA, about 20 of them. Male contraceptive options are specifically written out. So any male options that exist or may exist in the future will not be covered.
Abortion - Only women have the option of preventing themselves from becomming parents post sex. Men do not. Some have tried to create an option for men to renounce their parental rights however it has not past. I of course support neither, however the inequality is worth pointing out. This is why you rarely hear about deadbeat moms. Because the moms who didn't want to do the job killed their baby in the womb. Dad didn't have that option.
Presumed child custody
WIC - Women, Infants, and Children's Nutrition service. . . Fathers can not receive aid under any circumstance.
Still don't have to sign up for the draft despite the fact that they can serve in any position in the military. Even before that change women in a time of war could assist the military in support roles as several support people are required for every one infantry soldier.
Protection from genital mutilation. . . It's specifically illegal in this country and most western countries, however male circumcision is not and is widely practiced.
Access to Domestic Violence resources and shelters.
Lower sentencing for the same crime. The difference here has been found to be greater then the difference between white men and black men.
I could go on . . . that's an abridged list.
This is hilarious. Your contention is that Bruce Jenner gained his benefit from being a woman ... not being a person who transitioned in to being a woman. That is so silly that I can only imagine you haven't actually thought it through.
To follow that logic you would necessarily have to believe that had Bruce done it SECRETLY, without anyone knowing, and moved to, say, southern Florida, he would have received more beneficial treatment as a woman than he ever did as a man.
That is hilariously inept.
That's not what I said last month. At the end of the EEOC process (or upon request by the charging party), they ALWAYS give a "right to sue" letter. Some don't pursue it, but most do. All they need is a lawyer who thinks the case is worth rolling the dice and sending a threatening letter or filing suit. Some sort of settlement is then contemplated simply to avoid incurring legal fees to fight it.
You're really reaching here when you have to continually misrepresent what I said.
As for your assertion that other types of suits have a higher win rate, your article says that employment discrimination suits are more numerous than any other type on the dockets. So, a win in an area of less voluminous suits will have a larger impact than a win in an area with many suits.
Inept? That's a curious word to use in this context.
In any case, I was responding to a person who claimed men weren't wanting to be women...
Perhaps you shouldn't be so "clumsy" in your attempts to attack me?
I like this list. It is simplistic, sometimes incorrect or overstated, but is a well thought out list of things that women receive that men, in general do not.
The only one I will take issue with right now is "Presumed Child custody". This is a fairly obvious one because we know parentage when a baby comes out of a specific vagina. We know that person is the parent. If that happened to be a male, we would presume that person as well. Also, presumed custody isn't likely as one-sided as you probably think it is. Married people have presumed custody, whether biological or not. Also, there is a procedure for a father to obtain "custody" automatically by simply "being" the father and claiming the child from the outset. Many people aren't aware of this (and differs by state).
So, again, it is more about evidence than anything else. We have evidence of whose vagina the baby excreted, we don't always have evidence of who the father is. I don't think it is as much of a "benefit" as you think it is, although I understand its inclusion in your list.
It isn't the "end" of the EEOC process, it is usually right in the middle of it. Those are CHARGES, so you can't simply claim that the charges statistics don't count them. Maybe you don't know what "charges" means in this context.
Your last statement makes no sense. Employment discrimination plaintiffs lose MORE OFTEN than the other types of plaintiffs. Your claim was that the "system" is biased against employers, which I called absurd and provided statistics that show employEES are less likely to win at trial than employERS. In fact, the bias is far more inherent without a jury, judges are inherently biased TOWARDS employers, and the statistics have shown that for decades.
Statutes can be changed, too. That is the way it works in this country.
I HAVE A DREAM.............
Look, laws are politicians making it look like they work. Here's a fact, until the end of time we will be unable to control how a person thinks.
The great MLK said I have a dream in the 1963. The murders of 3 civil rights workers that year helped move Americans' perception of how blacks were treated. It moved Washington to change the law, but some people have not changed their views. We've come a long long ways, but of course we have a long long way to go.
Gay rights are very similar. Yet I was pleased to attend a meeting in November where 2 award recipients recognized their same sex partners. Would that have happened 10 or even 5 years ago?
Yes, laws enable enforcement. But society is moving in the right direction. I don't believe we will ever reach utopia.
The point is that the views of the masses are what really matter.
(If this is way off topic forgive me, I did not read all posts.)
Look, laws are politicians making it look like they work. Here's a fact, until the end of time we will be unable to control how a person thinks.
The great MLK said I have a dream in the 1963. The murders of 3 civil rights workers that year helped move Americans' perception of how blacks were treated. It moved Washington to change the law, but some people have not changed their views. We've come a long long ways, but of course we have a long long way to go.
Gay rights are very similar. Yet I was pleased to attend a meeting in November where 2 award recipients recognized their same sex partners. Would that have happened 10 or even 5 years ago?
Yes, laws enable enforcement. But society is moving in the right direction. I don't believe we will ever reach utopia.
The point is that the views of the masses are what really matter.
(If this is way off topic forgive me, I did not read all posts.)
