Equal Pay Day 2024 is on Monday, April 15, 2024: Men & Womenequal pay?

Monday, April 15, 2024 is Equal Pay Day 2024. Equal Pay Day Salary Negotiation Seminar for Women Equal Pay Day Salary

Sponsored Deals

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Each day to exhibit the main difference between what males and ladies are compensated in america. This always falls on the Tuesday in April but official wage figures aren't available until late August / September.

If it was not occuring there would be no complaints right?

Pay equitty is measured by the worth of the work you do in your work environment regardless of gender. It is like comparing the worth of an apple to the worth of an orange. It is not necessarily the same type of jobs at all.

Pay equity is equal pay for work of equal value and it is not only applied to women but all work sectors. In applying it this is when the truth comes out about the desparity between the men's pay and the women's because it sticks out like a sore thumb for all to see in the results of the surveys. So statistics show that.

There is a generic questionaire for each employee with things evaluated such as the number of people you have to deal with, both coworkers and public. Has little to do with lifting and such either, it is the worth of your job with the company who employs you and it works on a points system and then they calculate if you are being paid equitable to others working for the same company with an equal worth to the company. It is clear you undervalue the importance of women to take time to keep the world populated and have to supplement household income due to the increasing costs of living. We faught hard to attain time to bond with our children if we had to work please don't trash what we had to work so hard to obtain and which you take so for granted just because you don't understand the issues. Thank you.

If feminists want equal pay for women?

It was "equal pay for equal work," if you were paying attention.

Just "equal pay period" is Communism.

You don't need to be a Communist to have equality -- just equal opportunity from the starting gate (ensured by taxes to help bring the lower class children to the same starting line. That is: better schools, better health care, etc.) and personal initiative to carry you through, but with some help for those who are physically/mentally handicapped or otherwise disadvantaged.

I am a Liberal and I believe in helping those in need and doing all that you can to aid the larger community. I am not a Communist simply because I recognize that people need some positive reinforcement to keep them going and on track; purely negative reinforcement just creates unrest and misery.

@ The Fall of Man

I can most certainly hold my own.

Like the vast majority liberals, I am from the educated middle class -- the level that can both contribute our efforts in the workforce and still afford to help others, as well as realize the importance of doing so, but doesn't have the degree of greed and selfishness to launch us into the wealthy class.

I am not sure where the conservative idea that "all liberals are stoopid welfare parasites" came from. Most of us are neither rich nor poor. The wealthy/elite, the country/small town bunch, and the rural poor have always tended to gravitate towards conservatism. Liberalism is always strongest in more updated urban areas with lots of educational and working opportunities as well as a thriving middle class.

@ The Fall of Man

So, do you think it fair that people are born into poverty and therefore can't get a very good education, so that the get lower-paying "un-skilled" jobs and will likely stay poor?

Do you think it fair that because someone is born with a physical/mental disease and disables them from working, they should have to suffer for it?

Eventually, if everything works out the right way, everyone should have an amazing education, complete safety, advanced healthcare, and as much community [moral] support as possible, regardless of what class he/she was born into. Therefore, whether you succeed and fail would become 110% you, not your birth class, not luck, not talent, not your family/parents, not money/resources, etc. Just you. If you hate this idea, it's probably because you like being lucky and don't want to have more people to compete with in the workforce -- in that case, you are being a petty elitist (thinking that you are by nature better or more deserving than everyone else).

For this to equal starting-ground to be a reality, everyone needs to pitch in. Those with more are just going to have to give a little more. Don't worry, there'll still be a hierarchy -- just not one dependent on luck and birth, but rather true hard work.

This starts now. If you keep chucking the weight on your descendants, nothing will ever get done. Everyone needs to give some and pledge themselves to the greater good, at least in part, today and every day.

@ The Fall of Man

Fine, I'll try to make it simple so you can understand me.

I said it before and I can say it again: Liberals do not "steal people's money."

We give our aid, surplus derived from OUR OWN sweat and blood, to the disadvantaged and expect others to help as well. Everyone needs to pay their fair share. If I can be a good person and a part of the community, you can too.

I believe in some hierarchy, but hierarchy based off of hard work, determination, and mutual respect -- not luck. If, growing up, you had loving parents, received a quality education, lived in a safe area, got medical treatment when you needed it, had no physical/mental disorders, had a roof over your head, weren't pressured into drugs/alcohol/gangs while you were too young to know those were bad ideas, weren't abused or bullied, weren't threatened with violence into intentionally get lower grades, and/or didn't face prejudice, you were VERY LUCKY. Many many people never got those privileges and, therefore, couldn't have gotten into the same place you are in now no matter how hard they worked. And sometimes those people need a little extra help.

Should women be paid equal to men IF..?

"Equal pay for equal work" - I fully support this. So using your example, if Paul does more work than Pauline, it is totally fair (IMO) that Paul gets paid more than Pauline.

But, there are many variables to this. For example, "equal work" can also mean total amount of time working for the company (seniority). So if Pauline has been with the company considerably longer than Paul has (let's say 5 years compared to Paul being there for 3 months), you would expect Pauline to be paid more than Paul is.

So in the end, it comes down to details. But with everything else being equal besides the info you gave, the company has a valid defense that Paul has done more work, therefore Paul deserves more pay.