Obama White House's War on Women - Female staffers stiffed on payday
By AnjaP
@Rollo1 (16676)
Boston, Massachusetts
April 11, 2012 3:33pm CST
Oh dear... the War on Women didn't start with the Republicans after all. It seems the White House has been discriminating against women in tne workplace - namely, the White House staff.
According to the 2011 annual White House staff report, female employees earned about 18% less than male employees.
This is pretty standard stuff for Obama, whose actions never seem to live up to his rhetoric. So while attacking Republicans for their "War on Women" and criticizing Mitt Romney for not endorsing the Lily Ledbetter Restoration Act - a law that makes it easier for women to file lawsuits over things like unequal pay - his own administration is practicing gender discrimination every payday.
http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/
4 responses
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
11 Apr 12
I've probably said this in over 100 responses I've made since a member here, but this type of blatant BS always reminds me of that Christopher Walken scene in Catch Me if You Can.
His son, Frank, is sitting with him at the table, telling him how he's an airline pilot and how he's traveling the world, but Walken knows it's all a lie. He just plays along and eventually leans over and whispers to his son, "The rest of us really are suckers."
The person running the game always has the advantage, even if we know it's rigged.
I would say I look forward to hearing Obama explain this. But I already know he'd never even touch this one. So I'll say I look forward to someone asking Carney about it (if they haven't already; I don't know). I'm interested in the type of spin.
Right now, I can't think of anything convincing that I'd say for spin. I've seen the way the data were compiled to come up with the gender gap number.
Men = man
Women = woman
Therefore if man has 51, for example, and woman has 49, it's discrimination.
It's as scientifically dishonest a study that there is probably, but man having a higher number than woman is technically discrimination because woman has a lesser number. Not equal = discrimination.
Reason #45,409 I hate progressives' bunk social science experiments (tweaked misinformation) leading to progressive legislation.
They don't know the problem to begin with, other than lower number = discriminatory number, yet they'll use it to hammer the hell out of the other side and to grow government.
Definitely standard for this administration.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16676)
• Boston, Massachusetts
11 Apr 12
I don't know about jobs and careers in the White House staff, but generally there are some reasons that women overall - that is all women vs all men - might make less. Women often have different goals and strategies than men in career-seeking and in upward mobility. This is especially true of women who have families. Sometimes women will choose jobs based more on location and hours than on compensation and may not go for promotions even if it means more money. This is not discrimination but simply free market principles, a woman has the right to make career decision. If a woman and a man do the same job and have the same number of years with the company, etc, and still the woman earns less, then that case might be discrimination. As you point out, it really isn't as simple as numbers.
If you read the rest of the article, they point out other examples of hypocrisy and yeah, it's standard. But when the entire media machine backs you up, it's easy to fling mud and never worry about getting dirty yourself.
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
12 Apr 12
I agree. There are often different goals. There are job roles that have been gender-specific for, well, ever, and they're just not going to change overnight. Like it or not, men can't have babies, and I don't care how many women take pills to grow beards. Therefore a man is biologically less likely to have the drive to start a family and therefore a man and woman may look at exploring different long-term career paths. And hours, location, and everything else that goes into it.
I agree that it's not necessarily discrimination but that it's just different. Progressives, however, in an attempt to expand, fail to even honestly approach a situation.
It's sucky to have so much of media playing ball for the same team. It's incredibly difficult to hold anyone from that team accountable to the scale needed to be impactful.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
12 Apr 12
There were actually two recent studies that I'm too lazy to link to that verified what I've been saying about pay inequality.
The first one asked women and men how many extra hours they put into their jobs without pay. Women consistently put in more. It also asked women and men their pay rates at their jobs. Men got more on average. Then it asked if they felt they were getting paid enough at their jobs. A larger percentage of men said that they weren't being paid enough, whereas most women thought they were being paid fairly.
So basically, women are willing to do more, for less money, and are content with it. You can't blame the employer for the average woman's willingness, and happiness in doing this.
The second study was about starting pay and who accepted the first offer and who negotiated higher pay. Women are far more likely to take whatever is offered when being hired for a job. I think that about 50% of men ask for more than the first offer. Roughly 7% of women do the same
If you don't even TRY to get more money, people aren't going to give you more. No amount of legislation is going to change that. All it's going to do is give bitter, former employees an excuse to sue.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
12 Apr 12
Perhaps Obama should be sued then based on the Lily Ledbetter Act.
This really isn't anything new for him though. The same issue came up back in 2008 where McCain proved Obama to be a hypocrite on the same issue regarding how he paid his female staffers significantly less than his male staffers. Democrats ignored it then and I'm sure they will this campaign cycle as well.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/09/mccain_rebuts_o.html
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
12 Apr 12
Well, I've been tweeting like crazy, this article may be from four years ago but I tweeted it. People forget, let's remind them.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
12 Apr 12
Of course they will, and if it gets bad enough they can always 'postpone' the elections as one Congresswoman suggested.
