Oregon Restaurants will charge female customers 23% less than male customers

[darin]

wow...IDIOTS.



BAKER CITY, Ore. (AP) - At least five restaurants here say they will drop prices for women patrons by 23 percent Tuesday to reflect a conclusion that American women, on average, earn that much less than men.

"I was in the corporate world before we moved to Baker City," said Brandi Ulrey, who with her husband Jake owns the Baker City Cafe.

"I understand how it is to earn a smaller paycheck than a man."

The cafe will be joined by the Main Event, Little Pig, Chamealeon and L&J Deli.

The event sponsor, the American Association of American Women, says 23 percent of the year will have passed, and that that's how many extra days women would have to work this year to make what similarly trained and educated men would make. The association has a Baker County chapter.

The advocacy organization plans to release a study on pay equity Monday.

Ulrey said the discount is more about creating awareness than making a difference in a life.

"There are so many women who are in the same boat. It's our duty as business owners and leaders in the community to make people understand the disparity," she said.

Jay Raffety, owner of The Main Event, says he is fully supportive.

"This is a good thing the AAUW is doing," he said. "We're hoping quite a few women will come in that day."

Liz Estabrooks, the local event organizer, said many working women shy away from pushing the pay equity issue for fear of being fired.

"Pay equity is protected by law, but it's like sexual harassment," she said. "Women tend not to fight it because they might lose their job."

An AAUW survey concludes that many employers are unwilling to promote young women because they may leave to have children and may prioritize family over work.

"It's always been used as an excuse, that women are on a different career track," Estabrooks said. "It's also been used as an excuse not to hire women, because they'd just quit anyway or at least take time off to have their babies. It's a lot like the illegal alien issue," she added.

"Bosses figure they'll pay you less because you'll take less. Then people get mad at them because they will work for less."

http://www.komotv.com/news/local/7134711.html



To be fair and balanced:



The 76-cent myth
Do women make less than men? The wage-gap ratio isn't the best gauge for pay discrimination, and overemphasizing it can undermine an important issue.

By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 21, 2006: 5:51 PM EST


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - When you have a legitimate point to make, it can undercut your argument to rely heavily on a sound-bite statistic that easily can be misinterpreted.

When it comes to pay discrimination, the one statistic you hear over and over is that women make only 76 cents for every dollar a man earns.

To the average person, that ratio gives the false impression that any woman working is at risk of being paid 24 cents less per dollar than a man in the same position.

But all the wage-gap ratio reflects is a comparison of the median earnings of all working women and men who log at least 35 hours a week on the job, any job. That's it.

It doesn't compare those with equal work, equal training, equal education or equal tenure. Nor does it take into account the hours of overtime worked.

The wage gap, in short, "is a good measure of inequality, not necessarily a measure of discrimination," said Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research.

Unequal doesn't always mean unfair. Much depends on the reasons for disparity. And, Hartmann notes, "parsing out (the reasons for the gap) is difficult to do."

Factors may include: more women choose lower-paying professions than men; they move in and out of the workforce more frequently; and they work fewer paid hours on average.

Why that's the case may have to do in part with the fact that women are still society's primary caregivers, that some higher-paying professions require either too much time away from home or are still less hospitable to women than they should be.


That's not to say things are PERFECT according to that author...read the rest (which isn't 100% (at times) on-topic)

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/index.htm

[LiberalNation]

Cool, that's nice of em.

[theHawk]

Stop DMP, you're going to melt the minds of feminazis.

[Mr. P]

Cool, that's nice of em.

Yea think? What if they reduce the employee pay by 23% to compensate?
What if a 23% reduction in income puts them out of business and folks lose jobs?

It's a dumb as hell business move unless they have a way to recapture that 23%. IMO

My guess is it's all smoke an mirrors to increase business..They ain't giving 23% of their income up, it's in there somewhere. If not they deserve to go broke and when the scam is discovered people should stop doing business with them.

[manu1959]

let the cross dressing begin....

[Mr. P]

let the cross dressing begin....

:laugh2:

[5stringJeff]

let the cross dressing begin....

My thoughts exactly. What if you tell the restaurant owners that you're a pre-op transsexual?

