| Welcome to Virtual America. We hope you enjoy your visit. If you're looking to join and sign up for the first time, register here! You'll want to familiarize yourself with the rules of Virtual America which you can find here. And you'll want to read up on how to sign in and create your character here. After all than you can sign in and get to playing! We're all friends here and we're certain you'll enjoy it here at Virtual America! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| HR 56 Paycheck Fairness Act | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 12 Jun 2013, 01:00 AM (311 Views) | |
| Heather Holson | 12 Jun 2013, 01:00 AM Post #1 |
![]()
|
48 hours for debate
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| FairBol | 12 Jun 2013, 11:48 AM Post #21 |
|
American Patriot, & DJ
|
Nay to call. |
![]() |
|
| Matt Urbana | 12 Jun 2013, 11:52 AM Post #22 |
![]()
|
Nay to call. Madam Speaker, In our push for equality, we must be careful not to overreact and hypercorrect. There are important distinctions in our society between the role of men and women. Although many of these distinctions seem to be disappearing, it is not our place to force societal change on the country. In this day and age, what employer thinks to himself, "This employee is a woman so I'll pay her less." And, if an employer is truly thinking that, will changing the law actually prevent such discrimination? It seems unlikely. The pay differential between men and women is simply an aspect of society, and perhaps an undesirable one, but it is not something that we can or should change through legislation. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Terrus | 12 Jun 2013, 12:54 PM Post #23 |
![]()
|
Madame Speaker, The distinctions in our society between the role of men and women are important, yes, important in that they represent a significant barrier to equality. The Congressman argues that it is not the place of the Congress to change our society -- and yet, the Congress has done that repeatedly through history, and often for the public good. Let us not allow discrimination to continue -- however unconscious it may be -- simply in the name of maintaining that status quo. Defending the status quo simply because it is the status quo is illogical, but declaring that men are rightfully paid more is equally illogical. Congressman Luke states that men tend to pursue more dangerous careers -- yet most of the careers he lists are hardly dangerous, and most of the careers he lists are not high paying. So the argument that men are paid more because they've more dangerous work simply fails -- both because the work in question is not dangerous, and because the work in question is not high-paying. Congressman Luke suggests that women select less high-paying fields "by choice," yet in reality, our society demands that women do so. Girl are taught from a young age that good women pursue certain career types, that good women focus on family, and that certain careers are meant for men. When girls enter the workforce in other fields, they encounter a highly masculine culture, which objectifies them and dismisses their presence. More and more women are pursuing more high-paying careers, despite this burden, but let us not blame those that do not want to face up to sexism for not facing up to sexism. Additionally, for the record, I feel it worth noting -- healthcare is not a particularly low-paying field for professionals. Congressman Luke argues that women make less because "women place a higher premium on shorter work weeks, proximity to home, fulfillment, autonomy, and safety." Yet he ignores the fact that our society demands that married women cook and clean for their husbands, that mothers take care of their children (far more so than fathers), and that women in general put family first. No one bats an eye at a man that focuses on work; its expected that his wife will take care of the household. But if a woman focuses on her work, her husband is certainly not expected to take care of the household, and she is immediately blamed for any resultant issues with our children. Those opposed to this bill, generally, miss an important point: that sexism lives in our society, no longer in the form of old white men that think women deserve to be kept in the kitchen and the bedroom, but in the form of young white men that expect women to lead a career (but only a proper career), while also doing the lion's share of the housework, and doing the lion's share of parenting. By placing that burden upon women, our society makes it far more difficult for them to succeed professionally. Yet I fail to see how this greater argument about women's place in reality relates to the present. This bill does not require employers to raise the pay of female employees by 23% to address the discrepancy between male and female pay -- it merely expands the ability of women to pursue discrimination suits against bigoted employers. Can anyone here truly tell me that's a bad idea? I yield. |
![]() |
|
| peter | 12 Jun 2013, 12:58 PM Post #24 |
|
Lucas for President: Take Back America!
