Working People: Aren't you (Goodyear) tired?

In all fairness, Joe...and you know I'm on your side here...the company probably would have done exactly the same thing to a male employee if it could have gotten away with it.

In many companies (including Hubby's), every employee cuts their own deal. Managers are rewarded for keeping salaries as low as possible, so they negotiate with each employee individually rather than offering a set salary for each position. This means two people on the same level often make vastly different salaries. And you're automatically in trouble if you admit you know what anyone else makes, because that is confidential info and Not Discussed.

About a year ago, Hubby found out that a co-worker he had hired and trained 15 years ago was making more than he was. It has eaten away at him ever since. He has resumes out now, and will likely use any offers he receives as leverage to get his employer to raise his salary. That's the only way anyone at his company ever gets a raise. Sad, but true. I doubt he'll actually leave because (apart from the constant nickle-and-diming over salary and bonuses) he loves the job. He is getting tired of being treated so shabbily, though. Who wouldn't be?

I know that women are frequently discriminated against, and that is one part of this story that really frosts me. Lilly didn't meekly accept the lower salary...she took Goodyear to court. She fought for herself, like all women should...but precious few do. The thing that REALLY bothers me, though, is that I don't for a minute believe the Supreme Court's decision had anything to do with her being female. This was a case of Corporate America vs. The Worker. And this decision will affect male and female employees alike.

And we shouldn't stand for it.

Now, tell me. Apart from voting for Democrats, what can we do?

0 Replies

Stop buying GoodYear tires.

0 Replies

I'm with you, Eva, that's why the title of this thread is "workers" not "ladies", but it was clearly the policy of Goodyear in this case to pay the female the lowest.

As to the game of each employee being on their own against the middle manager's budget and personal prejudices, is it any wonder that corporations have fought so hard and spent so much money against the idea of employee unions? Yeah, it's a much better idea for the company to try and reduce the amount of competition they face in the market themselves while increasing the competition between each of their employees. So much more productive, right? Wha?

And McG, you're correct, but there's more. I've written to Mr. Keegan (link provided above) saying exactly that, that I won't buy Goodyear products of any kind until this is made right. And I've put the idea out there for friends and family to consider.

Joe(Might not mean a thing, I don't care.)Nation

0 Replies

Hey!! Whaddya know?

Politics at last. And on the Politics Thread too.

Well done Joe (Arthur Scargill) Nation.

I'm not buying any more Goodyear tyres not no how.

0 Replies

I agree that that SC ruling about the 180 day filing should be fixed via Congress, but I think there has to be more to this story.

In my current corporate envrionment, it a salary discussion very similar to what Eva wrote. Managment works with each individual employee, salary is not to be discussed, etc. I know for a fact that the annual salaries for similar jobs with similar tenure can range as far as 20,000 at my current level, male or female.

This salary difference is largely based on a person's negiotiating skills compared to the hiring manager. While this skill may not be an "on-the-job" skill, it is an imporatant skill that job seekers must develop. This is a skill that this woman must not have had.

The other thing...this article makes no mention of other women working at the Goodyear Tire plant. Did ALL the women make less than ALL the men? Were there women working there that made more than this woman, who maybe had less tenure? Was there only ONE woman working at Goodyear?

I'm not saying that she wasn't discriminated against, obviously the jury thought she was and had access to all of the information, and I think the SC was wrong to throw out the suit using the ruling they used....but I don't think this is as cut and dry as this article tries to make it.

0 Replies

What do you want the Courts to do?

Whatever legislation is passed, one still has to :

1) Accept the offer from the Employer
2) Somehow, find out what another employee is being paid (privacy issue here)
3) Absorb the costs of filing suit against the employer
4) Hope and pray a Court becomes an HR department and brings the other employee's privacy rights into the suit?

Another case of liberals looking for government to fix all your problems. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

What do you want the Courts to do?

Whatever legislation is passed, one still has to :

1) Accept the offer from the Employer
2) Somehow, find out what another employee is being paid (privacy issue here)
3) Absorb the costs of filing suit against the employer
4) Hope and pray a Court becomes an HR department and brings the other employee's privacy rights into the suit?

Another case of liberals looking for government to fix all your problems.

I just think the 180 day window for filing a suit is a little on the short side. That is the main thing I'd like to see changed here.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

woiyo wrote:
What do you want the Courts to do?

Whatever legislation is passed, one still has to :

1) Accept the offer from the Employer
2) Somehow, find out what another employee is being paid (privacy issue here)
3) Absorb the costs of filing suit against the employer
4) Hope and pray a Court becomes an HR department and brings the other employee's privacy rights into the suit?

Another case of liberals looking for government to fix all your problems.

