DBP
Well see now . . . There ya go. It seems like both right and left are in agreement on one part of this issue. To wit: You shouldn’t discriminate on the basis of gender.
Glad we got that out of the way. But then, there’s still this, per skeeter:
So long as the employer is not violating any employment laws, I don’t think the employer has to answer to the government or any other employees on why she pays some employees more or less than others.
Well, no and yes . . .
No, the boss normally shouldn’t have to justify salaries to anyone. But yes, if you’ve got a situation where discrimination can be reasonably inferred, then I think the boss should have to answer to the government about why he pays some employees more than others.*
So when would that be, exactly? This is the crux of the matter, as I see it. (As opposed to the question of whether discrimination is ok — since everyone seems to agree that it’s not.)
Anyhoo, it seems that small business owners were worried (with some justification, I think) about disgruntled employees dragging them into court with frivolous lawsuits. So what we really need to figure out on this issue is: Just how high is/was/would’ve been the bar for bringing a legal action under “Paycheck Fairness”? Anybody know?
**************************************************************************************
*An analogy to this situation would be the “probable cause” question in law enforcement. If you drive the speed limit and your lights are working, the cops don’t have any reason to stop you. In other words, they can’t stop you just because you’re “driving while Black” or whatever. However, if a cop stops you for zipping through a red light, and while he’s giving you a lecture he hears noises coming from the trunk, then he has “probable cause” to do a vehicle search.
And for your sake I hope it really IS just some potted plants rolling around back there — like you told the officer — and not some planted pot.