Why the ‘Fair Pay Act’ is Unfair (#LibHippos)

Once again, the government has meddled in the free market, and in the lives of American families. Once again, Democrats have focused on winning a battle, rather than the war.

This time, it’s the war for the American family.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama (D) signed into law the so-alled “Fair Pay Act,” or Lilly Ledbetter Law, named in honor of a woman who sued her employer and lost, for paying her less than her male counterparts.

Ironically, even Barack Obama (D) hasn’t lived up to the requirements in the law he so proudly smiled to the cameras and signed. CNS News is reporting that Obama’s male to female pay ratio is approximately that of most American employers, and that his female Senate staffers were paid 78% of their male counterparts.

So is Obama an male chauvinist? Probably not. He’s made himself into a hypocrite with this law, but there’s nothing in his record or attitude to indicate that he hates or undervalues women. He, or whoever he paid to handle his hiring, however, know a deep, dark truth that no one wants to admit. Women, generally, are not as valuable to an employer as men.

There. I said it. I know, I know – You can’t believe I said it. I’m sure those of you who don’t know me just looked up to see who wrote this crazy blog post, to see if it was a woman or a man. I assure you, I’m all woman.

Here’s the thing. Female employees typically – Yes, I know that stereotyping is a problem for a lot of folks, but the facts are the facts. What I’m about to say here applies to the majority of the female workforce. – Typical female employees are also typically the primary caregivers in their homes. They’re responsible for their children and their parents. They are the ones who need “flex” time to handle school activites and emergencies, doctor visits for family members, nursing home issues, and veterinarian visits. They’re the ones who usually stay home with sick kids and tend to the needs of their elderly family members. They are the ones who need at least six weeks at a time off after every pregnancy and (eventually) if necessary, a hysterectomy. They are the ones who are most likely to need to suddenly quit and re-locate if their husband’s job is relocated.

Yes, I know, we must applaud them for being the valiant troopers that they are. But the truth is that while they’re taking care of everything but work – their male counterparts are taking up the slack for what they are not there to do. Employers know this.

So now, thanks to the “Fair Pay Act,” employers are going to be forced to make some tough decisions. Proponents of the bill are undoubtedly hoping that all the women in the workforce will soon be getting pay raises. I can pretty much assure you that won’t be happening. In this economy, when employers are laying off rather than hiring, not very many people are getting raises. Sorry, girls.

The employers cannot demand equal work for equal pay. Thanks to President Bill Clinton’s (D) Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), employers are forced to keep jobs open for up to 12 weeks for employees who need time off for pregnancy, adoption, or to care for aging and ill parents. This applies to men and women, but women are the ones most likely to take advantage of the unpaid leave. Typically, they are more likely to be able to afford to do it, because they are receiving help from their spouse, or their ex-spouse in the form of alimony and/or child support. Yes, I know, I know – I can hear you feminazis screaming now – There are exceptions, and sometimes men…. Whatever! The facts are the facts. This law has benefited more women than men.

And employers are forced to hire a certain number of women. They dare not have a politically incorrect male to female ratio on their staffs, or they will be sued for violating affirmative action laws. Just ask the EEOC, a John F. Kennedy (D) project.

So what are employers to do? If they’re going to pay men and women equally, they will have to begin paying men less. They won’t necessarily be issuing pay cuts, but raises for men will be fewer and further between, and male new-hires will now start out at a lower salary.

This includes men who are still fulfilling the traditional role of primary breadwinner in their family. Undoubtedly, over time, this reduction in income will result in more women needing to leave their kids in daycare, and enter the workforce – except for the weeks at a time when they can’t be at work, because they need to be home with the newborn, a sick gradeschooler, or a terminally ill parent.

This also includes men who are just, well, men trying to make a living for themselves. Their lifetime earning potential just dropped. Sorry, guys.

 

The Death Of Affirmative Action

As President Elect Berry Obama makes his choices for key cabinet positions one thing is clear. Affirmative Action will have no place in his decision making.

In the Financial Times.Com article, “Obama focuses on results in cabinet selection” it is reported how his appointment of Clintonites is about as un-Clintonite as can be. Instead, they report that, “The fact that Mr Obama is African-American liberates him from having to build a diverse cabinet that “looks like America” – a pre-occupation of Mr Clinton’s transition period.”

Perhaps he will select Susan E. Rice to be his national security adviser, but the Washington Post see her as being third in this race. It could be that BHO believes she hasn’t the experience needed during this time of predicted immediate national security problems.

Throughout the election of BHO race was one of the main factors in his being elected, but the current message from the president elect is clear. Affirmative Action for thee, but not for me.

Did Obama Need Affirmative Action To Become President?

Finally, nobody can claim the need for Affirmative Action with the election of Barack Obama.  The case for Affirmative Action previously was to address negative effects of actual or perceived, past or current discrimination that was regarded as unjust. The last time I checked, Obama did not get to become president because of Affirmative Action.  He earned it!  This alone should make the case for a cease and desist order towards AA.

Personally, I always viewed it as a crutch.  The thought that my skin color entitled me to “help” was a slap in the face.  It meant I was incapable of being successful myself unless the government stepped in to assist me.  Garbage!  Like Obama, I grew up in a single parent household and earned my success.  And you know what, no government program helped me become successful.  It was through hard work, dedication, and perseverance.

So, if I hear one minority claiming the need for Affirmative Action, I’m going to point to Barack Obama and ask, “Did he need Affirmative Action to become president?”

---

To read a lively debate on this topic, see Do We Still Need Affirmative Action? on Opposing Views

---