The worst offenders are the ones that make you fear for loosing your job, these are the real bullies and they know just how much you need the income and how vulnerable you are. My wife and I despise these tactics however it can be really difficult to prove when someone quietly whispers in your ear, where else are you going to get a job around here in this recession.

My wife and I work together as a team and we share everything equally and it really annoys us when we hear about the discrimination that still exists.

So what can be done about it? Well we can call and pester our politicians after all we pay their wages. We can form groups to highlight and shame the offenders, this is powerful when used in the right way, for example use the media to your advantage. The local TV and radio stations, along with your local newspapers, they all love a good story & it's free publicity and very powerful.

There are also many offices of fair trading that you can use, once again they are free.

Now there is another way to ensure fair pay for women because there is an industry that will always pay women fairly. The great thing about it is you can start it part time, without your boss ever knowing, run it from the comfort of your home, and keep your old job until you earn enough to fire your boss.

It's the chance of a lifetime to become financially free, with true leveraged income.

No more being paid by the hour, and no boss to answer to.

You never have to call on or pester anyone.

You never have to go to any meetings or hold any parties.

You never have to sell anything.

You never have to hold any stock.

These types of businesses are developing in new ways that make it more attractive to women. New technology and honest and modern marketing concepts have made this possible, making it easier for women to take the lead over many of the men in the industry.

Statistics have shown that 97% of most people promoting these types of business have no knowledge of or any idea how the above can be achieved without spending any money on Advertising, and never having to telephone or call on others.

In real terms it gives you a head start putting you 97% ahead of everyone else out there.

You will need help and advice to ensure your success, so here are our golden guides to getting it right.

Check out the person who is offering you a business and make sure that they will they be good a sponsor. Get this wrong and you will almost certainly be doomed to failure.

Give them a call, make a list of questions and ask for the answers to them. Ask about their background, don't be afraid to ask. Every question no matter how small or trivial it may seem is important to you, after all it's your success that's on the line.

Our second golden guide is making sure you have a back up team behind your sponsor, and the reason is simple if you loose your sponsor who do you turn to?

In your early days you will need help, Trust us we only became successful through our present sponsor, without our sponsors knowledge we would have failed in a matter of weeks.

So take a look around & choose wisely, Karen & I wish you well whatever you choose to do. Be sure though that you never end up with these words on your mind.

"I Wish I Had Done That"

Best wishes

Karen & Robert Waugh. http://www.mymoneyjar.com

I wrote an Op-Ed published in the Richmond Times-Dispatch Sunday, June 29, 2008 :

For the first time in the two-hundred thirty-three year history of the Army a woman will wear 4-star rank. Today, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates nominated, New York native, Army Lt. Gen. Ann Dunwoody for her forth star. She stands to make $189,205 a year in base pay—the same salary as General David Petraeus and the other eleven men who serve as full generals. Equal pay for equal work—what a concept! Meanwhile, a pay gap still exists in the government and private sector for women in science-related professions. It is time for congress to follow the DoD example and make wages equal for everyone by passing Fair Pay legislation...

...“Forty five years after President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963, women are still being denied equal pay for equal work,” said Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center. “It is long since time that Congress acted to ensure that the promise of the laws barring sex discrimination in employment can become a reality.”

As General Ann Dunwoody leads armed troops to protect America from our enemies; it’s time all Senators raise their arms and vote Yea for the Fair Pay Act to protect American workers.

Read the full Op-Ed  here.

The men in business almost always had the best deal and it was often a well kept secret. Despite the fact that women were doing the same work in the same conditions, men were often still better paid.

In recent times new laws have forced businesses to ensure that wages are more balanced. However this is not always the case as there are still many countries and industries throughout the world that do not have a fair pay for women policy, or they simply find a way around the laws that should be protecting women’s rights to fair pay.

There is an industry that exists that always given fair pay for women, however many women may have never considered it as a real business or job. This is an industry which has been around for years, and has probably produced more millionaires and many of the largest income earners in the world. Now before you groan & stop reading please take the time to continue, because at the end of the day you may end up earning more than your partner within just three to twelve months working part time! You could even end up with them joining you in Your Business!