The problem lies with your definition of equal work. To the left, that generally means the same title, and leaves no room for individual evaluation.
Of course, but is often a chicken/egg thing. I understand people claim that we can't control how a person thinks, but I think recent history has shown its success.
Was the majority of the country in favor of MLK and civil rights? No, it was still very surprising that the POTUS got on board.
Was the majority of the country in favor of Title IX and women in athletics? No, the statistics were quite obvious on this.
Was the majority of the country in favor of homosexual rights two decades ago when laws started being passed? No.
Are all three of these in the majority now? Yes. Which one came first? The majority support or the law? Good question. Do we tell ourselves that these things (like ending slavery) would have happened no matter what? Sure, but I think history shows otherwise.
No, similar can encompass a wide variation, and leaves too much for interpretation by liberal government enforcers.
A main part of the problem is that the sides can't even agree on the hypothetical necessary to come to an understanding.
"If two people are completely equal, in all ways, except for gender, do you believe they should be paid the same"?
Universally, this will not be answered, because they refuse to even start with that (imo, easy) principle. Too often I hear, "No, because that woman will eventually have a baby and want to work less, etc." There is a steadfast refusal to come to that simplistic, and necessary, understanding.
Now you have moved the goal posts, changing your hypothetical from "similar" to "equal". It also becomes ridiculous because it never happens. In other words, agreeing that if two people are completely equal in all respects, then they should be paid the same is meaningless, because it is virtually impossible in the real world. Thus, we have to evaluate based on differences.
Of course, the ultimate recourse is to find another job if you are not being treated fairly. As others have repeatedly pointed out, the left faces an inherent internal inconsistency with these arguments. On the one hand, the left consistently complains that corporations are greedy and stingy. Well, if that is true, and corporations could get equal performance from women for 78% of what they pay men, then corporations would hire a vast majority of women. On the other hand, the left complains that these same corporations routinely waste money by overpaying men and whites for work that could be done for less. Go figure.
Man, you're really good at taking things out of context to put words in my mouth.
You threw up a link to charges in which the EEOC filed suit on behalf of charging parties. They only do that when they think it's a juicy case that can establish some sort of prescient, or for very egregious or systematic discrimination claims.
What I said was that the vast majority of cases are dismissed by the EEOC with a "right to sue" letter. The vast majority of those are resolved without any ability for the EEOC to record the outcomes of all those cases, except for those that go all the way to court.
It makes sense if you understand what "win rates" means. If I have 10 employment law cases and 2 consumer fraud cases, 2 wins will equal a 20 percent win rate on the employment law side, while 1 win equals a 50 percent win rate on the consumer fraud side.
And yes, judges side more often with employers judges can recognize when a slimy lawyer is reaching a strained conclusion about discriminatory intent while juries are more likely to fall for it.
Incidentally, do you contend that things such as taking maternity leave (even multiple times), part-time work, etc. are matters that a boss or company should not be able to take into consideration when determining pay? Do you not see that these matters have a tangible impact on the value of an employee? I can give you concrete examples.
I would encourage everyone to listen to a candidate sometime, and with each statement, think about whether a candidate from the other party could say the same thing and get a cheer. It happens a lot more often than you might think. They make a lot of positive statements in a tone of voice that suggests the other party would be against that, when it simply isn't true.
Of course they should, in their proper context. Theoretical future events should rarely be taken in to any sort of discussion of merit.
I think you missed my beginning requirement that they be exactly the same, except for gender.
See, you want to use theoretical, non-specific reasons to discriminate against specific people based on gender. That is exactly what I was posting, that your side won't even agree on the obvious hypothetical necessary to actually discuss the issue.
Apparently you did not read my other post. There is never a situation in which two employees are 100% equal or identical with the exception of gender. It simply cannot and does not happen. There are two many variables.
See, you want to preclude the use of real world performance data and have government types set pay based on silly things like seniority and job titles. I do not want to discriminate based on anything but things like performance, effort, creativity, dedication, etc. There are never two employees who are 100% equal in those categories.
I "threw up" a link and then specifically pointed at the "charges" and even put down the number. You then tried to challenge that number by saying, "that's not tracked by the EEOC at all. So, we don't really know how widespread it is that a charging party receives monetary compensation." That is a misrepresentation, because we do, in fact, know the number of "charges", which I specifically put in my post. Do we know the monetary amount? No, they are confidential settlements, confidential at THE EMPLOYER'S request.
Wait, you are challenging the percentages as not accurately portraying how "fair" the system is? That is idiotic. Your claim was that juries and the system are inherently biased against employers, so I provided you actual data that shows that bullshit to be, well, bullshit. Now you challenge the percentage by trying to point to the total numbers? For f**** sake.
The system leans heavily toward the employer, the opposite of your claim. Statistics trump your theory of the "big bad employer" being hated by juries. The person hated by juries is the person trying to collect something after being fired. Which is why employers spend so much money attacking the plaintiff instead of defending their case.
Oh, I get it, you don't understand what a hypothetical is, or why they are necessary in debate. Got it. Carry on.
I'm not sure you realize that you completely proved my point.
