One of those just might be the next president if Hillary ever gains any traction. It was originally brought up by one of her supporters in order to help her win the primaries..
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
You don't know that. Just because the company replaces someone that is paid X with someone else that is being paid X/2 does not mean that the person replacing them is doing the same work or quality of work as the previous employee. You really don't know.
It's pretty reasonable to assume they are in most jobs like line workers at a factory or whatever. There simply is not that much variance in requirements for the jobs and often the jobs or slip shifted with similar results being expected. But it doesn't matter because the claim, equal pay for equal work would definitely suggest two performances were at or near identical. Otherwise the HTML programmer for the website would be requesting the same pay as the Java coder who makes the product being sold.
Go look at a job listing and you'll see they tend to all say "DOE" under the wage/salary section.
That stands for "Depending on experience". Which means practically every job listing scales the pay based on the experience of the worker they are hiring.
That means companies obviously do appreciate experience. They pay more for it internally and they pay new hires that have more of it.
I am not sure what gave you the idea that I was ruling that out. If all things are equal except the seniority, seniority has to be the determining factor for differences in pay (unless the claim of sexism is true). Remember, the assumption being pushed is that all things are equal except time left on the job.
And if you took ten years off for some reason then you're going to have less experience then someone that didn't... male or female. This is not a gender issue. It is a work experience issue.
I agree it's not a gender issue, but it also is not limited to experience either. Companies are not generally in business long if they pay for experience when the level of experience is not needed to complete the tasks. What they will do it pay for seniority with which experience at that company is implicit.
If a man takes ten years off work to go find himself in Tibet then when he comes back he is not going to be making as much as the man or woman that didn't leave.
And if a man or woman works at Google for ten years and gets hired in at Cisco, even with the same levels of experience, the 10 year veteran of Cisco will likely still make more than the new hire. This is even more illustrated in factory type jobs
Either way, the pay gap is generally completely is explained without pulling discrimination strings.
I understand that. What I cannot find is where he actually questioned Obama's eligibility. As far as I know, Ted Cruze has never done so publicly and the closest I can tell- has supported efforts to have people prove their citizenship before being allowed to vote.
As for the key difference between Obama and Cruze or even McCain is that in 1961, there was a requirement that the citizen parent reside in the country for at least 10 years (five of which after they were 14 years old) prior to birth and for the child to reside in the US for 5 consecutive years starting after age 14 and before age 23. There was some question about those conditions being met due to timelines from books published by Obama or about Obama's family. In 1966, the law was amended to allow service associated with military or official government duties to qualify as in country for those time span purposes. Or at least that was the claim and it certainly was not helped by Obama playing games with releasing his birth certificate which made some question it's authenticity and/or validity.
I think it is clear now that he was born in Hawaii so it isn't an issue for anyone but the die hard crazies. Nothing will be done about it anyways at this point. Interestingly, the birther movement is associated with right wing nutjobs but it originated around Hillary trying to win the primary.
He had the gall to question Obama's citizenship (born in Hawaii to an American woman and Kenyan father), when Cruz was born in Canada (to an American woman) and has a Cuban father.
You got a cite for that? I can't see anything but a few far left mud slingers making that accusation. surely if Cruze did question Obama's eligibility, it would be documented somewhere before he started eyeballing the run himself.
But now it's crazy to question his ability to run for the presidency because his mother was American, ya know just like Obama
I would say the issue is already hammered out because of what happened with Obama and the only crazy thing about bringing it up would be some lame attempt to shovel different and contradictory results for pure political reasons.
Well, "he was shooting everyone in the room so I shot him" is often a valid defense. However, I think that might be an outlier to your otherwise valid point.
Oh, I see I hit a nerve with the SJW crowd or something. It's ok, I understand you cannot help it.
Yes, you are getting overpaid and deserve it for the reasons mentioned. Its simple economics, the job pay is worth what people are willing to do it for and if someone is willing to do it for less, whether you like it or not, that is what it is worth. If the company or DoD decides to pay you more because you have 10 years in with them, you deserve that but are being overpaid compared to the going rate of anyone else who can create the same snowflake code and was just hired.
I'm also thinking maybe the only person you ever knocked down was your sister by accident and that was because you got scared watching TV and ran into her while trying to leap into your moma's arms. But that's just what I think about your tough talk.