[darin]

I smell a lawsuit. :) I should make a trip down to one of those places - me and mary...on seperate checks...then sue them for sex discrimination. :)

[KarlMarx]

The restaurant can charge any which way it pleases, after all, it is private property.

Now, if someone decides that they've been discriminated against per the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on sex, among other things... well.. they can do that, too.

And if some of us decide to boycott stupid, socialistic thinking Oregonian restaurants because we don't like their politics, we can do that too.

[manu1959]

My thoughts exactly. What if you tell the restaurant owners that you're a pre-op transsexual?

you would probably get your meal for free.....

[manu1959]

this wouldn't fly in california

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/07/10/091747.php

Then there's this case. On Mother's Day 2005, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim gave away tote bags to women attendees 18 or over. Through the season, different giveaways are available to different groups of fans. An LA man sued because he attended on that Mother's Day and did not get a bag. The suit is a class action which seeks $4000 for each man of any age and each person under 18 who did not get a bag that day.

The Pittsburgh Pirates' Class AA team has a unique response to the news, holding a "Salute to Frivolous Lawsuit Night":

The first 137 women will get lukewarm coffee (so they don't get burned), the first 137 kids will be given beach balls (and a warning not to swallow them) and the first 137 men will be given a free pink tote bag (a nod to a man who sued the Los Angeles Angels because he didn't get a tote bag given away for Mother's Day.)

[darin]

I remember a seattle guy sued because during 'ladies nite' clubs gave women discounts.

[Pale Rider]

And how about the men that sued because they wanted to work at Hooters?

Stupid people.

[Mr. P]

I remember a seattle guy sued because during 'ladies nite' clubs gave women discounts.

What a dumb ass! Doesn't he know ladies night is set up to get em drunk fast an cheap, then the guys move in and it's like shooting ducks in a barrel. :laugh2:

Ladies night,.... ladies night..... OH what a site!!:dance:

[LiberalNation]

Yes it's a very bad business move. I'm sure they think they can handle it though or wouldn't be doing this. Still cool.

[MtnBiker]

The restaurant will have to be profitable to stay in business. Profit margins are typically small to begin with. A 23% reduction of menu cost to females would certianly put the business in a loss situation. If they want to continue to be in business they will need to charge the male customers more to make up for the 23% loss from female customers.

How many men will eat there with out a female companion? My guess, none! How long with the restaurant keep its doors open? My guess, not long.

[gabosaurus]

It could also be that women are better customers who are easier on the eye than male customers. We are the basic fabric of modern society.
Also, if enforcing a stereotype can get us a price break, I am all for it. :clap:

[Birdzeye]

Also from the thread parent's link:


However, while those factors account for a good portion of the wage gap, actual pay discrimination likely accounts for the balance, experts say.

Hartmann believes discrimination accounts for between 25 percent and 33 percent of the wage gap. Compensation specialist Gary Thornton, a principal in the HR management consulting firm Thornton & Associates, figures at least 10 percent to 15 percent does.

Whatever the breakout, there certainly are numerous studies that show discrimination -- however unconscious -- still exists. For instance:


A recent Cornell study found that female job applicants with children would be less likely to get hired, and if they do, would be paid a lower salary than other candidates, male and female. By contrast, male applicants with children would be offered a higher salary than non-fathers and other mothers.


A recent Carnegie Mellon study found that female job applicants who tried to negotiate a higher salary were less likely to be hired by male managers, while male applicants were not.
Then there's the phenomenon of wages going down when more women move into a field.

Take human resources, now a female-dominated profession. I asked Thornton if he thinks female human-resource managers today are paid as well as he and his male colleagues were 15 years ago. "Not at all," he said. He estimates that in inflation-adjusted terms they're paid about 20 percent less.

Why? "That's the million-dollar question," he said. "There are many things at play. But we still have a long way to go to change unintentional discrimination."

A few years back, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that its women scientists were routinely given less pay, space, funding and rewards than their male colleagues.

"Did anyone intentionally give them smaller offices and labs? Probably not. It's just one of those things (that) accumulate and add up to barriers and institutional discrimination," Hartmann said.



Pay discrimination sucks. Been there, done that. I solved my problem by getting a better job, but there's no damned excuse for the discrimination in the first place.

[darin]

there's no damned excuse for the discrimination in the first place.

