Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 05-07-2020, 01:43 AM   #1
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
remember when this was a huge deal?

and...Joe Biden tweeted to the USSF, “Equal pay, now. Or else when I’m president, you can go elsewhere for World Cup funding.”



"Los Angeles federal judge R. Gary Klauser did two things that don’t happen often in public arguments about gender and wages: He looked at the evidence, and he took women’s choices seriously. The result was a defeat for a class-action lawsuit filed by the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team against the U.S. Soccer Federation, but a victory for women’s priorities in the workplace.


USSF is the governing body for both men’s and women’s soccer, and it collectively bargains contracts separately with the unions for the men’s and women’s teams. The chief claim in the women’s-team lawsuit was that the players on the women’s team made less money than they would have if they had been paid under the men’s-team contract. That makes for a nice sound bite, but it dissolves on contact with three very important facts.

First, the women made more money than the men — a lot more. The lowest-paid member of the women’s team made more money than the highest-paid member of the men’s team. Even when computed on a per-game basis, the women made more per game than the men. This is not a lawsuit for equal pay, it is a lawsuit for more-unequal pay.

Second, yes, the women would have made more money under the men’s contract. But, as Judge Klauser’s decision noted, the men would also have made more money under the women’s contract. Under the women’s team’s legal theory, the USSF would be guilty of giving unequal pay to both teams. Maybe it’s the USSF’s labor negotiators who should be asking for more money.

Third, and most important, the women’s team made less money because they were offered the chance to play under the men’s contract terms and turned them down. This is where the case tells inconvenient truths about the labor market. The men’s team played under a “pay-to-play” contract, in which all the economic risk was borne by the players in exchange for more upside if the players made the team and the team was successful. The men’s team was not successful, so they made less money. Now, with no games being played, they are making no money at all, while the women are still getting paid.

The women’s team turned down that deal, because they valued different things: guaranteed contracts, injury protection; health, dental, and vision insurance; child-care assistance; severance pay; guaranteed rest time. In short: more security and more benefits. True, they asked for the men’s deal plus those things, on the theory that they had a legal right to both. The USSF negotiator told them, “Your proposal is basically for all of the upside plus the elimination of risk.” But that’s negotiation; what the women’s team unanimously accepted was a tradeoff of less opportunity in exchange for less risk and more benefits.

As Judge Klauser noted, both benefits and economic security have economic value, and the women’s team’s position “ignores the reality that the [men’s and women’s teams] bargained for different agreements which reflect different preferences, and that the [women’s team] explicitly rejected the terms they now seek to retroactively impose on themselves.” This is often true of the wider labor market, in which women tend – not always, but on average – to prefer jobs with more benefits and security, even when that may come at the expense of less cash or less opportunity for bonuses. Those are legitimate choices that should be respected."
scottw is offline  
Old 05-07-2020, 06:09 AM   #2
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
i had no idea of thee details of this case. Hilarious that they made a free choice, and then wanted to change that choice, and apply the new terms retroactively, after they realized that they had made the less lucrative choice.

Responsibility. In a sane world, we who are not children, accept the fact that we live with the consequences of the choices we make.

This should never have come to trial, and the plaintiffs should have to pay for all legal fees of the soccer federation - again, they should be taking responsibility for the choices they make. You bring a baseless lawsuit, the defendant shouldn't have to go deep into his own pocket just because you feel entitled to change the rules after the fact.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-07-2020, 07:37 AM   #3
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
To steal a conservative line when things don't go their way. It must have been an activist Judge

However, that’s not the way the women see it


We asked to be under the men’s contract, and it was repeatedly refused to us, not only in the structure but in the total compensation. If we were under that contract, we would have earned at least three times higher.”

It will be appealed..
wdmso is offline  
Old 05-07-2020, 09:17 AM   #4
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
If we were under that contract, we would have earned at least three times higher.”

..
No one is denying they would have earned more under the means contract. You are failing to grasp that the judge determined that it was they, who chose to take guaranteed money, rather than having compensation be contingent on performance.

Do you feel they should be able to change their minds, after-the-fact? Or do you somehow know that the judge was wrong?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-07-2020, 09:17 AM   #5
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso View Post
However, that’s not the way the women whiny and entitled liberals see it ..
Fixed it for you.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-07-2020, 09:41 AM   #6
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Death Star Stormtroopers missed part of the story

A federal judge threw out the unequal pay claim by players on the U.S. women's national soccer team in a surprising loss for the defending World Cup champions but allowed their allegation of discriminatory working conditions to go to trial.

Players led by Alex Morgan sued in March 2019, claiming they have not been paid equally under their collective bargaining agreement to what the men’s national team receives under its labor deal. They asked for more than $66 million in damages under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In a 32-page decision Friday, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner granted in part a motion for partial summary judgment by the U.S. Soccer Federation. He threw out the Equal Pay Act allegations but left intact the Civil Rights Act claims.