Very interesting. Thanks for the clear explanation.
It would seem that if the summery is correct about the contents of the non compete and the information I found about the different states is also correct, it might not even be enforceable on warehouse workers in Amazon's own home state of Washington.
Only if they pay strictly on piece meal or commission.
Every place I have worked with gave a 5% or better yearly raise each year you worked up to a ceiling limit on pay. Once you maxed out on pay, you lost the raises but were still making comfortable wages.
You want to take ten years off and then come back and earn the same as the man OR woman that didnt' leave? How is that fair?
Fairness has nothing to do with it. The person who was on the job and loyal to the company for 10 years is likely being overpaid for the job out of gratitude for his loyalty and dependable track record. It's why a rookie will often be hired in at a wage less than the 10 year veteran regardless of their sex. That is likely the value of the job, over that and it is a reward for "time served' and "continued value added" accumulated over that time span.
Hell, even at unionized factory jobs, pay is conditioned on seniority, Everyone starts off at a certain rate and gets small performance raises and typically annual raises regardless of their performance.
I think you have it the other way around.
Suppose you put an application in with my company, and yes, warehouse workers are filling applications out and likely skipping the resume submission. I call your current employer
(XYZ), say I'm sumdumass with "ZYX", I need employment verification for LDAPMAN.
whether your current employer says anything or not, your current employer knows my company which competes with them was thinking of hiring you so you are obviously intending to ignore the non compete agreement and leave for a job they banned you from taking via the non compete. They can call my company after you quit and I can tell them to stuff it, but they still know. They could be crafty and send a fedex package to you at your workplace and see if it is accepted or returned to find that you are actually working there. They can do a lot of things but the point is, they know you likely ignored the non compete and likely would be working at one of the places that called for employment history validation.
While I'm sure this is something to be considered, I'm not sure it is entirely possible. Some states will have restrictions on what can actually be covered by a non compete agreement. In Washington state for instance, a non compete is limited to customer information and contacts and something called good will (however that is defined) and limited to what is reasonably necessary.
This is kind of confusing as each state seems to be different to some respect. Some states also have a red line policy where if something is overly broad or not within the law, the entire agreement is tossed out while others will use a blue line approach and only strike out what is in conflict to make the NCA enforceable. Yet there is another process called reformation in which the courts would actually rework the Non-compete in order to make it enforceable
(eg, striking out the entire state as overly broad and inserting a metropolitan area or radius of distance from the locations of the employer they determine to be reasonably enforceable)
And of course, here is the PDF which charts it
I suspect they have no intention of ever enforcing this non compete. I think it is to scare the workers into not leaving for greener pastures, or better pay/benefits/work conditions.
It's not really the ex-employer keeping track that you have to worry about. Almost all prospective employers will call for a reference and then they know you are looking into a banned job. But the most troublesome for you would be friends and people you used to work with running into you on the street or something and you letting it slip that you are working somewhere specific. They then either out of amazement or stupidity, end up telling someone else at work and eventually it become common enough knowledge that the management hears about it.
It's happened to me before. I've wondered out loud about how some former coworker was doing and someone ends up telling me "just fine, they are working at XYZ now" not realizing they should have used a bit more discretion. Before I knew it, I was in the office being grilled by the boss and almost lost my job by telling them I was talking about someone from school not work when they heard the entire conversation. Thankfully, it turns out in my situation that the former employee already cleared the job with higher up management so the only one in any trouble was me. I soon found another job.
Is that your way of saying you have not been paying attention to the news over the last few years nor do you know how to use google?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ruling+bu... >Here, let me help you. Now if you scroll down a bit, you will find at least the bakery and the florist situation. There are a couple others that I know of, one in which a couple offered their farm home to members of their church for weddings because of the "view" and was forced to allow gays to wed there due to state law.
Seriously, google is your friend.
Confessions to a priest is confidential only because of religion. Certain religious beliefs declare a way to atonement and salvation through confessions. The priest is generally thought of as a conduit to their God(s). There is also spiritual guidance associated with it that can influence future behavior but ever since religion was in power, this came about and has been around since.
As for benefiting society- no more so or less than throwing out evidence and letting an obviously guilty person go free because the government failed to get a requirement of the warrant satisfied. You don't have to like it. Its just the way it is.