Unless you own a business and want to hire the BEST qualified applicant - not merely 'a' qualified applicant. ;)

Would you picket Victoria's Secret? When I was in college I applied for a Retail job there. They told me "Men are not allowed to work on the floor - only in the warehouse!"

[darin]

It could also be that women are better customers who are easier on the eye than male customers. We are the basic fabric of modern society.
Also, if enforcing a stereotype can get us a price break, I am all for it. :clap:

I know a few men who are far better looking than MOST women I've seen.

:)

[KitchenKitten99]

Unless you own a business and want to hire the BEST qualified applicant - not merely 'a' qualified applicant. ;)

Would you picket Victoria's Secret? When I was in college I applied for a Retail job there. They told me "Men are not allowed to work on the floor - only in the warehouse!"

Ha ha... too funny!

That whole thing isn't a bad thing though. The floor workers are required to be female because VS offers custom-fittings for bras. This means contact with top-nude women (as I am sure was your real reason for applying, not because you were interested in the employee discount), and if men (gay or straight) were allowed to do that, the company would be putting themselves at risk for some hefty sexual harassment lawsuits.

[gabosaurus]

I know a few men who are far better looking than MOST women I've seen.

Sounds HAWT to me! Don't tell Pale Rider about oogling those men though. He would be seriously down on your arse.

[Abbey Marie]

I smell a lawsuit. :) I should make a trip down to one of those places - me and mary...on seperate checks...then sue them for sex discrimination. :)

Figuring out a joint tip will be a nightmare. :coffee:

[KarlMarx]

I am going to make a statement that should raise some feminists' hackles...

I don't believe that the Women's Movement had much of anything to do with Women's advancements in society. There... women are in the workplace because economic forces made discrimination against them too expensive.

IN short, it started when the demand for labor out paced the supply of qualified men.

Discrimination against women was already made law within a year of Betty Friedan's feminist manifesto, "The Feminine Mystique" which is considered the beginning of the Women's movement. I doubt that the publishing of that book had anything to do with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In short, except for creating a heightened sense of animosity and distrust between the sexes and promoting lesbianism and abortion, the Women's Movement hasn't accomplished anything.

Now, someone may prove me wrong... but let's see.

[Birdzeye]

Unless you own a business and want to hire the BEST qualified applicant - not merely 'a' qualified applicant. ;)

Would you picket Victoria's Secret? When I was in college I applied for a Retail job there. They told me "Men are not allowed to work on the floor - only in the warehouse!"

And what do you think of the situation where women are passed over for hiring or promotions in favor of less qualified men? Been there done that. It sucks.

[darin]

And what do you think of the situation where women are passed over for hiring or promotions in favor of less qualified men? Been there done that. It sucks.

It's all about perspective. From the perspective of somebody who didn't get the job, they may be 'more-qualified' than the person selected. However, sometimes management selects who they think will best-serve the company, regardless of credentials. I was selected for this job over two others with degrees. They were 'more qualified' on paper. But I 'know' the army and how to 'talk' army. I had an immeasurable foundation of experience 'more qualified' personnel did not possess.

:)

[darin]

Ha ha... too funny!

That whole thing isn't a bad thing though. The floor workers are required to be female because VS offers custom-fittings for bras. This means contact with top-nude women (as I am sure was your real reason for applying, not because you were interested in the employee discount), and if men (gay or straight) were allowed to do that, the company would be putting themselves at risk for some hefty sexual harassment lawsuits.

Begs the question; Does Victoria's secret hire Lesbian women to work the retail floor?

[TheStripey1]

wow...IDIOTS.




To be fair and balanced:



That's not to say things are PERFECT according to that author...read the rest (which isn't 100% (at times) on-topic)

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/index.htm

wow... I wonder how many men will opt for a sex change operation so they won't have to pay full price for their meals...

laffs...

[TheStripey1]

My thoughts exactly. What if you tell the restaurant owners that you're a pre-op transsexual?

they'd probably say...

sorry charlie... you pay full price...

[Birdzeye]

wow... I wonder how many men will opt for a sex change operation so they won't have to pay full price for their meals...

laffs...

Just remember guys, if you get that sex change, your haircut bills will go up and you'll be paying more than the guys!