The business that we are leading up to is undergoing a massive change which is causing more and more women to join. The reason for this is partly due to the new methods of marketing which is working strongly in their favour, and the use of cutting edge technology which when joined together can often give women the edge over their male counterparts.

This is a real business which has huge benefits that offer the average person the chance of a lifetime to become financially free, with regular monthly leveraged income. No more being paid by the hour, and no boss to answer to.

When done properly you do not have to call on or pester anyone.

You never have to go to any meetings or hold any parties.

You never have to sell anything and you never have to hold any stock.

Best of all you can start it part time, run it from the comfort of your home, and keep your old job until you earn enough to fire your boss.

Here is a really interesting statistic around 97% of all of the people offering this type of opportunity have no idea how you can achieve all the above without Ever Spending a Penny on Advertising, and without making calls to other people! That puts you ahead of the crowd and in the top 3%.

The biggest opportunities in the world now exist in within almost every household. With everyone from teenagers to grand parents, all cashing in on internet business opportunities. It really is a massive playground of opportunity that has no boundaries for age, gender, race, or religion.

There are however some guidelines to help ensure your success, here are some tips that can make the difference between your success or your failure.

The biggest piece of advice we can give you is, check out the person who is offering you a business and who will become your sponsor. Get this wrong and you will almost certainly be doomed to failure. How do we know?

Easy it happened to us a few years ago & it cost us 2 years of worry, we lost a lot of time, money and effort. So give them a call, make a list of questions and ask for the answers to them. Ask about their background, don’t be afraid to ask. Every question no matter how small or trivial it may seem is important to you, after all it’s your success that’s on the line.

Our second most important tip is make sure you have a back up team behind your sponsor, and the reason is simple if you loose your sponsor who do you turn to? In your early days you will need help, Trust us we only became successful through our present sponsor, without our sponsors knowledge we would have failed in a matter of weeks.

So take a look around & choose wisely, Karen & I wish you well whatever you choose to do. Be sure though that you never end up with these words on your mind.

“I Wish I Had Done That”  http://www.incomepool.com

  Robert Waugh.

Why do I support a strike by UNISON members?  Because improving the pay of the low paid in the economic climate caused by Brownian-Darlingian economic mismanagement, the 'credit crisis' and rising prices is morally right and socially just. 

Let's clarify two facts to begin with.  First, 250,000 low-paid public sector workers on £6.50 an hour (of whom 75% are women, according to UNISON) have rejected a derisory 2.45% pay offer.  So it's not just about low-paid workers (on around £13k a year for a 40-hour week) who need improved pay in order to be able to pay the bills, school uniforms, mortgage or rent etc, but it's about equal pay for women.  These workers provide essential services such as:

social workers, housing benefit workers, rent collectors refuse workers, school meals staff, teaching assistants, cooks, cleaners, architects and surveyors.

These workers have been hammered by the 10p tax rate debacle and by other factors such as rising petrol and food prices.  They're now seeking a 6%, or 50p an hour, increase in their pay.  Darling's attitude is that, 'we have introduced the minimum wage so there.'  However, it was never supposed to be a maximum wage. 

Second, the economic fallacy that increasing the wages of low-paid public sector workers would be inflationary.  This is an outright lie.  This is a small part of the workforce which is in the public sector - therefore, their wage increases do not increase prices of private sector goods and services. 

Yes, the money would have to come from somewhere - council tax or from Central Government - but it is simply not right to say that this scenario is similar to the 1970s winter of discontent.  There is no hyperinflation like then and food price rises are largely due to external factors as well as the actions of City speculators and the biofuel industry, as last night's Dispatches reported.

So there will be a strike and hopefully the Government and the councils' employer association will see sense on this matter.  And save these low-paid workers from financial ruin.  But let's not forget that the Government has got these workers into this mess with its policies. 

UNISON should have broken its links with the Labour Party in the interests of its members - do low-paid union members really wish to see their money go into the coffers of the Government that has ruined them?  And the union should not bankroll Labour at the next election - all they'll get is slapped in the face.

