Should we have the right to decide how much is paid?
104468
Your absolutely right, but don't forget that we put these people into office.  When people vote for legislators, they are voting for all the things they want to do for themselves as well.\n\nThere are many congresspersons who vote against raises, but they are often out numbered.  The goal of the people is to vote for those who aren't all about money. \n\nThanks for making me think! :)
546245
I feel that each country or place should have there own minimun wage.  Because from country to country prices vary.
484175
I think logic would tell that what they just did was wrong, unethical and more than likely ILLEGAL.\nYou can't promise a person this wage, and then change it. That'd be like me hiring you, promising you 10 bucks an hour and then you find out that you are only making 8.50..\n\nThey can't rip you off like that. It's an injustice! Fight the power!\n\nSeriously. Go get your money that you worked hard for, and deserve.
619845
Someone or the county itself feels that have a right to payment or cause for action.
1165391
I think rent control ought to be law, It should be 1/4 of your pay a month. If your unemployed and collecting unemployment it should be 1/4 of that. If going to a lesser paying or more paying job it should be adjusted to that pay. Every body should have a right to live in a shelter dwelling. Than living on the streets. that will eliminate have of the homeless on the streets.
182562
Absolutely not. We the American people are the ones that voted them in and we are the ones that should say how much they make and when or if they should ever have a pay raise. They are employed by us and in every other business the boss decides who gets a raise and who doesn't. Put the vote to the people and see how much money we could save on the incredible, ridiculous salaries and benefits these politicians get. I am a registered voter and I do exercise my right to vote each and every time an election comes around.
853387
darn right there should be. say 10% if i make 100 bucks i give the gov 10, if i make 1,000 i give em 100, if i make 1,000,000 i give em 100,000, seems fair to me, unlike now where thoe more i make the less i bring home. before my last pay raise i brought home more money, im paying almost 54% of my income in taxes. the harder i work, the more i pay, for the people who arent working.. thats not fair to me.
559835
If you insist on a dowry, the bride should have every right to insist on viewing the family jewels and see if they are in working order.  No?\n\nI would think that only fair.
542591
YES, if you work just for an hour you deserve to get only an hours pay....if you broke a contract, like say you singed a contract for 40 hours and worked just 1 and then quit, I as an employer, wouldnt pay you anything!
764422
I don't think so, but I would do three things:\n\n1.  Ask them, in writing, what the status is of your paycheck.  Let them know what date you started, and what you believe the pay period to be.\n\n2.  If you were provided an employee manual, read up on the pay period policy.  If you don't have an employee manual, request one-  at the very least ask them to send you their WRITTEN payroll policy.\n\n3.  I would contact your state's labor / employment office and explain to them what's going on.  They should be able to answer your question right away, and possibly contact your employer.\n\nYou aren't asking for anything unreasonable, and they should be able to answer your questions.  You should also keep track of each time you speak with someone about your paycheck (name of person, date, time, what was discussed) in case you have to refer back to it later.  \n\nGood Luck!
1135286
Yes it is perfectly ok.  People who don't ask and people who don't demand to be paid what they are worth are always the ones at the bottom of the pay scale.  You know the people, they are the ones that are shocked when they found out what everyone else is making.
480478
No because there should be a right to free medical care (as in the British Health Service) and to free education throughout life (Life-Long Learning).\n\nWhat bothers me is that some people have to pay, when it should be free for everyone as of right in a civilised society.
975190
Was this what you wanted?\n\nEuropean Court of Justice decides important equal pay case \n26/10/2006\n\nIn one of the most important equal pay cases in the last decade, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that pay scales based on length of service do not generally have to be objectively justified, even though they might result in unequal pay between men and women. \n\nMrs Cadman, who had worked for the Health and Safety Executive for a number of years, discovered she was paid less than the average salary of her male colleagues on the same grade.  The HSE defended her equal pay claim on the basis that the pay scales were service-related i.e. employees with longer service were paid more regardless of their sex – and the men in this case had been employed longer.  \n\nThe employment tribunal found that women were disproportionately adversely affected by pay systems based on length of service because, statistically, their length of service is less than that of men (for reasons related to childcare responsibilities, etc) and it held the HSE could not objectively justify the pay differences.  However, the EAT overturned this and ruled that the HSE was not required to produce specific objective justification once it had shown that the differences in pay were due to length of service, not sex.  The Court of Appeal then referred the issue to the ECJ. \n\nThe ECJ has now ruled that an employer does not generally have to objectively justify using length of service as a criterion in a pay system.  This is because using length of service rewards experience acquired in the job which in turn enables the worker to perform their duties better and this is a legitimate objective and it does not need the employer to specifically establish this as regards a particular job.  \n\nHowever, the ECJ made one important caveat.  They said that objective justification will still be required where the worker provides evidence raising “serious doubts” as to the appropriateness of the employer rewarding experience in this way, having regard to the particular job in question.  The case will now return to the Court of Appeal to decide whether Mrs Cadman’s particular case raises “serious doubts”.  \n\nEmployers should note that this case is only concerned with equal pay.  There is, of course, also now an age discrimination angle to pay scales related to length of service, because the longer an employee’s service, the older they are likely to be, so this can result in indirect discrimination against younger workers.  The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 allow an exemption from discrimination claims in respect of service-related pay and benefits based on length of service up to and including five years.  Where the length of service is over five years, the regulations contain a specific “business need” test which the employer will need to demonstrate he satisfies.
173364
You mean, should lawyers be paid for doing their job?  Yes.\n\nOr do you mean, should companies, if they have violated laws or rights of others, such as their employees or customers, be free not to pay like any individual person would have to?  In that case, no.
674198
Make a case by showing your boss exactly what your expenses are and what that amounts to in an hourly wage.  That shows that you aren't just asking for the sake of asking.
789704
The fact that anything is paid out of pocket is too much. Unions abuse and steal the workers "union dues". This isn't the 1800's anymore, workers need to think for themselves, and hold personal responsibility.
74765
YES they can and they have the right to find out.If you are abusive and doing personal things at work,on thier TIME that thier paying you for.they could use it to fire you.NO joke.And also if it's illiegal it could be used as evidince in a court of law. And not even a Union can do anythig about it.because it,s concidered public.It's nothing to play around with.