The Paycheck Redistribution Act

Wouldn't it be great if we forced companies to pay employees the same
regardless of competence and productivity?

Those who follow legislation, especially those more socialist in ideology, thought the "Paycheck Fairness Act" that Socialist Democrat Senator Mikulski instoduced in May of 2012 was dead. The original bill was killed in cloture last year.

Well, the Marxist redistributionist progressive communist liberal anti-capitalist Democrat Senator from Maryland reintroduced the bill (SB 84) on January 23, 2013, with some very minor changes.

The stated purpose of the bill seems, on the surface, as a great thing. It's propagandized purpose is to eliminate the "glass ceiling" in both private businesses and public sector jobs. If it were written to actually be an incentive to give equitable pay for equal production, it would be a good thing.

However, it doesn't.

One of the reasons given for the recent proclamation that females will now be allowed to serve in combat arms specialties in the military was to eliminate that "glass ceiling". The facts are that ceiling doesn't exist in the military, at least not in the enlisted ranks. The military has a pay scale based upon a Soldier's rank and longevity in service. There is no separate scale for males and females.

During my years of service, I head the arguments both ways. I heard females complain they were not promoted because they were female (usually followed by "and I won't sleep with ___"). I heard allegations that the only reason somebody was promoted was due to being female and cute with no regard given to competence. By and large, I saw most of these were unfounded. The majority of females I knew who were promoted to senior NCO ranks earned their rank  and paycheck through dedication, hard work, and competence.

The bill does not address competence. It does not represent how well the employer perceived the value added by the individual employees. Instead, it institutes quotas, tax breaks, government subsidies, and regulatory fines. It basically rewards company policies that would give greater raises and bonuses to females. Should Annie and Bobby both have tenures of 2 years, put in over 40 hours a week, produce wackadoodles of equal amounts per hour; then Annie should get a raise equal to or greater than Bobby. It doesn't matter that Bobby left his family three times that year to take those business trips the company needed while Annie refused to take them. It doesn't matter that Bobby averages 2 hours more a week in the office than Annie. It doesn't matter that 8% of Annie's Wackadoodles don't meet quality control standards while Bobby only has 2% fail inspection.

While giving raises and benefits based upon gender are wrong, forcing companies to justify what raises they give to whom is just as wrong. It's a private company. Raises and promotions should go to the better and more loyal workers regardless of gender, race, religion, or family size. This bill is counter to that ideal. It is collectivist in nature. It basically says that "women need special benefits and consideration".

The bill also mandates that the employers publish the salaries and bonuses they pay to their employees. Many companies have clauses in their contracts stating that they are not allowed to discuss the terms of their contracts with other employees (or with potential recruits). When I was still active in the military (I'm retired), government contractors flat out told me about the non-disclosure clauses in their contracts. It was against the law for them to tell me how much they made and what their benefits package consisted of. The reason was that should I seek a similar position upon retirement, I was to be hired based upon my own skills and capabilities. My salary and benefits would then reflect the value the company and I agreed that those skills and that portion of my life would be worth.

Instead, the companies will have to publicly publish the salaries of all of their employees. If disparity is perceived, the company will be investigated and have to justify that disparity or face consequences. This invasion of privacy is not for the common good. It is for future socialist redistribution purposes. 

It should come as no surprise that the list of 34 co-sponsors is a who's-who from the US Socialist Caucus. Barbie Boxer from California is among them. So is Frank Lautenberg, who also wants to repeal the Second Amendment. Claire McCaskill is on the list. (Thanks Todd Akin for sticking your foot in your mouth.) Yep, Mark and Tom Udall are also on that list. So is "Fauxcohantas" Lizzy Warren. Lest we not forget Al Franken or Sherrod "failed Econ 101" Brown. 

It is time we concentrated on paying an individual what he or she is worth based upon what employer and employee agree upon. It is time that we stop giving special treatment to special groups because some collectivist communist says "it's only fair".