what does equal mean?

does it mean the same or does it mean something similar?

Obama signed new legislation today ensuring that people who find out that they are being paid less because of some form of desrimination now have 360 days to sue.. up from 180 days... being marked as a huge thing...

One part of this concerns me though...
equal pay for "equivalent jobs"
Just what does "equivalent" mean? Different jobs should pay different salaries, to me that seems quite obvious. And if instead of trying for the other job the "discriminated" against person tries for the other one.. isn;t that their choice? Equal pay for the same job, seems like a no duh to me... Equal pay for an "equivalent" job....no freakin way ..regardless of someone's definition of what is equivalent the job pays what the employers says it pays. Dont like it, get a different job, you know.. like the one across the aisle that pays more.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

so i guess i couldn't go work at Wendy's and make more than if I work at McDonald's or Burger King?

And if I'm a food server at one restaurant, does that mean my boss can't give me a raise for exceptional work because the restaurant across the street pays less?

Or if I'm a shelf-stocker at WalMart, I can't go across the street to Target and get paid more?

What a stupid law. Yet again why the Democrats should never be in power...make everyone "equal" so there's no reason for competition or improvement.

"Yet again why the Democrats should never be in power"

Better then feeding the war machine that they just got rid of!

IG Guy wrote:"Yet again why the Democrats should never be in power"

Better then feeding the war machine that they just got rid of!

The Republicans are not a war machine...though I agree they aren't much better.

Bush was not a good representative of a Republican party member...he was a buffoon who had no idea what he was doing. Had his first term not had the 9/11 attacks...there's no way he would've won a second term. He also would've not had much to do during his term...as he would've delegated most of the work off to others. DHS would not have been formed either...as no perception of necessity would have been public yet.

Bush, imo was just a puppet. he seemed to have been working for some one else. he never seemed "real" lol

IG Guy wrote:Bush, imo was just a puppet. he seemed to have been working for some one else. he never seemed "real" lol

Well, he was married.

JTF wrote:

IG Guy wrote:Bush, imo was just a puppet. he seemed to have been working for some one else. he never seemed "real" lol

Well, he was married.

very true! lol i was thinking more along the lines of Daddy and his friends or big brother oil. but the wifey had something to do with it!

They always do. Some men are just better at hiding it eh.

for the record..... all the dems are doing is making the right to sue period longer...which does make sense for legitimate cases. 180 days is not a lot in which to be able to get a good lawyer and contemplate your options and if true discrimination happened isn't society better served by giving another 180 days?

(still bites that they would use the word equivalent)

how many truly discriminatory cases are there? ones where it's a complete violation of law?

I'll put it this way...say I'm running a business and I have 3 "equally qualified" individuals applying for a position.

All 3 have the same degree level, work experience, other various skills.

One is White male, one is Native male, and one is black female...which would you hire?

Now you interview them all in person? and they all have good communication skills, well presented, clean appearance, but the white male has a mullet and is missing a front tooth. Now which would you hire?

Discrimination is done daily...every minute of every day. We see someone coming down the street in a business suit...we don't think anything of it...but if some bum in dirty clothes is there...we cross the street.

Is it wrong to not hire someone because of gender, colour, religious beliefs? It could be...but it's JUST as wrong to hire someone for the same reasons...yet somehow, the Democrats feel that this is "justified" due to affirmative action. And I know for a FACT that I've been discriminated against because of it...cause I've had the person doing the hiring tell me so.

"and they all have good communication skills, well presented, clean appearance, but the white male has a mullet and is missing a front tooth."

umm thats kind of mutually exclusive information there... especially the mullet and well presented....

"Now which would you hire?"
depends which one I hit it off the best with in the interview...

"but it's JUST as wrong to hire someone for the same reasons"
100% agree

Deank wrote:"and they all have good communication skills, well presented, clean appearance, but the white male has a mullet and is missing a front tooth."

umm thats kind of mutually exclusive information there... especially the mullet and well presented....

If you think about a hillbilly mullet yet.

But, there's a father of a kid in my daughter's swim class who has one...and it's not too offensive. Personally I'd like to take a set of clippers to his head...but he still looks clean and presentable...and he's not missing a tooth ).

HEY.. does your daughter take classes at 7 oaks by any chance?

Guy there this weekend... oo man it was hard not to laugh at himn

no...St. James Civic

Some men are just better at hiding it eh.

True JTF some hide under the desk better too.

Deank wrote:"and they all have good communication skills, well presented, clean appearance, but the white male has a mullet and is missing a front tooth."

umm thats kind of mutually exclusive information there... especially the mullet and well presented....

Does missing a tooth count as a disability? Cause if so, he shall not be discriminated against on that basis. And according to Government of Manitoba propaganda, it would make good business sense to hire him.

some people find it surpising that I work for Investors Group because I have tattoos on my neck and wrists and peirced eye brow that are visble. I dont think it so much has to do with your appearnce now a days as it has more to do with how you carry your self. It seems companies seem to look past the outside of a person. I noticed that in my interview for this job, they didn't really ask anything about me, but very spefically my tallents and skills. Which is the way that it should be.

I was wondering if you work for IG or if that stood for something else...

FlyingRat wrote:I was wondering if you work for IG or if that stood for something else...

yep I work for IG.

rosencrentz wrote:

DeanK- desrimination? are you so meanspirited to print that on purpose to irrigate me??

irrigate? were you dehydrated?