“The history of negotiations between the parties demonstrates that the WNT rejected an offer to be paid under the same pay-to-play structure as the MNT, and the WNT was willing to forgo higher bonuses for benefits, such as greater base compensation and the guarantee of a higher number of contracted players,” Klausner wrote.

“Accordingly, plaintiffs cannot now retroactively deem their CBA worse than the MNT CBA by reference to what they would have made had they been paid under the MNT’s pay-to-play terms structure when they themselves rejected such a structure,” he said.

Klausner left intact claims the USSF discriminated in the money it spent on commercial airfare, hotel accommodations, and medical and training support services.

A trial is scheduled for June 16 in federal court in Los Angeles.

“We are shocked and disappointed with today’s decision, but we will not give up our hard work for equal pay," Molly Levinson, spokeswoman for the women's players, said in a statement. “We are confident in our case and steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that girls and women who play this sport will not be valued as lesser just because of their gender.”

Players intend to ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn Klausner's decision, a move that could delay the trial into 2021 or later.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 05-07-2020, 10:07 AM   #7
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

we will not give up our hard work for equal pay," Molly Levinson, spokeswoman for the women's players, said in a statement.
First, the women made more money than the men — a lot more.

The lowest-paid member of the women’s team made more money than the highest-paid member of the men’s team. Even when computed on a per-game basis, the women made more per game than the men.

Now, with no games being played, they are making no money at all, while the women are still getting paid.

KEEP UP THE FIGHT!!!
scottw is offline  
Old 05-07-2020, 10:28 AM   #8
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
First, the women made more money than the men — a lot more.

The lowest-paid member of the women’s team made more money than the highest-paid member of the men’s team. Even when computed on a per-game basis, the women made more per game than the men.

Now, with no games being played, they are making no money at all, while the women are still getting paid.

KEEP UP THE FIGHT!!!
one day, they shall overcome the right-wing, paternal conspiracy against them!
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:15 AM   #9
wdmso
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
First, the women made more money than the men — a lot more.

The lowest-paid member of the women’s team made more money than the highest-paid member of the men’s team. Even when computed on a per-game basis, the women made more per game than the men.

Now, with no games being played, they are making no money at all, while the women are still getting paid.

KEEP UP THE FIGHT!!!
Let's see the link ..love to see base pay to base . who didnt go to the world cup final back to back . That's right not the mens team

https://www.latimes.com/sports/socce...-more-than-men

For every game a man plays on the MNT he makes a higher base salary payment than a woman on the WNT. For every comparable win or tie, his bonus is higher.

This is fifa

let’s compare those figures with the men’s World Cup: In 2018, World Cup champion France was awarded $38 million by FIFA for winning the tournament, which is more than what all of the 2019 women’s World Cup teams get combined
wdmso is offline  
Old 05-07-2020, 11:15 AM   #10
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Keep crying victim, it's what the Deathstar team does best, even when the men's team agrees with the women's.

Klausner rejected the USSF’s argument that the men had a competitive need for charter flights that the women lacked, allowing that part of the suit to go forward. The federation has argued that the men, who have struggled in World Cup qualifying, have more need for charters than the women in order to arrive more rested for their qualifiers.

“This rationale does not fully explain the gross disparity on money spent on airfare and hotels for the teams,” Klausner wrote.

In addition, the USSF has said spending in these areas has been equal since the women’s union agreed to a new labor deal in 2017.

Klausner allowed other claims of discriminatory travel accommodations, such as money spent on hotels and commercial flights, to go to trial along with claims on support services such as medical and training staff. He said the USSF’s lawyers waited until reply briefs to ask for those claims to be thrown out, which meant he did not have to consider them.

Seyfarth Shaw’s summary judgment motion for the USSF included arguments critical of American women’s players. That filing caused an uproar and led to the resignation of USSF president Carlos Cordeiro, who was replaced by Cindy Parlow Cone, a former national team player. Latham & Watkins took over as counsel and filed the reply brief.

Parlow Cone has said she hopes the suit can settle before a trial.

“We look forward to working with the women’s national team to chart a positive path forward to grow the game,” the USSF said in a statement. “We are committed to continuing that work to ensure our women’s national team remains the best in the world.”

Earlier Friday, the women asked that Parlow Cone be included as a trial witness. Their lawyers said although the federation backed off earlier arguments saying women were inferior to their male counterparts in skill and effort, it still planned to contest differences in responsibility.

The players' association for the men's national team also released a statement Monday expressing support.

"For a year and a half the USMNT players have made proposals to the federation that would achieve equal pay for the USMNT and USWNT players," the statement said. "We understand the WNT players plan to appeal last week's decision and we support them."

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 05-08-2020, 05:01 AM   #11
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

Keep crying victim
scottw is offline  
Old 05-08-2020, 07:04 AM   #12
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 13,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
Keep crying victim, it's what the Deathstar team does best, even when the men's team agrees with the women's.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Lets Go Darwin
Pete F. is offline  
Old 05-08-2020, 07:07 AM   #13
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

Keep crying victim

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
scottw is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com