More Winning!

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by KENNEDY63, Aug 31, 2017.

  1. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,372
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    Review & Outlook
    An Obama Pay Rule Dies
    Companies won’t have to disclose reams of wage and salary data.


    [​IMG]
    Photo: Getty Images
    By
    The Editorial Board

    • The Editorial Board
      The Wall Street Journal


    • A long-time progressive goal has been to use charges of a gender pay gap to begin dictating salaries in the private economy. This week the Trump Administration halted an Obama Administration step toward that end.

      The Office of Management and Budget on Tuesday stayed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rule dealing with a bureaucratic form known as EEO-1. The old EEO-1 required federal contractors and any company with more than 100 employees to submit data about their workforces—including breakdowns by race, ethnicity, gender and job category. In 2016 Team Obama added a demand for data on pay, effective March 2018.

      The rule is a typical end-run around Congress, which refused to enact President Obama’s Paycheck Fairness Act that would have enabled such wage-data collection. Mr. Obama also tried to coerce such data through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. When that failed, EEOC got the mission.


      The Trump OMB cited the exorbitant cost and hassle of compliance for staying the rule, and that’s reason enough. The old EEO-1 form required about 180 pieces of information, while the Obama form increased that 20-fold to 3,660 data points per report.

      The Obama EEOC said the rule would cost about $50 million a year and 1.9 million hours to comply. But a Chamber of Commerce survey found the direct compliance costs alone would be closer to $400 million and eight million hours of labor. Add indirect overhead and annual costs jumped to $1.3 billion.

      The Paperwork Reduction Act requires agencies to show that regulations have value and to minimize their cost. Yet the new EEO-1 form would have provided little real insight into pay disparity. The form would not have provided information about employee experience, education, flex-time, benefits, hours worked, or myriad other factors that go into pay decisions.

      The rule would have created a sweeping data base that bureaucrats could manipulate to engineer accusations against corporations. Recall how the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau inferred discrimination in auto lending based on borrower names likes Johnson. The EEOC can already subpoena pay information if it has a credible allegation of discrimination.

      The rule would also have turbocharged pay litigation, as tort attorneys capitalized on EEOC assertions. A federal judge in July required Google to hand over employee records to Labor Department investigators looking at a supposed “systematic” pay gap, and a class-action suit can’t be far behind.

      The stay is among the first recommendations by Neomi Rao, who now runs the White House regulatory shop, and it is good news for employers and workers who want to be paid on the basis of their talent and effort, not the dictates of government.

      Appeared in the August 31, 2017, print edition.
     
    WHUP ! Hen, The_Duck_Master and API like this.
  2. Rubberhead

    Rubberhead Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,700
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Location:
    Moncks Corner, SC
    With gender fluidity now largely acceptable, how exactly will the wage gap be calculated?
     
    WHUP ! Hen and API like this.
  3. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,512
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    ^^^ More progress, even from the background. :tu
     
  4. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,512
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    To the degree that distinctions are being diluted, isn't that the basis to dilute/eliminate preferences?

    Hey, can ya see the future... Social justice realizes the inevitable truth of what goes around comes around and finds itself with a self inflicted wound in the azz.
     
    Bear and Rubberhead like this.
  5. Rubberhead

    Rubberhead Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,700
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2002
    Location:
    Moncks Corner, SC
    Yep. Here's another thesis left hasn't thought about: The application of Title IX to college sports teams with gender fluidity.
     
    API likes this.
  6. takemrarely

    takemrarely Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,204
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2004
    Location:
    penna
    When will the winning stop??????????
     
    WHUP ! Hen and widgeon like this.
  7. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,512
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Title IX (thank you Birch Bayh/Patsy Mink) was created in 1972 then expanded over time by assorted guidelines that were found politically expedient in the moment. In the current cycle the Trump folks are dialing back actions taken by Obama folks.

    Never-the-less, considering the mentality of 1972 (last days of the unpopular Vietnam war) is there doubt Title IX content was directed by the 1972 state of mind (IMHO it's not exactly a timeless writ). In the sense that Title IX was a congressional act rather than a Constitutional Amendment, we are indeed fortunate.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX
     
  8. eel river

    eel river Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,290
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Location:
    indiana
    This isn't winning. This is simple distraction. As the pendulum swings, eventually it will swing back via voting preference and the eventual move by this country to a pure moderate society will be enhanced by this rule change. From the short term view it may be considered a win, from a long term view, probably not. Actually, Title IX was a good thing and what you will find is many felt it appropriate within the context of use of public money and tax dollars providing to educational entities.
     
  9. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,372
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    I see that a certain someone is gobbling up their gibberish pills and post again......

    I'd say that avoiding the following is a huge win, especially when you put it in the context of a global economy:

    "The Obama EEOC said the rule would cost about $50 million a year and 1.9 million hours to comply. But a Chamber of Commerce survey found the direct compliance costs alone would be closer to $400 million and eight million hours of labor. Add indirect overhead and annual costs jumped to $1.3 billion."
     
  10. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,512
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Title IX is like most "in the moment" legislation that mollifies a specific constituency. How good the legislation feels is dependent upon which special interests get stroked. We're taking 1970s thinking pretty much 50 years later. Other than that its existence is dependent upon periodic snow jobs designed to confuse rather than clarify. Title IX is fringe legislation not the Constitutional core. The environment is different now, so should Title IX be different too.
     

Share This Page