|
(OOC: Terrus, can I just point out that you really shouldn't be referring to anyone by name,m but by state. Its a rule designed to stop debate in Congress from getting too personal. If I knew you knew this, I'd raise a point of order, but as you seem to do it all the time, I'll take it your genuinely didn't know). |
![]() |
|
| Terrus | 12 Jun 2013, 01:00 PM Post #25 |
![]()
|
(OOC: So far as I know, that's a tradition in both Houses, but its not one followed by all members. McCain commonly refers to people by name, and there's a number of Housies that do it as well. I share their bemusement at the use of terms like "the gentlewoman from Nebraska," and I follow their lead.) |
![]() |
|
| Patrick Callaghan | 12 Jun 2013, 01:13 PM Post #26 |
|
New England Republican >:D
|
Madame Speaker, In the United States of America we are guaranteed to be treated equality. That is the basis of this entire experiment we call America. The wage gender gap was an issue that Congress has brought up before and passed legislation to handle and since then the wage gap, as noted by some of my colleagues, has been closing which is a wonderful thing. No person should receive lower pay do to anything besides their skills, work ethic, and time spent working. However a gap still does exist and while this may not necessarily be due to outright discrimination I feel it's worth strengthening our laws and strengthen the ability of Congress to prevent such a thing from happening. I also believe many of the provision will be useful in helping members of all genders be protected against discrimination as well as provide women with the negotiation skills that many have pointed to as a reason for the gap. I yield. Edited by Patrick Callaghan, 12 Jun 2013, 01:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matt Urbana | 12 Jun 2013, 01:27 PM Post #27 |
![]()
|
Madam Speaker, I note that much of this debate has centered around the bill's ideas rather than its provisions. Let's talk briefly about what the bill actually does. First, it makes the law ambiguous, such that an employer could very reasonably decide that some qualification is a "bona fide factor" but could still be sued and found guilty by an overzealous judge. Secondly, it wastes money on training regarding gender discrimination in employment. Is a brief seminar on gender discrimination going to convince anyone who discriminates not to do so? Doubtful. Thirdly, it creates a sexist government training program available only to women on the belief, based only in stereotype, that women do not negotiate as strongly as men. Fourth, it continues to waste money on a useless award, and one which will likely only encourage employers to make employment considerations based on factors other than qualification. Finally, and most outrageously, the bill is a blatant intrusion into private enterprise, forcing small businesses to turn over their employment records to the government. The government has absolutely no reason to collect this information, and it is just another attempt by liberals to place more restrictions and regulation on hardworking businessmen and women. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Jack Bentley | 12 Jun 2013, 01:37 PM Post #28 |
![]()
|
Aye to call. |
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 12 Jun 2013, 01:38 PM Post #29 |
![]()
|
Speaker Holson descends from the roster, handing the gavel to Majority Leader Kilinger Madame Speaker, The only thing outrageous about this legislation is the vehement opposition it is generating from the minority party. It is absolutely ludicrous that in our nation anyone, regardless of gender, should be paid less than anyone else for equal work. And yet that very condition exists today in America with women being paid a mere 77 cents on the dollar to a man. And it is equally outrageous for the Gentleman from Utah to suggest that somehow women want to be paid less. How absolutely uninformed that opinion is! As a woman who raised two children and had a full time career I can tell you there is enormous pressure to sit down and worry about the home, to worry about the kids, and then maybe you can focus on your career. Well after all that you have less experience and less time in the workforce and therefore lower pay. And to help the Gentleman from Ohio along there are numerous studies that suggest that women often do not have the negotiating skills needed to ask for a higher wage and we can see in field after field that women are underpaid for equal work. This legislation fixes a grace error in our nation. It is a necessary piece of legislation and I vote aye to call the question. I yield Speaker Holson returns to the rostrum and takes the gavel |
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 12 Jun 2013, 01:39 PM Post #30 |
![]()
|
After speaking with the parliamentarian the motion to table is neither in nor out of order. Rather the motion to call the previous question takes precedence. If the motion passes the motion to table shall be out of order. If the motion fails then the motion to table shall be in order. Debate continues. |
![]() |
|
| Matt Urbana | 12 Jun 2013, 01:46 PM Post #31 |
![]()
|
Madam Speaker, I would note that your defense of the bill addressed only one of my many concerns. We could debate for hours whether it is a duty of the federal government to provide training on negotiating to only women. I think it is not. But that would distract us from the truth at hand: that this bill is a colossal waste of money and creates a worrying government intrusion into private business. I yield. |
![]() |
|
| Brewer | 12 Jun 2013, 03:12 PM Post #32 |
![]()
The GOP's Favorite Leech
|
Nay to call |
![]() |
|
| JMJ | 12 Jun 2013, 03:47 PM Post #33 |
![]()
|
Nay to call |
![]() |
|
| Daniel Hernandez | 12 Jun 2013, 05:50 PM Post #34 |
![]()
Wielder of the Gavel
|
Rick Thomas Nay to Call |
![]() |
|
| peter | 12 Jun 2013, 05:54 PM Post #35 |
|
Lucas for President: Take Back America!
|
Nay to call |
![]() |
|
| Melissa Sanchez | 12 Jun 2013, 07:53 PM Post #36 |
|
Madam Speaker , I ask permission to revise and extend my remarks I change my vote on the Previous Question to Aye. Most women in our society are both taught and expected to be unassertive. In that regard, the proposal is a definite positive. While I appreciate some of the points by my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, I believe at this point the good outwrigs the potential bad. I would also suggest that the Gentleman from Ohio try not to sound so condescending in the future. I yield the balance of my time. Edited by Melissa Sanchez, 12 Jun 2013, 07:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Heather Holson | 13 Jun 2013, 04:02 PM Post #37 |
![]()
|
The motion to call the previous question passes by a vote of 222-213. This legislation shall now move to a vote. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · House Debate Archives · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:19 PM Jul 11
|
Theme by Sith of the ZBTZ











4:19 PM Jul 11