Amazing as may sound to many trade unionists, the interests of UNISON members would be better served by a Government that implements radical low-tax policies for low-paid workers (as advocated by Conservative Home's Tim Montgomerie).  If public sector workers on £6.50 an hour could keep more of their own money, then there wouldn't be any need for this strike. 

The ruling says that the clock for the statute of limitations on wage discrimination begins running when the employer first makes the decision to discriminate, and does not run for all the subsequent months or years that the disparate paychecks are mailed. So, in other words, if you didn't know when you were hired, and for the next 180 days, that you are being discriminated against, you are screwed. And let's face it, how many of us are going to have the balls to start asking our co-workers who do the same job, when we are new on the job, if they earn more than us?

That's how the justice system works under a republican government. Why do I say that? Well, I say that because senate republicans just blocked a bill that would have overturned the Supreme Court's ruling (the supreme court which of course is staffed by Bush puppets at the moment). The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, already passed by the House, would have reinstated the law as it was interpreted by most appellate courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in other words that every single discriminatory paycheck represents a new act of discrimination and that the 180-day period begins anew with every one.

As it stands now, unless you know when you are first hired that you are earning less than your  male counterparts, well, that's just your tough luck. And this, apparently, was done to "protect" us women - read "stupid women"(how  fricking condescending can the republicans be???)—from the greedy clutches of unprincipled plaintiffs' attorneys and from women's own stupid inclination to sit around for years—decades even—while being screwed over financially before they bring suit. That means they were, in effect, just protecting us from the dangerous laws that protect us. Well, ain't that just nice and purdy. Thank you Mr. Republican Senator for saving little ol' me from myself and from my obtaining justice, little ol' me being nuttin' but a woman wouldn't know nothing about such complicated matters. @@

The time to be heard is now. Write to members of this Committee and your Senator to ask her (or him) to correct the inequity of the Ledbetter decision. And sign the petition at www.momsrising.org in support of this law.

President George W. Bush plans to veto the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay. Let your Senator know that we won't rest our case until such time as our anti-discrimination laws live up to the original intent of expanding opportunity.

People, we simply HAVE to vote in a democratic, humanitarian, non-dictatorial, intelligence-based government this next time around.

I want to provide some comforting thoughts to those out there who feel that somehow women's civil rights were eroded today...

Women are gonna be just fine.

First, the notion that a gender income gap exists as a result of discrimination is exaggerated and simply specious. Women in the aggregate earn less than men, not because they're judged by different standards, but because of childbearing and rearing, and differences in experience and interests. Most women give birth to children, after which many decide to stay out of the workforce for some time. Interruptions of their careers costs them work experience and seniority, which affects their incomes relative to men who work continuously in the meantime. Moreover, most studies measuring income differences only compare weekly salaries, which overstates the gap because women generally work fewer hours per week. In contrast, women who are similarly situated to men and don't have children earn slightly more.

Simple statistics don't take these factors into account, yet women's groups continue to make vacuous claims like "women earn 77 cents to a man's dollar." Such assertions become silly once you disaggregate the numbers and realize that the gap is predominantly attributable to preferences and choices between the sexes rather than bias and discrimination. The differences in domestic responsibilities and their effect on income cannot be dismissed in the debate.

Second, employers face competitive labor markets. If they discriminate against women with similar experience and skills, employers run the risk of being left at a competitive disadvantage in industries where there is a high demand for labor. A simple Google search for "Best Employers" will bring up thousands of employer websites, all boasting that one publication or another has named them this year's best employer for women. The fact that firms so vigorously try to enhance their reputations as 'women-friendly' further suggests that competition for labor absolutely includes women, and that it's to their advantage to attract the most qualified job applicants, irrespective of gender. The implication of this, of course, is that to attract the most qualified job applicants you must offer competitive and equal pay.

Third, don't underestimate the deterrent effect of litigation, especially when punitive damages are involved. With the plaintiffs' bar more than happy to play "Gotcha!", an employer would be committing financial suicide by short-changing women. But make no mistake, too much deterrence can be dangerous. The threat of punitive damages is often leveraged by plaintiffs' lawyers to exploit innocent firms' fears of protracted and costly litigation in order to extract settlements. The easier it becomes to sue, the more tempting it becomes to abuse the power of litigation. If the 180-day limit was extended to apply to any paycheck, as the Democrats wanted, you would certainly be opening the door to more abusive lawsuits. Employers' resultant higher cost of doing business would harm everyone --firms, employees, consumers-- except the lawyers.