I just think the 180 day window for filing a suit is a little on the short side. That is the main thing I'd like to see changed here.

180 days or whatever does not change the question above.

What do you expect the Courts to do?

What rights does an employee have to keep their salary a private matter between themselves and the employer? It really is none of your business what I am getting paid. Correct? You accepted their offer. Correct? What rights does an owner of a privately held company have relative to salary negotiations between themselves and a prospective employee?

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

What do you expect the Courts to do?

To award back pay when discrimination is found to have occurred, no matter how long ago a person got their first pay check.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

woiyo wrote:

What do you expect the Courts to do?

To award back pay when discrimination is found to have occurred, no matter how long ago a person got their first pay check.

So since I just found out that a girl that got hired at McDonalds in Oceanside Ca at the same time I did was making more then me.
Should I now sue McDonalds?

BTW, that job was 30 years ago.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

woiyo wrote:

What do you expect the Courts to do?

To award back pay when discrimination is found to have occurred, no matter how long ago a person got their first pay check.

What is the process? How would you feel about your individual rights if YOU were the employee being compared to?

0 Replies

I don't know, but I think it wouldn't harm me financially for someone who works with me and who is being discriminated against to know how much I make.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't know, but I think it wouldn't harm me financially for someone who works with me and who is being discriminated against to know how much I make.

Great Answer.... I DON"T KNOW.

That actually is the honest answer. This issue requires deep thinking and debate. There are issues on both sides that have to be addressed. It is SO EASY to "JUST LET THE COURTS DECIDE", but from a practical perspective, the Courts are in no position to make this decision.

Would it be fair to argue that I as the employer WANT to overpay to get FREEDUCK to work for my Company. Do I have that right as the employer?

Even though I hired McGentrix 2 months earlier at lower pay, I wanted Freeduck to work for me.

Does that mean I discriminated against McGentrix?

0 Replies

Well, gee, let's get rid of the courts, since using them seems to be using the GOVERNMENT to DECIDE things.

And let's overlook, of course, the fact that the courts are there in order to resolve disputes.

Frivolous lawsuits don't make it to the Supreme Court.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Well, gee, let's get rid of the courts, since using them seems to be using the GOVERNMENT to DECIDE things.

And let's overlook, of course, the fact that the courts are there in order to resolve disputes.

Frivolous lawsuits don't make it to the Supreme Court.

LEGAL disputes, not personal disputes.

When you have something useful to offer, please do check back. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

I shall repeat this bit: frivolous lawsuits don't make it to the Supreme Court.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I don't know, but I think it wouldn't harm me financially for someone who works with me and who is being discriminated against to know how much I make.

Great Answer.... I DON"T KNOW.

That actually is the honest answer. This issue requires deep thinking and debate. There are issues on both sides that have to be addressed. It is SO EASY to "JUST LET THE COURTS DECIDE", but from a practical perspective, the Courts are in no position to make this decision.

Would it be fair to argue that I as the employer WANT to overpay to get FREEDUCK to work for my Company. Do I have that right as the employer?

Even though I hired McGentrix 2 months earlier at lower pay, I wanted Freeduck to work for me.

Does that mean I discriminated against McGentrix?

But that's not what this is about. In order to show discrimination you have show a pattern -- not just that one person makes more than another. In this case, the woman was paid less than all of the men there -- even ones who ranked lower. Most companies have a pay scale so that they can pay people according to a set of rules and not have it be subjective.

0 Replies

Is is EXCACTLY what is going on. This bill that the democrats brought forward was too broad and McCain was correct when he said it would lead to more lawsuits.

How can you establish a pattern of discrimination after only 18 months?

You have not addressed the other issues I mentioned. This bill as written is impossible to administrate, no matter how "nice" it sounds to the liberals.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Is is EXCACTLY what is going on. This bill that the democrats brought forward was too broad and McCain was correct when he said it would lead to more lawsuits.

Nobody is arguing about whether it would cause more lawsuits; the point of the legislation would be to allow lawsuits that the Supreme Court wants to squelch.

It's called checks and balances....

0 Replies

Ok, I haven't read the bill, but I don't see how extending the amount of time during which someone can file suit is impossible to administer. After all, the woman in this case lost because she didn't file within 180 days of her first pay check. THAT is impossible for the person being discriminated against, because it's likely that they wouldn't know within that time. Over time folks earn seniority, get reviews and raises, and have some sense of how they compare to other workers. That is what's needed to determine fairness.

I don't see how allowing them to file within 180 days of each pay check requires that anyone do anything. The burden is still on the employee to find out about the discrimination and to file suit.

0 Replies

Working People: Aren't you (Goodyear) tired?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know