Federal Legislature

Paycheck Fairness

Equal pay has been the law for 51 years. This one is supposed to allow people to ask how much other people get paid. And sue if the employee found she were making less than another employee. If I were working now and anyone asked how much I made, I’d tell them, “It’s none of your d@mn business.” There are so very many reasons why Employee A might be being paid less than Employee B when they’re doing the same job on paper.

What makes it different is different people, with different skills, different interests, different ambitions… And that applies to anyone regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, what-have-you. Even two people doing the exact same job on paper will do it differently and may garner different compensation. Employee A and Employee B have been on the job for the same amount of time. They have the same experience. They started at the same rate. But Employee A does the very minimum required. Employee A clocks in and out exactly on time every day. Employee A never volunteers for special projects. Employee A grumbles whenever asked to do something that isn’t in the job description. Employee B shows initiative. Employee B asks for training in other aspects of the job. Employee B volunteers for special projects and doesn’t mind covering for another employee out sick or on vacation. Employee will stay a few minutes late to get the job done instead of leaving it until the morning. Employee A doesn’t deserve a pay cut, but there should be no issue with giving Employee B a raise. Or giving an annual increase at the bottom of the range to Employee A, and giving an increase at the top of the range to Employee B.

The above is the same regardless of race, sex, religion, ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation, or whatever “protected” status one might fall into. What I hate is when people are “protected” and then behave like Employee A above, because they can. Then, if there’s any adverse action to the employee, the employee can sue and say it’s due to his or her protected status. All the costs to defend are on the Employer. Even if the adverse action (no raise/promotion, less of a raise, whatever) had no connection to the status, but to the actions (or non-actions) of the employee.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Dear Senator Kirk

I sent this to Senator Kirk today via his website contact form:

Senator Kirk,

First, congratulations on your return to the senate. I am very glad you are better.

The paper today said you were in favor of an assault weapons ban. Please reconsider. There is no such thing as an “assault” weapon. The previous ban under President Clinton, did absolutely nothing. It made certain weapons illegal based entirely upon cosmetic aspects of the weapon that had nothing to do with how the weapon fired or its rate of fire.

Full automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1930’s. Semi-automatic sounds scary, but those weapons can fire one shot per trigger pull and no more. Even 20 years ago in the US Army, my M-16 had one shot per trigger pull or a three-shot burst – and I had to set the weapon for the three-shot burst. The civilian AR-15 version of the M-16 doesn’t have that capability. As a member of the military, I thought you’d be aware of this.

We don’t need MORE gun laws. We don’t need to further restrict law-abiding citizens from their Second Amendment rights.

Criminals will obtain weapons illegally no matter what. They are criminals. They don’t care about laws. Look at Chicago. Weapons are pretty much banned and gun violence is through the roof. Gun crimes go down when the law abiding citizenry is free to have weapons. Criminals don’t know who might be able to fight back which deters them. On the other hand, knowing that a victim can’t fight back only encourages them.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Stop SOPA/PIPA

I made an image that can be used as a profile picture on social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. Click on the image and then save it. Or right-click on the image and choose save from the pop-up menu. If using on Facebook, choose to scale the image in the thumbnail so it stays round.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Letter to the Editor of the Week

This letter* to the editor in today’s WSJ really struck a chord.

Regarding your editorial “The Debt-Limit Hobbits” (July 30): I join with my other southwest Ohio tea-party leaders in opposing the Boehner plan because we’ll get less than 3% “real” spending cuts in a government that has bloated 40% in four years, and this is not enough. Authorizing $1 trillion in new debt today for the promise of cuts which may or may not work out to be more than that over 10 years is an unfavorable deal.

Kudos to the Club for Growth, Heritage Action, Jim Jordan, Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann and others for standing on principle and opposing this plan.

As for Middle Earth, to quote Gandalf, standing before the hordes of Mordor at the Black Gate, “Surety you crave! Sauron gives none. If you sue for his clemency you must first do his bidding. These are his terms. Take them or leave them” . . . But as for your terms, we reject them utterly. . . . Begone!”

Ted Stevenot
Co-founder
Clermont County Tea Party
Cincinnati

_*The link goes to today’s letters only so I’m reproducing the entire letter here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
mm-5
Featured Links

TagVillage.com
Free Global Shipping!
Affiliate Banner