John McCain was right: This kind of legislation does open all kinds of problems.

Republican members mainly sided with President Bush on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill after he indicated his intention to veto the measure if sent to his desk in its current form.

Here is a brief summary of the fair pay legislation from a previous post on this blog:

This is the bill that would reverse a 2007 Supreme Court decision that upheld a rule stating that pay discrimination complaints must be filed within 180 days after occurring. That decision was a very close 5-4 margin. The case arose after Lilly Ledbetter, an employee at a Goodyear Tire Plant in Alabama, claimed she was not equally compensated over her career when compared with male workers at the plant. She was originally awarded some $3.5 million in damages by a jury before an appeals court reversed the decision based on the 180 day rule. That led the case to the Supreme Court where Ms. Ledbetter lost by a narrow margin.

So why the unusually late start to legislative work? Republican members objected to the Democrats' request to delay consideration of the veterans' legislation so members could be present for an unrelated vote on a fair pay bill. Senate rules mandate that consideration of the bill which received a cloture vote, as the veterans' bill did yesterday, must begin the next day approximately one hour after the session has begun. That means that Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) was forced to delay the start of today's session to a time when all his members could be in attendance for the unrelated equal pay vote before the one hour time allotment is reached. Yes, it's quite the procedural mess. The bottom line is the Senate usually has leeway with these various procedural hurdles because of unanimous consent requests to change the rules. In this case, however, Republican members are forcing them to play by those rules.

Once the time is up and the Senate reconvenes, they will move to a procedural (cloture) vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 2831). This is the bill that would reverse a 2007 Supreme Court decision that upheld a rule stating that pay discrimination complaints must be filed within 180 days after occurring. That decision was a very close 5-4 margin. The case arose after Lilly Ledbetter, an employee at a Goodyear Tire Plant in Alabama, claimed she was not equally compensated over her career when compared with male workers at the plant. She was originally awarded some $3.5 million in damages by a jury before an appeals court reversed the decision based on the 180 day rule. That led the case to the Supreme Court where Ms. Ledbetter lost by a narrow margin.

H.R. 2831 would reverse that decision by changing language in the Civil Rights Act and extending the amount of time an individual has to file a discrimination complaint against their employer. The bill obviously has wide Democratic support but it is unclear how many Republican members will cross over, especially more conservative members who may not want to reverse a decision led by President Bush's recent Supreme Court nominees (Roberts and Alito).

Update: Roll Call reports that the late start to today's session is meant to accommodate the schedules of the two Democratic contenders for president, Senator Obama (D-IL) and Senator Clinton (D-NY). Majority Leader Reid, despite complaints of Republican delays on the Veterans' bill, wanted to push back the vote on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Bill until both Senators could attend. This signals that the cloture vote may be a close one.

This isn't directly related to birth control, but I think gender equality is important in talking and making decisions about birth control, so pushing for it in a more public arena can only help bring it about privately. Women in America earn less than 80% of what men earn, and for African-Americans and Hispanics, the numbers are 63% and 52%, respectively. The issue of race and poverty (and the issue of gender and poverty) is also relevant to sex education and access to information about birth control. When the structures that should be providing this information fail--and they do--the people with the most outside resources come out the best.

You can show your support for fair pay for women by contacting your Senators and telling them how you feel about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would better enable workers who are victims of discrimination to seek compensation from their employers through the law. If you're fortunate enough to live in Texas, you can join me in writing to John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, or you can use the form provided by the National Women's Law Center. I wouldn't feel bad about doing that since you're lucky to even get a form letter back from either of those two.

Hey readers, today is Blog for Fair Pay Day! Meaning people all over are blogging about this important issue. Some facts, briefly:

• Women in the United States are still paid only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men;
• African-American women earn only 63 cents; and
• Latinas earn only 52 cents for every dollar paid to white men.
• Women at law firms are making up to $90,000 LESS than their male counterparts. (While $90,000 is a nice salary, it's bullshit when an equally qualified man doing the same exact job as you is making $180,000!)