[Abbey Marie]

wow... I wonder how many men will opt for a sex change operation so they won't have to pay full price for their meals...

laffs...

Nah. All they'd have to do is dress up like a woman, like the Prom "King" in another thread. Apparently, that's all it takes to be granted "other gender" status.

[Abbey Marie]

Just remember guys, if you get that sex change, your haircut bills will go up and you'll be paying more than the guys!

And for laundry services, too. :D

[TheStripey1]

The restaurant can charge any which way it pleases, after all, it is private property.

Now, if someone decides that they've been discriminated against per the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination based on sex, among other things... well.. they can do that, too.

And if some of us decide to boycott stupid, socialistic thinking Oregonian restaurants because we don't like their politics, we can do that too.

what if you had 6 daughters? You could save a passle of scooties by eating there...

and... Karl? I really don't think they'll miss your business, since your 2500+ miles away...

laffs...

[Birdzeye]

It's all about perspective. From the perspective of somebody who didn't get the job, they may be 'more-qualified' than the person selected. However, sometimes management selects who they think will best-serve the company, regardless of credentials. I was selected for this job over two others with degrees. They were 'more qualified' on paper. But I 'know' the army and how to 'talk' army. I had an immeasurable foundation of experience 'more qualified' personnel did not possess.

:)


Yeah, and some of the bozos I worked for had an uncanny way of finding MEN the "most qualified!" When I had to work beside these "most qualified" guys and had to fix their mistakes repeatedly, I realized what a crock that was!

:mad:

[TheStripey1]

I remember a seattle guy sued because during 'ladies nite' clubs gave women discounts.

what was the outcome of the suit?

[TheStripey1]

And how about the men that sued because they wanted to work at Hooters?

Stupid people.

:eek: you're kidding... men wanted to work at Hooters?? why?

[darin]

what was the outcome of the suit?

No idea.

[Birdzeye]

:eek: you're kidding... men wanted to work at Hooters?? why?

Hey! Shouldn't we chicks have someone to ogle while we're having dinner!? :coffee:

[TheStripey1]

Unless you own a business and want to hire the BEST qualified applicant - not merely 'a' qualified applicant. ;)

Would you picket Victoria's Secret? When I was in college I applied for a Retail job there. They told me "Men are not allowed to work on the floor - only in the warehouse!"

Did you sue? Or just say, ok... I'll look elsewhere... or... did you take the job in the warehouse? And I'd be willing to bet that the warehouse job paid more...

[TheStripey1]

I know a few men who are far better looking than MOST women I've seen.

:)

:eek

washington men are better looking than washington women???

crosses that state off as one to visit...

[darin]

:eek

washington men are better looking than washington women???

crosses that state off as one to visit...

Well..it starts when I look in the mirror. :D




Did you sue? Or just say, ok... I'll look elsewhere... or... did you take the job in the warehouse? And I'd be willing to bet that the warehouse job paid more...


Nope, I laughed it off because it made 'common sense' to me that women typically would NOT buy from an underwear store where MEN helped them get in and out of their skivvies. See, I'm a conservative. I have common-sense.

:D

[TheStripey1]

Begs the question; Does Victoria's secret hire Lesbian women to work the retail floor?


Good question... laffs...

[TheStripey1]

Just remember guys, if you get that sex change, your haircut bills will go up and you'll be paying more than the guys!

Laffs...

[TheStripey1]

Nah. All they'd have to do is dress up like a woman, like the Prom "King" in another thread. Apparently, that's all it takes to be granted "other gender" status.

hadn't thought of that... laffs... kind of like that FBI guy... J. Edgar Hoover...

cross dressers...

[TheStripey1]

Hey! Shouldn't we chicks have someone to ogle while we're having dinner!? :coffee:

uhhhhhhhhhhh... laffs... good point... but hopefully, your date will be manly enough to keep your eyes from wandering...

[TheStripey1]

Well..it starts when I look in the mirror. :D






Nope, I laughed it off because it made 'common sense' to me that women typically would NOT buy from an underwear store where MEN helped them get in and out of their skivvies. See, I'm a conservative. I have common-sense.

:D

:lmao: x2...

[KarlMarx]

I really don't think they'll miss your business, since your 2500+ miles away...

laffs...