I didn't say we don't know the number of charges. I said we don't know how many of them received monetary compensation.
There's no way that you misunderstood that. You're simply a troll.
If you're willing to go to court and spend a million dollars on lawyers, admittedly, you have a pretty good chance.
But that's not how the system is stacked against employers. You have to spend a million dollars on lawyers if you don't want to give a disgruntled former-employee who filed a charge money to go away. THAT'S how it's stacked against employers.
Well sure, when you make this shit up, sure.
How many employees did you fire last year? How much in settlements have you paid out in that time?
We get it, you are an HR lackey that thinks your employer never discriminates (your words), employers shouldn't be held responsible for their managers' actions, and all people complaining about discrimination are lying money-seekers.
Oh, I missed one - when a jury rules in favor of the employee they fell for some disgusting lawyer's trick (although when the jury finds for the employer, they were able to do justice).
Stereotypical HR employee on aisle 1! Seriously, you hit all the key bullshit without missing a beat. Maybe you aren't paid enough.
You realize we don't know those things BECAUSE OF employers, right? You are trying to claim this shit is widespread while taking part in the very practice that refuses to keep statistics.
I have no idea how many people are fired or discriminated against (obviously don't have to be fired to file an EEOC charge), but this looney-looking website says that 20Million people were fired in 2014. http://mollysmiddleamerica.blogspot.com/2013/08/how-many-people-are-fired-each-year-in.html
There were ~89,000 EEOC charges in that same year, which would be, what, half a percent of the number fired?
Again, I don't know the accuracy of the first number, but I would guess that Millions are fired or discriminated against each year. These filings aren't as widespread as you claim. Employers aren't paying out to employees as some sort of routine blackmail like you try to imply.
You work for a place where it seems you can give us specific numbers, feel free to back up your assertion.
There were ~89,000 EEOC charges in that same year, which would be, what, half a percent of the number fired?
Again, I don't know the accuracy of the first number, but I would guess that Millions are fired or discriminated against each year. These filings aren't as widespread as you claim. Employers aren't paying out to employees as some sort of routine blackmail like you try to imply.
You work for a place where it seems you can give us specific numbers, feel free to back up your assertion.
Please, a confidentiality clause is even part of the official EEOC mediation process.
Furthermore, people who repeatedly file discrimination charges want settlements kept confidential, too, so that their pattern of filing frivolous lawsuits can't found out during discovery
I get it. You have a hard on for the HR profession for some reason.
Funny thing... you don't hear too many jokes about HR practitioners. At least, not anywhere near the volume of jokes you hear about lawyers.
We have about 6,000 employees. Not sure how many are fired every year. We probably get an average of 12 - 15 charges a year. More than enough to keep me pretty busy battling frivolous claims instead of making things better for our employees.
I don't have a hard-on for your profession, I don't need one to understand what you don't: Your entire purpose is to spin things in favor of the employer. Sure, you claim that you are there to help employees, but that is bullshit and we both know it. You are employed by the employer to do the employer's bidding, so that when they fire someone, you make sure they stay fired as cheaply as possible. It is your job to paint them poorly while propping up your employer.
I don't fault you for that. I fault you for actually believing the swill you push yourself.
I would think a few keystrokes on your computer would show you how many people your employer fired last year. With 6k employees, it would be surprisingly sad if you couldn't.
You have no idea how often I take managers to task for their stupidity, or simply not doing right by the employees.
Determining the number of involuntary vs voluntary terminations is rather nebulous because we don't have the greatest HRIS system. If someone can't return from leave, is that a voluntary term or is it involuntary? We have work for her, but she can't accept it.
In any case, if I had to spit out a number, I'd guess we probably fire somewhere around 1,000 per year.
Not sure why that's relevant to anything, though.
1,000 per year, but 12-15 charges per year. So this is really as prevalent as you claim, right? Also, you don't take managers to task for the employees, you do it for the employers, so that they don't get sued. But they never discriminate, so I'm not sure why you find problems with what they do?
Goddamn lawyers.
Check "Figure 1" on page 432 of the link you provided. The number of job cases was rising at a much-greater pace than other cases. I can't imagine this trend has changed in recent years, especially considering who's been at the top of the EEOC's org chart the past seven years.
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=lsrp_papers
If custody is ever in doubt even when we know who the father is, the woman always is presumed to get custody.
If my wife divorces me for some reason, she doesn't really "break up the family" so much as she simply kicks me out of it. There is a reason why women file for divorce 70% of the time and men are much more likely to kill themselves following a divorce then women. That's because only men really lose their family in the divorce with the rare exception of when a judge finds out a woman is such an incredibly terrible mother that he's left with no choice but to give custody to dad.
I'm not sure what you mean by this because it isn't true. There are presumption laws, just not what you are describing.
Do women file for divorce 70% of the time? Not a statistic I've heard. Hadn't heard the suicide stat either, but I could believe it. It isn't as rare as you have built it up to be, nor is your last part accurate.
All I as saying with my previous post is that you are taking simplistic points and exaggerating them, whether you believe it or not. It isn't nearly as bad a picture as you paint.
