Liberals are upset with Romney's use of the word "binder"

[spence]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

HuH?

Why is it not equal work for equal pay? Gender should nothing to do with it!

You mentioned starting salary, if companies are seeking to balance their workforce that would naturally increase the initial rate.

That doesn't mean that female engineers really earn more on the job, I do believe their averages are still below men. Some of this is probably historical (i.e. more experienced men in the workforce) and some could be due to inequality.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

You mentioned starting salary, if companies are seeking to balance their workforce that would naturally increase the initial rate.

That doesn't mean that female engineers really earn more on the job, I do believe their averages are still below men. Some of this is probably historical (i.e. more experienced men in the workforce) and some could be due to inequality.

-spence

The wage gap debate is a load of horse*&$t with data that is skewed to make women look like innocent victims while us men enjoy a society that rewards you for having a penis.

You'd do well to read this article (written by a woman) that was in Forbes this past April:
It's Time That We End the Equal Pay Myth - Forbes

Here's the most important part that demonstrates the Sham of 'wage gap' arguments:
"The wage gap statistic, however, doesn’t compare two similarly situated co-workers of different sexes, working in the same industry, performing the same work, for the same number of hours a day. It merely reflects the median earnings of all men and women classified as full-time workers."

[Raider Ronnie]

Call me a caveman but I don't care if women are paid less.
Women 20-40 years old more than likely will need maternity leave & on average will have 2 or 3 kids.
Kids get sick, one of the parents has to stay home with them. Usually that's the mother.
How can this not be a factor when a company hires employees and negotiates salary/pay.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Call me a caveman but I don't care if women are paid less.
Women 20-40 years old more than likely will need maternity leave & on average will have 2 or 3 kids.
Kids get sick, one of the parents has to stay home with them. Usually that's the mother.
How can this not be a factor when a company hires employees and negotiates salary/pay.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's 2012 Ron , the guys get maternity leave too
It's pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

The top companies offer maternity for both sexes,even when adopting.
They give benefits to gay couples
They even pay for fat camp for porkers
Fatsos cost a lot for employers,way more than any pregnant lady.
There are meetings involving top CEO's discussing how hard it is to employ obese sacks of shiite.
Using Ronnies logic,they should get paid less just for being jellybellies.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Using Ronnies logic,they should get paid less just for being jellybellies.

They absolutely should be paid less when compared to someone with an equal skill set. The obese (similarly to smokers) miss more days of work, contribute a significant amount to health care costs and are less productive than their thinner coworkers due to an significantly elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and many other diseases that will directly affect job performance in many workplaces.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

They absolutely should be paid less when compared to someone with an equal skill set. The obese (similarly to smokers) miss more days of work, contribute a significant amount to health care costs and are less productive than their thinner coworkers due to an significantly elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and many other diseases that will directly affect job performance in many workplaces.

Bingo.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

They absolutely should be paid less when compared to someone with an equal skill set. The obese (similarly to smokers) miss more days of work, contribute a significant amount to health care costs and are less productive than their thinner coworkers due to an significantly elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and many other diseases that will directly affect job performance in many workplaces.

They should be paid the same....as long as they are performing to the same level required by the person/company hiring them then it shouldn't matter what their weight is, or what their sex is.

Maybe Their health insurance contributions should be higher if they have high risk factors (i.e. smokers, drinkers, obesity)...but their pay should be given to them strictly on their performance. They do their job, they get paid.....

If they miss more days of work then you can fire them or dock their pay......

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's 2012 Ron , the guys get maternity leave too
It's pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, it's pathetic that I took a couple of weeks off when my son was born, and will again when my daughter is born to help my wife...

what a pussy I am I guess. should have stood in the waiting room with a cigar and then gone back to work

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yeah, it's pathetic that I took a couple of weeks off when my son was born, and will again when my daughter is born to help my wife...

what a pussy I am I guess. should have stood in the waiting room with a cigar and then gone back to work

It wasn't a personal assault Brian
Wow,,,touchy
Just saying our parents managed just fine as did my wife because I was self employed. I adjusted my schedule to help out but I couldn't afford to take 2 weeks .
A friend has a small company with 5 emoyees he was telling me that 3 of ther men will be out on maternity leave on the same 2 weeks
He was pissed and he didn't take time off because he couldn't when his kids were born
Not judging ....just saying
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

It seems personal when it is you, no? Just like your visceral reaction based on yours and your friends reaction. (my post might have seemed more angry, was supposed to be more snarky than anything...)

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

It seems personal when it is you, no? Just like your visceral reaction based on yours and your friends reaction. (my post might have seemed more angry, was supposed to be more snarky than anything...)

Everyone's situation is different ,that we can agree on
We can both probably agree on it's a matter of convenience not necessity in most cases
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Mr. Sandman]

I agree, taxes should be (in part) calculated by our weight not just our income.
If you want to get the weight down and make america healthier, tax someone by the pound.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

I agree, taxes should be (in part) calculated by our weight not just our income.
If you want to get the weight down and make america healthier, tax someone by the pound.