True, unless they had REALLY good burgers

[5stringJeff]

Also from the thread parent's link:



Pay discrimination sucks. Been there, done that. I solved my problem by getting a better job, but there's no damned excuse for the discrimination in the first place.

Your piece didn't attempt to answer the question "why." I'll offer up a couple of guesses.

When women have children, many choose to leave the workplace for a period of time. Then, when they re-enter the workplace, they are older, but have the same amount of experience as people significantly younger. Thus, lower pay than men of the same age. Alternately, those women with significant experience still need time to catch back up with what's happened in their industry within the last X numbers of years since they last worked.

A woman without children, especially one in her 30's may be perceived as more of a risk to leave work as their biological clock starts ticking louder. Thus, all other things being equal, men may be perceived to be more 'stable' than women, in that men will definitely not be leaving work to have a child, while the childless woman very well might.

[Birdzeye]

Your piece didn't attempt to answer the question "why." I'll offer up a couple of guesses.

When women have children, many choose to leave the workplace for a period of time. Then, when they re-enter the workplace, they are older, but have the same amount of experience as people significantly younger. Thus, lower pay than men of the same age. Alternately, those women with significant experience still need time to catch back up with what's happened in their industry within the last X numbers of years since they last worked.

A woman without children, especially one in her 30's may be perceived as more of a risk to leave work as their biological clock starts ticking louder. Thus, all other things being equal, men may be perceived to be more 'stable' than women, in that men will definitely not be leaving work to have a child, while the childless woman very well might.


I thought conservatives were pushing the idea that the person most qualified for the job should get it. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should re-read what I posted and you'll see the part that said:


A recent Carnegie Mellon study found that female job applicants who tried to negotiate a higher salary were less likely to be hired by male managers, while male applicants were not.


In this case, women are being punished for merely trying to negotiate a higher salary, while men aren't.

Finally, you have no idea of the "why." It could be as you state, or maybe not. Why do you dismiss the possibility that it is good old fashioned sex discrimination and not something excusable?

[5stringJeff]

I thought conservatives were pushing the idea that the person most qualified for the job should get it. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you should re-read what I posted and you'll see the part that said:



In this case, women are being punished for merely trying to negotiate a higher salary, while men aren't.

Finally, you have no idea of the "why." It could be as you state, or maybe not. Why do you dismiss the possibility that it is good old fashioned sex discrimination and not something excusable?

You're right, I have no idea why. I haven't studied statistics, and I haven't researched the issue as much as others. As I said in my post, I was offering up some guesses. It may very well be sex discrimination in some cases. It may very well not be sex discrimination in many cases as well.

[Hobbit]

Yea think? What if they reduce the employee pay by 23% to compensate?
What if a 23% reduction in income puts them out of business and folks lose jobs?

It's a dumb as hell business move unless they have a way to recapture that 23%. IMO

My guess is it's all smoke an mirrors to increase business..They ain't giving 23% of their income up, it's in there somewhere. If not they deserve to go broke and when the scam is discovered people should stop doing business with them.

They'll reduce men's pay by 23% to compensate. Call it a penis tax.

[Mr. P]

They'll reduce men's pay by 23% to compensate. Call it a penis tax.

My guess is more women work there than men.

[MtnBiker]

I wonder if the restaurant will charge less for younger people say 20 or younger, they earn much less money than older males.

[Mr. P]

I wonder if the restaurant will charge less for younger people say 20 or younger, they earn much less money than older males.

I guess the dishwasher works for free now. Poor bastard.

[Yurt]

This is such crap, my mom, like, makes, like way more money than me...

[Birdzeye]

This is such crap, my mom, like, makes, like way more money than me...

I sure hope so. And I wonder how much more she'd be making if she were a guy.

[shattered]

I'd be for it.. I don't eat anywhere NEAR what a guy eats, but they dump the same portion on my plate.. Drop the cost, lower the portion, add a "ladies" menu, and you're good to go. :D

KIDDING! Sheesh.

[darin]

I sure hope so. And I wonder how much more she'd be making if she were a guy.

You seem to have a victim's mentality. There's a wage gap, but it's NOT because women are women, it's for all the OTHER variables women CAN control.

[darin]

Ya know? The more I think about it - The places should simply ask to see ppl's paycheck stubs and assign them to a 'price bracket'. That's 'fair' right?

