Obama signs equal-pay bill

Sorry, Greg, but I will have to respectfully disagree.

It's wrong in most cases to have equal pay for the same job description,

The issue concerns equal pay for all who are in equal positions. The Ledbetter case revolved around seniority, as those men who had less experience received higher salaries than the more senior woman. The Supreme Court tossed the case over a statute of limitations issue, not because the claim was invalid.

some people work faster and are more efficient then others.

Now you're talking about productivity, a completely different HR and payroll concern. Those who have met hire productivity ratios are generally rewarded with bonuses, wage hikes, promotions, or a combination of these.

The matter resolved with this bill is the debate over whether men deserve to be paid more than women in relatively identical positions. The clear answer to that is no.

You're talking about quality and quantity of work, which can and should be laid out in work standards.

If not up to standard of acceptable quality and quantity, then that's a matter for correcting the employee or letting them go.

If they're performing equally in the same job, then men and women need to paid equally.

Kim, The problem of "letting them go" opens up the discrimination factor.

Actually, Dreama, the law makes it easier for companies to avoid lawsuits. All they have to do is set a pay scale tied to a job description, make the appropriate adjustments for seniority, and stick with the policy.

Don't you think that's fair?

No, I don't think it's fair. Your talking about the Government dictating how you as a business owner run your company. I think that is part of the problem. It makes me think of the Unions, and how far they have blown things out of proportion. I don't disagree with equal pay for equal work, but I believe that a Business owner should have the right to decide who earns what,and for what. We shouldn't have to have a detailed job description, with pay scale for every position held, as well as adjustments for seniority.

Example: You've had your job for 5 years, you make 40,000 a yr. You do your job at an acceptable pace. But your attitude is crap. You shouldn't be able to sue because the other guy that has had his job for 5 yrs and does better work, has a better attitude, makes 50,000 a year.

Companies should have that choice. In my opinion anyway.

Dreama... a counter-example:

• You're female in a manufacturing supervisory position, overseeing a particular workforce. You've had your job for 5 years, always receive satisfactory evaluations, and make 40,000 a year.
• Your male co-worker, who has identical responsibilities and a comparable staff, has been employed for 4 years, has identical evaluation scores, and makes 45,000 a year.

Fair? Of course not.

I guess it all depends on the situation. On one hand companies should have choice on who, and what they pay.

On the other, blatant discrimination should not be tolerated. The question is who decides, and where to draw the line.

It's a tough spot.

We already have victims.

Let's create some justice for them and then there will be a disincentive for employers to discriminate in the future.