Muscle weighs more than fat

[FishermanTim]

"Romney doesn't get women who work" - CNN

(Possibly, but we know Clinton did, in more ways than one!)

Maybe if he called it a little black book? Surely that would be less offensive that binder?

All I see is more waste of time and money defending an idiot attack by idiots!

Maybe after we finish with Bigbird and Binders we can tackle truly important issues....like "Is bigfoot real?" or "What is the special sauce on a Big Mac made from?"

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=FishermanTim;964850(Possibly, Maybe after we finish with Bigbird and Binders we can tackle truly important issues....like "Is bigfoot real?" or "What is the special sauce on a Big Mac made from?"[/QUOTE]

Or let's spend 2 more years trying to find out if Obama is really a Muslim

[RIJIMMY]

attached is a list of some of the largest, successful companies in america. Waa, waa, they're run by WOMEN! Thats right a WOMAN runs IBM. HP, PepsiCO.
WTF! So when that little girl (aka victim) whined about equal pay in the debate, one of the candidates should have said "sweetie, do you have clue how many major companies are run by women? You work hard and prove yourself and people will be fighting for you and will pay you what you're worth" End of f'in story.

America's top 10 female CEOs- MSN Money

America's 10 Most Powerful Female CEOs | InvestorPlace

[Scuttlebutt]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

attached is a list of some of the largest, successful companies in america. Waa, waa, they're run by WOMEN! Thats right a WOMAN runs IBM. HP, PepsiCO.
WTF! So when that little girl (aka victim) whined about equal pay in the debate, one of the candidates should have said "sweetie, do you have clue how many major companies are run by women? You work hard and prove yourself and people will be fighting for you and will pay you what you're worth" End of f'in story.

America's top 10 female CEOs- MSN Money

America's 10 Most Powerful Female CEOs | InvestorPlace

Or....sweetie... do you know who the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives is? SHE has a net worth of about 58 million dollars.

[The Dad Fisherman]

But, like I said....if absenteeism is a problem...get rid of them or dock them pay.

I am 5'11" and weigh 210 pounds...I'm classified as obese. I have missed only 3 days in the past 3.75 years at my current position and 1 day in 7 years at my last company. ....thats 4 days in almost 11 years.

and I sit next to 2 guys that are in shape and younger than me......and they have both been out sick more then those 4 days..... just this year.

yet I should should get paid less than them for doing the same job because some chart says I'm overweight and statistics say I'm prone to being out more than them.

you shouldn't pay people on statistics....you should pay them on performance. If they can't perform....lose them....that simple.

And it IS a good idea to reimburse for health club memberships because if you are leading a healthy lifestyle as opposed to a non-healthy lifestyle and should be rewarded for that because it does help with the Health benefits within a company. Like I said as well...charge them more of a contribution to their health insurance if they meet certain risk factors.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

But, like I said....if absenteeism is a problem...get rid of them or dock them pay.

I am 5'11" and weigh 210 pounds...I'm classified as obese. I have missed only 3 days in the past 3.75 years at my current position and 1 day in 7 years at my last company. ....thats 4 days in almost 11 years.

and I sit next to 2 guys that are in shape and younger than me......and they have both been out sick more then those 4 days..... just this year.

yet I should should get paid less than them for doing the same job because some chart says I'm overweight and statistics say I'm prone to being out more than them.

you shouldn't pay people on statistics....you should pay them on performance. If they can't perform....lose them....that simple.

And it IS a good idea to reimburse for health club memberships because if you are leading a healthy lifestyle as opposed to a non-healthy lifestyle and should be rewarded for that because it does help with the Health benefits within a company. Like I said as well...charge them more of a contribution to their health insurance if they meet certain risk factors.

"I am 5'11" and weigh 210 pounds"

(1) you are not obese
(2) your observations of yourself and a few co-workers do not make a statistically significant sample. I flip a coin, it comes up heads, can I conculde that the coin will never come up tails? Nope.

Obesity and smoking are very expensive to business. Smoking is a personhal choice, obesity is almost always a personal choice.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I am 5'11" and weigh 210 pounds"

(1) you are not obese
(2) your observations of yourself and a few co-workers do not make a statistically significant sample. I flip a coin, it comes up heads, can I conculde that the coin will never come up tails? Nope.

Obesity and smoking are very expensive to business. Smoking is a personhal choice, obesity is almost always a personal choice.

Jim, dangerous terrirotry here and you sound very liberal. My personal choices are non of yours, the governmetns or my employers F'in business. fat, bald, smoker, eater, man, woman, etc. non of your business as long as I deliver.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Jim, dangerous terrirotry here and you sound very liberal. My personal choices are non of yours, the governmetns or my employers F'in business. fat, bald, smoker, eater, man, woman, etc. non of your business as long as I deliver.