What's FAIR is charging EVERYBODY the SAME COST for the SAME goods/service.

I wonder if they are scewing their waitstaff - who will now have some motivation to provide less service, or no service to tables w/ women whose bill will be 23% LESS than a man-table?

[Nienna]

I'd be for it.. I don't eat anywhere NEAR what a guy eats, but they dump the same portion on my plate.. Drop the cost, lower the portion, add a "ladies" menu, and you're good to go. :D

KIDDING! Sheesh.

That's an AWESOME idea! We aren't allowed to order off the kids' menu, but the portions in most restaurants are HUGE!. A ladies' menu--- brilliant!

:)

[darin]

That's an AWESOME idea! We aren't allowed to order off the kids' menu, but the portions in most restaurants are HUGE!. A ladies' menu--- brilliant!

:)

heh...Some ladies in Spanaway WA, may take issue. Have you SEEN how much people eat nowadays? :(

[CockySOB]

That's an AWESOME idea! We aren't allowed to order off the kids' menu, but the portions in most restaurants are HUGE!. A ladies' menu--- brilliant!

:)

To be honest, all the portions could be downsized a bit. Rather than *more* food, I'd like to see *better* food. Better tasting and better for us.

But then again, that's why I patronize the restaurants I do - they deliver quality over quantity.

[Birdzeye]

You seem to have a victim's mentality. There's a wage gap, but it's NOT because women are women, it's for all the OTHER variables women CAN control.

Typical sexist response to legitimate complaints by women about how they're treated in the workplace, especially on payday.

From another thread:


U.S. gender pay gap emerges early, study finds


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070423/...kmppMMdEx34T0D

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A dramatic pay gap emerges between women and men in America the year after they graduate from college and widens over the ensuing decade, according to research released on Monday.

One year out of college, women working full time earn 80 percent of what men earn, according to the study by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, based in Washington D.C.

Ten years later, women earn 69 percent as much as men earn, it said.

Even as the study accounted for such factors as the number of hours worked, occupations or parenthood, the gap persisted, researchers said.

"If a woman and a man make the same choices, will they receive the same pay?" the study asked. "The answer is no." These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force," it said.


Specifically, about one-quarter of the pay gap is attributable to gender -- 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation, it said.

One year out of college, men and women should arguably be the least likely to show a gender pay gap, the study said, since neither tend to be parents yet and they enter the work force without significant experience.


"It surprised me that it was already apparent one year out of college, and that it widens over the first 10 years," Catherine Hill, AAUW director of research, told Reuters.

Among factors found to make a difference in pay, the choice of fields of concentration in college were significant, the study found. Female students tended to study areas with lower pay, such as education, health and psychology, while male students dominated higher-paying fields such as engineering, mathematics and physical sciences, it said.

Even so, one year after graduation, a pay gap turned up between women and men who studied the same fields.

In education, women earn 95 percent as much as their male colleagues earn, while in math, women earn 76 percent as much as men earn, the study showed.

While in college, the study showed, women outperformed men academically, and their grade point averages were higher in every college major.

Parenthood affected men and women in vividly different ways. The study showed mothers more likely than fathers, or other women, to work part time or take leaves.

Among women who graduated from college in 1992-93, more than one-fifth of mothers were out of the work force a decade later, and another 17 percent were working part time, it said.

In the same class, less than 2 percent of fathers were out of the work force in 2003, and less than 2 percent were working part time, it said.

The study, entitled "Behind the Pay Gap," used data from the U.S. Department of Education. It analyzed some 9,000 college graduates from 1992-93 and more than 10,000 from 1999-2000.

[darin]

Typical sexist response to legitimate complaints by women about how they're treated in the workplace, especially on payday.


That's a pretty crappy claim to make about me; do you think your case is made stronger by insulting me?
It's because women aren't treated any differently - If a women is NOT the-most-qualified, but merely 'qualified', then she should not get the job. Period. Fwiw? The highest-paid person in my division? Yup. A woman. By $40K.

[darin]

To be honest, all the portions could be downsized a bit. Rather than *more* food, I'd like to see *better* food. Better tasting and better for us.

But then again, that's why I patronize the restaurants I do - they deliver quality over quantity.

