Welcome to another installation of “Big Brother/Big Sister/Big Transgender” news …
Here comes House Resolution 12, known as the Paycheck Fairness Act and which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
Discrimination is big business and good politics …
The democrat party, known as the party of lawyers, is always seeking to enrich its fellow practitioners by creating legislation which demands complex and costly legal procedures. In many cases, empowering both government and private attorneys to pursue cases of so-called discrimination. I say so-called, because the definition of discrimination has a nasty way of changing according to which way the political winds are blowing. In many instances, the democrats see a desirable voter block and immediately determine they are the victims of some horrible discrimination which must be legislatively addressed for the good of the universe; and, of course, the political party making the proposal.
Thus we find a never-ending political process of creating special classes of people: by race, by gender, by sexual identity, by ethnicity and, of course, by national origin. All of which demand special treatment and preferences when it comes to government-related contracts and the behavior of private commercial enterprises. And a constantly enlarging government bureaucracy to deal with the data, analysis and enforcement of the law. Not to mention petty and politically-motivated bureaucratic tyrants who disable and destroy American business initiatives.
Paycheck Fairness?
One would assume that, except for unionized employers who function under a collective bargaining contract, an employer has the freedom to run their business in any legal manner they see fit.
And one would assume that an non-government employer is free to pay an employee what they are worth to the enterprise at a particular point in time – regardless of that person’s personal characteristics.
But not according to the government. There must be equal pay for equal work – even when there is a host of intangible differences which may separate an employee’s work performance. It is this continual government intrusion into the marketplace which makes a mockery of the phrase “free market capitalism.”
Consider that an executive secretary may be able to do their bosses’ work. Everything that the secretary does, except for making and assuming responsibility for bottom-line profit and loss decisions, is exactly the same as the work performed by the executive.
Should the government mandate that this person be paid 80% of the executive’s salary? In fact, should the government have any say in the salary-setting decision at all. In a free country, the answer is a resounding no. If the employee is unhappy with their wages, they can seek another position, upgrade their skills or become more valuable to the enterprise. No government intervention required.
What does H.R. 12 purport to do?
Requires that employers be able to prove that any disparities in pay between male and female employees are job-related (Sec. 3).
The government should not be allowed to interfere in a private matter between consenting parties. This clause empowers the government to make a statistical case based on nothing more that position, gender and pay … and then force a company to spend the time, effort and money to prove that they discriminate. I might add that this is the same way the government manipulated the mortgage market into dropping their underwriting standards for minorities … which led us into an era of financial catastrophe and chaos.
Prohibits employer retaliation against employees who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their own wage or that of another employee (Sec. 3).
Restrictions on employees discussing their wages are often damaging to the employer, contrary to good order and sow the seeds of discontentment which may manifest themselves in overt or covert acts such as deliberate sabotage, malfeasance, lack of regard for the employer’s business or shirking one’s duties.
Increases penalties against a discriminatory employer including compensation of legal fees and liability for punitive damages against an employee (Sec. 3).
This is the laws that have lawyers salivating. Especially those who work for non-profit foundations and other so-called public-benefit groups which derive a portion of their funding from bringing high profile, class action lawsuits against companies for purposes of media attention, additional funding or to pursue their own anti-business or anti-capitalist political agendas.
Issues grant money for salary negotiation skills training for girls and women (Sec. 5).
More government money for the non-profits foundations and community organizing enterprises which offer such third-party training and/or consulting. Corrupt organizations have been known to use existing laws to coerce companies into paying for overly-expensive training and consulting in order to avoid even the appearance of discrimination. I like to refer to this type of business model as the “Jesse Jackson consult/train or we will march” model.
Requires the Department of Labor to conduct and publicize ongoing research into the elimination of pay disparities (Sec. 6).
This is one of the most dangerous provisions in the bill. It enables the Department of Labor to collect private payroll information from companies. It is possible that this information can be used for political purposes, punitive purposes, as a cross-check against what is reported “confidentially” to the Internal Revenue Service. And it is possible that all of this information can be compromised for political purposes.
Directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue business regulations for the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws (Sec. 8).
Discrimination: today it is women, tomorrow it is blacks and Hispanics, the next day it is gay and transgendered people. All politically-sensitive minorities with the potential for swinging an election in favor of the democrats.
But it is always the “for other purposes” in a bill’s title that worries me.
By the time the bill is finally crafted, no one knows how additional amendments will turn this bill into another anti-business, socialist push by the democrats.
Bottom line …
Business does not need additional government interference and monitoring – and each additional regulatory burden reduces the effectiveness, efficiency and profits of the enterprise; often to the point where it is cheaper and more cost-effective to move employee-intensive operations off-shore and beyond the reach of meddling politicians.
Being a rather cynical bastard, I would also not discount that the reason this bill is being move forward is to coerce the lobbyists and others who represent business enterprises to pony up campaign funds and voter support for the coming 2010 and 2012 election cycle.
The obvious cure for this problem is to reduce the government’s size and reduce the government’s interference with American business. One, by throwing out all of the corrupt politicians who are dragging America towards a third-world socialist haven as well as all of their complacent fellow-travelers who are spreading oil on the slippery slope to perdition. And two, by repealing many of the confusing, conflicting laws which hamper American business and make it more attractive to ship good-paying American jobs overseas.
It appears that this maneuver is taken directly from the socialist workers handbook on exploiting class and other differences for political advantage. Perhaps what the democrats want in order to bring about their socialist worker’s paradise that exists only for the rich, powerful and politically connected.)
-- steve
Reference Links …
Comments