You absolutely correct. However as a business owner, if I don't want to hire you because you're obese or a smoker and historical evidence has demonstrated that you're statistically likely to perform poorly, isn't that also my choice?

Isn't it also my choice to try and find the most affordable health care benefits for my employees and instill a surcharge on those that cause rates to be higher for people that make healthy choices in their lives? It's certainly your choice to find a new job if you don't like it.

As I stated above, smokers and the obese are ticking time bombs and copious amounts of data support that fact. With any statistically significant sample size, it is irrefutable that they cost employers more than their coworkers who live healthier lifestyles.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You absolutely correct. However as a business owner, if I don't want to hire you because you're obese or a smoker and historical evidence has demonstrated that you're statistically likely to perform poorly, isn't that also my choice?

Isn't it also my choice to try and find the most affordable health care benefits for my employees and instill a surcharge on those that cause rates to be higher for people that make healthy choices in their lives? It's certainly your choice to find a new job if you don't like it.

As I stated above, smokers and the obese are ticking time bombs and copious amounts of data support that fact. With any statistically significant sample size, it is irrefutable that they cost employers more than their coworkers who live healthier lifestyles.

I dont believe that smoking or obeseity (unless a handicap?) are protected classes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Jim, dangerous terrirotry here and you sound very liberal. My personal choices are non of yours, the governmetns or my employers F'in business. fat, bald, smoker, eater, man, woman, etc. non of your business as long as I deliver.

"as long as I deliver"

Thagt's my point. As a group, over time, the obese and smokers will (1) not be as productive as others, and (2) will cost the business tons of money in healthcare premiums.

I used to work as an actuary, pricing personal auto insurance. Take the group of drivers that are 18 year old boys, driving Ferraris, who have DUI convictions. The data says those are a very high risk group, so we charge them a ton for insurance. Yes, there are some exceptions...some of those kids may never have another claim. But as a group, they stink. So they all pay through the nose.

Nothing liberal about that. I'm saying that people face the consequences of the choices they make. That's about as anti-liberal as you can get.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I am 5'11" and weigh 210 pounds"

(1) you are not obese

If I have anynthing more than a glass of water before the weigh in I am screwed

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(2) your observations of yourself and a few co-workers do not make a statistically significant sample. I flip a coin, it comes up heads, can I conculde that the coin will never come up tails? Nope.

Obesity and smoking are very expensive to business. Smoking is a personhal choice, obesity is almost always a personal choice.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't pay for their risky lifestyle choices...I'm saying if they are going to pay for them it should be tied to what they pay in health Insurance.....not what a company pays you to do your job.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I'm not saying that people shouldn't pay for their risky lifestyle choices...I'm saying if they are going to pay for them it should be tied to what they pay in health Insurance.....not what a company pays you to do your job.

And what I've been saying is that health care costs isn't the only problem. For companies, there is a very significant Productivity Cost that come with hiring people with unhealthy lifestyles.

From the link I posted earlier:
"The very obese lose one month of productive work per year, costing employers an average of $3,792 per very obese male worker and $3,037 per female."

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

And what I've been saying is that health care costs isn't the only problem. For companies, there is a very significant Productivity Cost that come with hiring people with unhealthy lifestyles.

And Like RIJIMMY said...Then Don't Hire Them

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

From the link I posted earlier:
"The very obese lose one month of productive work per year, costing employers an average of $3,792 per very obese male worker and $3,037 per female."

And Like I said Fire them or Dock their pay for underperforming...

but if you hire 2 people to do the same job and they show up the same amount of time and are performing the same....you shouldn't be paying the Chubby guy less just because he's chubby.

Where does the Chub Persecution end?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

If I have anynthing more than a glass of water before the weigh in I am screwed I'm not saying that people shouldn't pay for their risky lifestyle choices...I'm saying if they are going to pay for them it should be tied to what they pay in health Insurance.....not what a company pays you to do your job.

That height-weight chart is insane. You're pretty healthy.

"if they are going to pay for them it should be tied to what they pay in health Insurance.....not what a company pays you to do your job"

That's a very compelling argument. But if I own a business, can I choose not to hire people that are in a group that's likely (not certain) to be less productive? An interesting question.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That height-weight chart is insane. You're pretty healthy.

"if they are going to pay for them it should be tied to what they pay in health Insurance.....not what a company pays you to do your job"

That's a very compelling argument. But if I own a business, can I choose not to hire people that are in a group that's likely (not certain) to be less productive? An interesting question.

Such an interesting question that I already asked it.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You absolutely correct. However as a business owner, if I don't want to hire you because you're obese or a smoker and historical evidence has demonstrated that you're statistically likely to perform poorly, isn't that also my choice?

Isn't it also my choice to try and find the most affordable health care benefits for my employees and instill a surcharge on those that cause rates to be higher for people that make healthy choices in their lives? It's certainly your choice to find a new job if you don't like it.

[buckman]

This thread takes a page out of the democratic play book .
What was the original posters intent?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device