Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Salty, Mar 13, 2010.
The organizations which support or endorse this bill are an immediate red flag to me to be wary of this bill.
I see no bi-partisan co-authorship..... another red flag.
That said ...... honestly, I'm not familiar enough with the bill itself to know the necessities for it or the advantagies and disadvantagies it gives to others.
It does seem to create another area of concern for employers to deal with among other regulations with which they already have to comply, while on the surface it appears to take a fair approach of 'same job, same pay'. As to how longevity raises, or 'grandfathered' adjustments for changes in new pay scaled to meet economic conditions would figure in.... I haven't the slightest idea. As for the government being protective of employees against retiliation I have reason to be skeptical.
I tend to believe the less law and regulation the better, and most particularly the less interference of the federal government over these matters the better.
It sort of smacks of work equivalency and the camel nose of government sticking its head under the tent into decisions which should be made between the laborer who sells his labor and the employer who has the rights to offer employment at wages he can pay, or the merits upon which he bases his raises.
I believe that a business should have the right to pay whatever they want to whomever they want.
I don't know, women in my professional line of work don't paid nearly as much as men...but we also don't hire women for this position (well at my current church.)
Pay equity is still a thing. I think women who want it know they can get it now though. Just work hard. The whole business structure has changed and most employers (from what I have generally observed) aren't little men-only clubs.
Which is why we have anti-discrimination laws.
and I condend it is not the business of govt to interfere with a business.
The law is needed to establish a more Marxist state.
I don't know about all the parts of this bill, but here is one part I agree with:
Where I work, we are not allowed to let anyone else know what we are being paid. In fact, if I discuss my pay with another employee, even off company time and property, I can be terminated. I think this goes against free speech. What I say to another individual at my house or in public should not be regulated by my employer.
If I'm an employer, if I choose secrecy concerning one's wage as a condition of employment, that should be my right.
How is it that we have come this far to allow so much unnecessary regulation of private enterprise?
Sorry, but that's not the First Amendment Guarantee.
The First Amendment guarantees you that Government cannot infringe on your right to free speech. A business certainly can censor speech.
You may disagree with your employer's policy...but they legally have the right to make that policy.
Is the rule your business has made restrictive, silly, mean?
It's irrelevant. The business is allowed to do so.
The First Amendment reads:
The law does not...
Prohibit a private entity from enacting restrictions on speech.
Does not insulate a person from the consequences of ill-advised speech (that is to say...you might be free to refer to your boss as an "idiot" to the other emplyees; but the consequences could include your being fired or reprimanded.
Businesses should be able to hire, fire, pay whatever they want, make up any rules they want, etc. Let the free market works things out. If a business treats its employees wrong, guess what? People won't want to work there. People will find out how they treat their employees and they won't want to do business there.
It's just one more in a long list of government power grabs by democrats.
So you people think an employer has the right to restrict your speech even when not on company property or on company time?
No..they shouldn't have the right to restrict your speech no matter where you are. On the other hand, we don't have a the right to restrict a company for letting an employee go for any reason. A company can't restrict your speech. They can dole out a consequence for your speech, but that isn't restricting it.
There are already reasons a company will fire you because of your speech. If you are a pastor of a church and, while not on church property, you go around cussing, swearing, and acting like a fool, would you argue that the church can't fire you? If you are giving out company secrets to a competitor, off company property, would you argue that the company can't fire you?
I would understand a company letting someone go who made public disparaging comments about the business or untoward comments about the management, but I don't think what is said privately should have an effect on a person's continued employment.
If something is said privately, how will the company ever find out?
Here's a dirty little secret.
Successful companies with a happy work force get that way by treating all their employees fairly and firing the unhappy ones if they won't leave on their own.
I advocate that approach and have used it myself. It works wonders for company morale.
If anyone has a discrimination complaint, they can file it and records can be subpoened. The government has no reason nor right to snoop into company records without a filed complaint.
As an employer, I would immediately fire anyone who makes such a complaint. I won't have a bad apple in my company poisoning the minds and damaging the morale of good employees. There is always someone you can't make happy, no matter what you do.
If they don't like where they are working,regardless of the reason, they should leave on their own. If they don't , I'd show them the door.
Very good reasons I would never work for someone like you!
Wouldn't that just help their case?
But what if the govt required you to work for him?