Menu Close

AAUW Redlands urges support of Fair Pay Act [aka liberal economic nonsense, deceit and hypocrisy]

AAUW Redlands urges support of Fair Pay Act [aka liberal economic nonsense, deceit and hypocrisy] 

With this article and “issue” we see liberal economic foolishness, deceit and hypocrisy on full display brought to us by the same people who brought us “if you like your plan, if you like your doctor, you can keep your plan and you can keep your doctor.” 

FIRST, equal pay for equal work has been the law since 1963. 

SECOND, the often quoted statistic that women make 78% as much as men is so misleading it is deceitful.  It exemplifies the saying “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” 

To compute this “statistic”, the Dems and AAUW take the median earnings of all female full-time employees and compare them to all male full-time employees without regard to age, job, education, job experience, hours worked and type of business.  In addition, Women are more likely than men to take time off to raise children.  Men on average work longer hours. 

The AAUW’s website confirms their misleading, and I think deceitful, “statistic.” 

“Women’s Median Earnings as a Percentage of Men’s Median Earnings For Full-Time, Year Round Workers” 

“This is the point in the story when critics like to stomp all over the 78-cent statistic.  Much of what they say is fair: This number doesn’t take into consideration factors like industry, education, and experience.”

Please also see: 

Do Women Really Earn 22 Percent Less Than Men? 

The 77-Cent Gender Wage Gap Lie 

The Wage Gap Myth 

Independent Women’s Forum: Straight Talk About The Wage Gap  

THIRD, at the Redlands City Council meeting on April 7, AAUW representatives claimed their 78% “statistic” controlled for the above factors.  Their own website says it does not.  The AAUW representatives were either misinformed or lying. 

FOURTH, further illustrating the Dems’ and AAUW’s deceptive “statistic,” 

Using this same measure, in the Federal government, the average for all female employees is 89% of the average for all male employees. 

“Why? Well, women make up 75 percent of all federal social workers but only 17 percent of all federal engineers. However, federal social workers make an average of $79,569, while federal engineers make an average of $117,894.” 

So what to do?  Force men to be social workers and women to be engineers?  Bar engineers from making more than social workers? 

FIFTH, one has wonder how many AAUW members, or Dems for that matter, are in business.  If businesses could get the same work done by women for 22% less than by men, what business would ever hire a man?  All female companies would put companies with male employees out of business. 

SIXTH, the so called “Paycheck Fairness Act.”  Just as Obamacare is not about healthcare and global warming is not about protecting the environment, like Obamacare and global warming, the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act” is about expanding government control over the economy.

Under the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act” if using the bogus all female employees compared to all male employees statistic showed female employees earn less, (as they do in the Obama White House and as they did in Hillary Clinton’s Senate office discussed below), the female employees could sue and the employer would have to prove the difference is justified by “business necessity.” 

Using the example above, if the federal government was a private employer, it would have to prove that paying engineers more than social workers is justified by “business necessity.”  To be safe, the employer would pay them the same. 

Furthermore, there are far more than two professions and innumerable variations on jobs and professions.  For example, “administrative assistant” covers a wide range of duties and responsibilities. 

The so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act” turns the courts into the HR department for every business.  Businesses would be deluged with lawsuits from female employees wanting the court to give them a raise. 

The so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act”would severely disrupt labor markets, and as with most lawsuit facilitating lawsuits, the primary beneficiaries would be lawyers. 

In April, labor lawyer Camille Olson testified before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that the Paycheck Fairness Act: 

“essentially invites employees and employers to dispute in court whether certain qualifications, including education, training, or experience, are justifications for disparities in compensation. In that sense, the Act represents an unprecedented intrusion of government into the independent business decisions of private enterprises by eroding the fundamental purpose of compensation; in reality, compensation functions not only as a means to remunerate employees for work performed, but also to enable employers to attract the skills and experience likely to promote the competitiveness of the enterprise.” 

This would severely disrupt labor markets.  

Implementing the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act” would require the government control and regulate what everyone can earn, teachers, doctors, truck drivers, plumbers, etc. etc. etc.  This is economic nonsense that only liberals could support. 

Do Dems not know any better or is the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act” just political posturing for LoFo Dem voters and for liberals who want to feel good for supporting “paycheck fairness?” 

SEVENTH, “fairness” for whom? 

In our engineer vs. social worker example, is it fair to reduce engineer salaries and raise social worker salaries so they are equal when the market values engineers more than social workers and when engineering school is a lot harder than social worker school? 

If income is important in women’s career choice, and engineers make more than social workers, women should go to engineering school and they should have equal opportunity to do so. 

Do you want to be limited in what you can earn to what the government says is “fair?”

EIGHTH, Dem hypocrisy.  

Using the bogus 78% “statistic,” comparing all female employees and all male employees, 

In the Obama Whitehouse, women earn 88% as much as men.  Is Obama guilty of sex discrimination? 

The White House’s own wage gender gap 

Hillary Clinton was even worse as a senator.  Chart of the day: Hillary Clinton’s 28% (and $15,700) gender pay gap from 2002-2008 for her Senate staff 

Even worse yet is the Clinton Foundation.    

Clinton Foundation Pushes “Wage Gap” Myth While Paying Female Execs 37% Less Than Men.  Rampant feminist hypocrisy which drives Hillary campaign in the spotlight again 

Are Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation guilty of sex discrimination?  Please say it’s not so. 

Obama’s press secretary explained: 

“And when it comes to the bottom line that women who do the same work as men have to be paid the same, there is no question that that is happening here at the White House at every level.”

Exactly, equal pay for equal work.  But that does not stop Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Dems from using the bogus 78% statistic to disingenuously and hypocritically promote the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act.” 

NINTH, it was disappointing to see the Redlands City Council buy into this disingenuous nonsense, especially members Paul Barich, John James and Patricia Galbraith all of whom have enough business experience to know this is nonsense, even if it sounds good. 

BTW, if we computed the so-called “pay gap” for Redlands city employees using the same bogus method the Dems and AAUW use, what would that show?  

If we computed the so-called “pay gap” at Kaiser where Mayor Foster works, using the same bogus method, what would that show? 

If we computed the so-called “pay gap” at Esri where Councilmember Harrison worked, using the same bogus method, what would that show? 

If we computed the so-called “pay gap” at Eadie & Payne where Councilmember Galbraith worked, using the same bogus method, what would that show?