Outraged? Want to do something? Contact your Senators and urge them to vote yes on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. (Formerly the Fair Pay Restoration Act). 

We're expecting a vote in the Senate on this bill as early as next week. If you want to EMAIL your senator DIRECTLY, go to: http://action.nwlc.org/fairpayaction. 

Nike is one of the biggest private
employers in Vietnam

Nike officials did not immediately respond to questions about the strike.

Ching Luh plant is one of 10 factories that contract with Nike to produce sneakers in Vietnam.

Consumer prices in Vietnam are 19% higher than they were a year ago, according to government figures. Hanoi responded in January by increasing the minimum wage foreign-owned companies are required to pay by roughly 13%.

As inflation has picked up in recent years, strikes have become more common, with workers demanding higher pay and better working conditions. (AP)
**********************

From the BBC

More than 20,000 workers at a factory in Vietnam that makes shoes for Nike have gone on strike demanding higher pay to cope with rising inflation.

The average monthly salary at the Taiwanese-owned plant is about $59 (£30), 14% more than the minimum wage.

The workers, who produce about 12% of the 75 million pairs of shoes made for Nike in Vietnam a year, want a 20% pay rise and better canteen lunches.

Strikes in Vietnam are becoming more common as living costs have surged.

Last November, workers at a South-Korean-owned Nike factory in Vietnam walked out in a similar pay dispute.

Nike spokesman Chris Helzer said: "We recognize the impact that rising inflation has had on the people of Vietnam, and hope the situation will be resolved quickly and amicably."

Inflation currently stands at about 9.2% after rising 10% last year.

The strike affects the Ching Luh plant in the southern part of the country. It is one of 10 factories in Vietnam that produces footwear for US athletics giant Nike. ]]> http://fakekevinrudd.wordpress.com/?p=27 Fri, 14 Mar 2008 04:01:29 +0000 Kevin http://fakekevinrudd.wordpress.com/?p=27 I realise that there are some people of a progressive bent who believe that Malcolm Turnbull will make a good opposition leader because he's not as extreme as the bulk of the Liberal Party and will soften the party somewhat, I'm sorry to be so blunt friends, but you are deluding yourselves. Malcolm "Goldman Sachs" Turnbull is a first class prat, whose only interests in life are directly related to his own wealth and power. Malcolm doesn't care who or what he has to trample to achieve his aims and believes that his wealth somehow is a measure of his good judgement, rather than his family connections and the early patronage of Kerry Packer.

Today St. Malcolm decided to weigh in on the Fair Pay Commission, a second rate replacement for the Industrial Relations Commission that the Howard Government designed to help their attack on working families. Malcolm Turnbull knows as much about low paid workers as Britney Spears does about Jean Piaget's theory of cognitive development, so in true Liberal Party style he decided to spread his ignorance as far and wide as possible. Malcolm this morning accused us of ignoring Treasury's advice regarding the upcoming wage case and then carried on demanding that we release the Treasury papers to prove that we're not making things up. This is despite Ken Henry backing our version of events to the hilt.

I'll spell it out for you again guys, things have changed. You're no longer in charge. You don't get to bully the public service any more. We listen to the experts in the public service, just like we said we would, because we don't carry around the god complexes that you lot have. You had eleven and a half years to make changes to the country and it's taken you six months to repudiate almost all of them, that makes you a pack of spineless, mindless speedhumps. We can't fix all of your mistakes in six months, that's why we're probably going to be in power for at least three terms. Now please go and spend your time fighting over the Night Watchman's chair, trying to merge with the Nationals and talking to your broker while we get on with running the country.

A different part of the Union - it looks like the pay round is getting interesting this year.

Following pay negotiations between BT and Connect, BT has now made its final offer on 2007-2008 pay to Band 1 staff, but has so far chosen not to make any offer to Bands 2 and 3.

Connect considers the offer that has been made to Band 1 staff to be unacceptable and is disappointed that the company has not chosen to make an offer for members at Bands 2 and 3.  The final say on what happens next rests with Connect members.

Connect has a pay campaign site the make bt pay fair site.