My brother and I have been kicking around the idea of an eatery with that major focus - Bringing Real Good Food to the layperson. :)

[manu1959]

how do all these women know what everyone makes?.....they gossip with the girls in payroll.....no wonder their boss pays them less...:poke:

[Mr. P]

That's an AWESOME idea! We aren't allowed to order off the kids' menu, but the portions in most restaurants are HUGE!. A ladies' menu--- brilliant!

:)
And it would work too..Reducing the portion results in reduced cost which results in no lose in net income. Like I said in another post, if they can capture that 23% somewhere else they'll be fine, reducing the portion does that by reducing food cost.

EDIT: on the other hand, variables like fixed cost that will not decrease must be considered. Rent/ lease, insurance etc.

[darin]

how do all these women know what everyone makes?.....they gossip with the girls in payroll.....no wonder their boss pays them less...:poke:

Speculation:

"Oh - HE got the promotion because he's a MAN!"

- No, he got it because he doesn't sit around the office and bitch about not getting promoted! :)

[CockySOB]

My brother and I have been kicking around the idea of an eatery with that major focus - Bringing Real Good Food to the layperson. :)

If I lived near a metro area, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Birdzeye]

That's a pretty crappy claim to make about me; do you think your case is made stronger by insulting me?
It's because women aren't treated any differently - If a women is NOT the-most-qualified, but merely 'qualified', then she should not get the job. Period. Fwiw? The highest-paid person in my division? Yup. A woman. By $40K.

I didn't insult you personally. I commented on your crappy vacuous response.

Sure, I agree that the "most qualified" person should get the job, but I've seen how the definition of "most qualified" in some places appears to include having a Y chromosome.

Then when women started getting a leg up on the career ladder, those people who sneered at the women complaining of discrimination suddenly discovered the concept of men as victims.

[darin]

I didn't insult you personally. I commented on your crappy vacuous response.

Sure, I agree that the "most qualified" person should get the job, but I've seen how the definition of "most qualified" in some places appears to include having a Y chromosome.

Then when women started getting a leg up on the career ladder, those people who sneered at the women complaining of discrimination suddenly discovered the concept of men as victims.

You called me a sexist. That's akin to calling somebody a racist, no?

[Mr. P]

If I lived near a metro area, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I do and I won't open a full service place. The business is a nightmare for an owner operator.

[loosecannon]

Unequal doesn't always mean unfair. Much depends on the reasons for disparity. And, Hartmann notes, "parsing out (the reasons for the gap) is difficult to do."


It makes no difference whether or not the inequality is fair, it still exists. It still translates into less money and less purchasing power.

If you believe in the capitalist system then these restuarants can charge diff rates for seniors, children, women and men at their discretion and the marketplace will reward them if it accepts their offerings.

What's the gripe here?

Who should be entitled to cheaper prices?

>children
>seniors
>women

Why are women allowed in free on "ladies night"? Do you have a problem with that?

[Hobbit]

I think the business owner should be allowed to charge anybody whatever she (I'm assuming) wants. However, I think the point being made is asinine, and I won't be buying anything there.

And hey, at least the wage gap makes up for the fact that guys pay for so many of your meals at nice restaurants. We have to make more to afford that crap, not to mention flowers, chocolate, stuffed animals, those fancy pieces of compressed carbon that you WON'T SHUT UP ABOUT!

[loosecannon]

I think the business owner should be allowed to charge anybody whatever she (I'm assuming) wants. However, I think the point being made is asinine, and I won't be buying anything there.

And hey, at least the wage gap makes up for the fact that guys pay for so many of your meals at nice restaurants. We have to make more to afford that crap, not to mention flowers, chocolate, stuffed animals, those fancy pieces of compressed carbon that you WON'T SHUT UP ABOUT!


I can get you a great deal on a 1 carat lump of coal. High carbon too.

[Nienna]

heh...Some ladies in Spanaway WA, may take issue. Have you SEEN how much people eat nowadays? :(

Sometimes, a girlfriend & I will split a plate. But if not, it's usually 2-3 meals for me. I take leftovers. :)

[Yurt]

I sure hope so. And I wonder how much more she'd be making if she were a guy.

More than all the guys who work for her. She is the boss...:salute: