Bill from NYC Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 A little common sense, indeed. I know what Sic (love the acronym, btw) was trying to say, and I know what you're trying to say. But if you think employers keeping your paystubs for three years makes women an easier target you're insane. If the "criminal element" wants to stalk someone I'm sure there are easier ways than by requesting a copy of another employee's records. They'd just follow them home. 844316[/snapback] If you knew what he was trying to say, why did you respond in terms of him in terms of "destroying his marriage?" Do you get whipped into a frenzy to defend each and every move of pseudo-liberal dems, however mindless? Do you ever disapprove of what your dem politician "role models" do on any single issue? Criminals do not need another edge wrt stalking their prey, and they are not always the smartest, nor the most logical of persons. You are obviously a smart guy, but dare I say that I know a little bit more about criminals than do you. I think that I understand the logic that you are trying to apply, but it is just silly. For example John, why do you think so many men are being arrested for downloading child porn? Some of these guys are doctors, priests, and even cops. Do you think they get caught because they are dumb? The answer is that they are unable to control their criminal impulses. I make the case that this law can make it easier for a stalker/sexual predator to come after a woman. They can merely demand her address, and get it. Unless you think I am 100% wrong, how can you be for something like this? When if even 1 woman is victimized? Would this be negated by the overall good that you might find in this hideous law? They could have proposed a bill without this, and I would have supported it in full. If you could be deprogrammed long enough to look at this issue in a sensible manner, I think that you would actually agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 If you knew what he was trying to say, why did you respond in terms of him in terms of "destroying his marriage?" Do you get whipped into a frenzy to defend each and every move of pseudo-liberal dems, however mindless? Do you ever disapprove of what your dem politician "role models" do on any single issue? Criminals do not need another edge wrt stalking their prey, and they are not always the smartest, nor the most logical of persons. You are obviously a smart guy, but dare I say that I know a little bit more about criminals than do you. I think that I understand the logic that you are trying to apply, but it is just silly. For example John, why do you think so many men are being arrested for downloading child porn? Some of these guys are doctors, priests, and even cops. Do you think they get caught because they are dumb? The answer is that they are unable to control their criminal impulses. I make the case that this law can make it easier for a stalker/sexual predator to come after a woman. They can merely demand her address, and get it. Unless you think I am 100% wrong, how can you be for something like this? When if even 1 woman is victimized? Would this be negated by the overall good that you might find in this hideous law? They could have proposed a bill without this, and I would have supported it in full. If you could be deprogrammed long enough to look at this issue in a sensible manner, I think that you would actually agree. 844364[/snapback] I am the one looking at this sensibly. You are the one saying that employer record keeping will aid criminals. This new amendment isn't going to impact that either way, as the information is already there. What employer doesn't already have a record of what their employees make? What employer doesn't already have employee home address info stored in-house? It's ludicrous to think that keeping a record of what employees make (which, btw, already freaking exists in every workplace) is going to make it easier for someone with a criminal intent to commit crimes against other employees. There's no connection. You make it sound like anybody can waltz right in and ask a secretary for someone's pay history and home address, and that's just not the case, as per the way the amendment is written. Also, if I'm not mistaken, both the Ohio State Senate and Ohio House of Reps were under GOP control. I'm not sure how the amendment got on the ballot, but this Ohio Citizen Action site has a pretty good run-down. It can be added via the legislature, or you need to get 10% of the elctorate's signatures (in 2005 this was 322,900 people). So, either the GOP legislature got it on there, or a whole lot of Ohio citizens did. Your beef isn't with "liberal" extremeists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Many times, people shouldn't be trusted with decisions, especially when it's not their money that's being spent. Yeah, it's not a big deal to spend an extra $0.05 on a Big Mac, until you recognize that you're spending an extra $0.05 on every transaction. After a while, those pennies start to add up, Mortimer. As to publicizing pay scales, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. While it has the noble goal of raising wages for everyone, since you will know what your coworker makes, it will end up depressing wage growth, since management will not be keen on giving extra rewards to better performers (or find ways to give them compensation that skirts the disclosure requirement). This is another example of fixing supply, while doing nothing to the demand. At some point, it will break. If you require full disclosure, you should also make it easy for employers to pay employees whatever they want, and not fear legal retribution for the wage disparity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 As to publicizing pay scales, welcome to the law of unintended consequences. While it has the noble goal of raising wages for everyone, since you will know what your coworker makes, it will end up depressing wage growth, since management will not be keen on giving extra rewards to better performers (or find ways to give them compensation that skirts the disclosure requirement). This is another example of fixing supply, while doing nothing to the demand. At some point, it will break. If you require full disclosure, you should also make it easy for employers to pay employees whatever they want, and not fear legal retribution for the wage disparity. 844422[/snapback] I don't see anywhere in that amendment where it says an employee's payscale will be publicized. It states: An employer shall maintain a record of the name, address, occupation, pay rate, hours worked for each day worked and each amount paid an employee for a period of not less than three years following the last date the employee was employed. Such information shall be provided without charge to an employee or person acting on behalf of an employee upon request. An employee, person acting on behalf of one or more employees and/or any other interested party may file a complaint with the state for a violation of any provision of this section or any law or regulation implementing its provisions. Such complaint shall be promptly investigated and resolved by the state. The employee's name shall be kept confidential unless disclosure is necessary to resolution of a complaint and the employee consents to disclosure. So, unless the employee, or a designee of the employee (read lawyer) requests it, the info isn't in the public domain. Additionally, anyone else who wants this information has to file a complaint to see it, and it clearly states that the employee's name is left out of the disclosure unless it is deemed necessary to resolve the complaint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 I don't see anywhere in that amendment where it says an employee's payscale will be publicized. It states:So, unless the employee, or a designee of the employee (read lawyer) requests it, the info isn't in the public domain. Additionally, anyone else who wants this information has to file a complaint to see it, and it clearly states that the employee's name is left out of the disclosure unless it is deemed necessary to resolve the complaint. 844432[/snapback] And that differs from my point of you now being able to learn your coworker's payscale... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 And that differs from my point of you now being able to learn your coworker's payscale... 844436[/snapback] Clarify, please. If the info isn't publicized or voluntarily divulged to me by that employee how would I know, other than what I already know about the general payscale for my industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Clarify, please. If the info isn't publicized or voluntarily divulged to me by that employee how would I know, other than what I already know about the general payscale for my industry? 844453[/snapback] You know the general pay, you don't know the exact pay. It's unclear whether the "designee" of the employee needs to have employee's consent to request the pay information. Even if the employee's identity is shielded, by designation you can get the pay records of everyone in the company, put up a nice spreadsheet and publicly list the pay. As long as you don't tie personal records to the pay, you're in the clear. But everyone inside will know who is who. I think that it's good to get more information about pay, but employers should also have the freedom to fire and set pay at will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Let the free market work. I was watching a C-Span interview of Milton and Rose Friedman this past weekend. Milton said that he always asked proponents of raising the minimum wage - why raise it to $7 or $8 or whatever dollars an hour? Why are you being so stingy? Why not raise it to $20 or $100 an hour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 You know the general pay, you don't know the exact pay. It's unclear whether the "designee" of the employee needs to have employee's consent to request the pay information. Even if the employee's identity is shielded, by designation you can get the pay records of everyone in the company, put up a nice spreadsheet and publicly list the pay. As long as you don't tie personal records to the pay, you're in the clear. But everyone inside will know who is who. I think that it's good to get more information about pay, but employers should also have the freedom to fire and set pay at will. 844506[/snapback] You're talking about a "worst-case" scenario. A lawyer/designee would have to file a complaint "on GG's behalf" to get the company to release the records. If you haven't given consent, then there would have to be a pretty damn strong legal reason for that to get to the stage where it even get's ruled on after it's deemed unnecessary to get your consent. Then it has to be ruled in the lawyer's/designee's favor. The merits of the complaint can't be "We want to publicize all the employee's salaries for the company GG works for." It would never get through. Not to mention that in your scenario the legal boundaries of the amendment have to be stretched to include the info of all the employees. The way it is written seems to limit the results of the complaint to just the single employee's information. I don't see it happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 You're talking about a "worst-case" scenario. A lawyer/designee would have to file a complaint "on GG's behalf" to get the company to release the records. If you haven't given consent, then there would have to be a pretty damn strong legal reason for that to get to the stage where it even get's ruled on after it's deemed unnecessary to get your consent. Then it has to be ruled in the lawyer's/designee's favor. The merits of the complaint can't be "We want to publicize all the employee's salaries for the company GG works for." It would never get through. Not to mention that in your scenario the legal boundaries of the amendment have to be stretched to include the info of all the employees. The way it is written seems to limit the results of the complaint to just the single employee's information. I don't see it happening. 844565[/snapback] Good thing you are not a lawyer. This statement is as vague as it gets: Such information [pay scale] shall be provided without charge to an employee or person acting on behalf of an employee upon request. Nowhere does it say that it has to be a lawyer or you have to have employee's consent to request that information. The items that you cited all relate to filing a complaint, not to receive information. That statement could be open to a lot of interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 Good thing you are not a lawyer. This statement is as vague as it gets: Such information [pay scale] shall be provided without charge to an employee or person acting on behalf of an employee upon request. Nowhere does it say that it has to be a lawyer or you have to have employee's consent to request that information. The items that you cited all relate to filing a complaint, not to receive information. That statement could be open to a lot of interpretation. 844577[/snapback] It's not vague with respect to the entire paragraph. There is no way that anyone will be allowed to walk in off the street and be able to get the company's payroll information just by asking politely. Also, how would you interpret "a person acting on behalf of an employee?" We are crossing into the realm of the absurd here. From what I see, the amendment certainly favors labor unions, which is probably second only to gays destroying our culture for some in here. An employee of a non-union shop could file to see the payroll, and a union could use that information to convince the other employees to unionize. That should fire up the anti-union crowd in here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 It's not vague with respect to the entire paragraph. There is no way that anyone will be allowed to walk in off the street and be able to get the company's payroll information just by asking politely. Also, how would you interpret "a person acting on behalf of an employee?" We are crossing into the realm of the absurd here. From what I see, the amendment certainly favors labor unions, which is probably second only to gays destroying our culture for some in here. An employee of a non-union shop could file to see the payroll, and a union could use that information to convince the other employees to unionize. That should fire up the anti-union crowd in here. 844612[/snapback] So in one paragraph you think I'm crossing the realm of absurdity, and you back that up with a perfectly probable application of the new law? What happened? Someone put real beer in those PBR cans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 So in one paragraph you think I'm crossing the realm of absurdity, and you back that up with a perfectly probable application of the new law? What happened? Someone put real beer in those PBR cans? 844643[/snapback] Yes on all counts. We're just going to have to wait for Smith v. Walmart to clear the interpretation up. It ought to hit the courts at 12:01AM on the day the amendment takes effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts