Claire McCaskill calls the cowards of the Senate out

[lee]

Today during the debate on the Fair Pay Restoration Act, called for a unanimous consent to move the nominations held by secret hold, the nominations of 4 women. Alas someone had to object, but at least someone had to show their hand. She noted that the secret holds are only on women appointees and are on the vast majority of women appointees. I'm with her, I don't get anonymous holds and good on her for trying to call the cowards out.

I say the anonymous objectors are cowards. I think it really stinks that the appointment of so many women is held up and not a single man's appointment is being so held.

I also think that it is outrageous that Mike Enzi asserted a major reason that women dominated fields are paid less is they are less dangerous than traditional man's job. The comparison job they have been using as an example is a truck driver and a nurse's aide. What immediately sprung to my mind is my grandmother's back injury from moving patients, and the risks that nurses take every day. Yes they take precautions against needle stick and exposure, but those precautions are there because the dangers are real. I am not saying that truck driving is without danger, but the danger to nurses is just as real.

[magellan01]

Do you think they're being held up because they are women?

[lee]

I said it stinks, it has the odor of misogyny. It may be that the objections are independent from each other, and have nothing to do with gender, but it doesn't look or smell good at all. That no men's nominations have been held, and there are more male appointees than female make it seem improbable that it has nothing to do with gender.

[Mr. Moto]

Gee, I'm remembering Linda Chavez right now, and opposition to her that prevented her from becoming Secretary of Labor.

It wasn't misogyny then, and isn't now, in all likelihood.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by lee

I think it really stinks that the appointment of so many women is held up and not a single man's appointment is being so held.

Why do you suppose that Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano were confirmed to their positions? Did an anonymous senator not notice that they were women?

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by lee

I say the anonymous objectors are cowards. I think it really stinks that the appointment of so many women is held up and not a single man's appointment is being so held.

Bull. The appointments of Geithner and Holder were delayed a week because of Senate rules allowing their hearings to be so postponed - last I checked they didn't have vaginas.

Not that I was checking.

Climb off the high horse - you're no Lady Godiva.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by lee

I said it stinks, it has the odor of misogyny. It may be that the objections are independent from each other, and have nothing to do with gender, but it doesn't look or smell good at all. That no men's nominations have been held, and there are more male appointees than female make it seem improbable that it has nothing to do with gender.

So, do you think it is due to their being women or not? You just want to through around the vaguest of accusations claiming that there's some unpleasant odor about. Yet, you won't say if you think it is due to their being m=women or not. I'll have to take that as a "no" then. Which means you're just whining. Is it that time of the month?

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by lee

I also think that it is outrageous that Mike Enzi asserted a major reason that women dominated fields are paid less is they are less dangerous than traditional man's job. The comparison job they have been using as an example is a truck driver and a nurse's aide. What immediately sprung to my mind is my grandmother's back injury from moving patients, and the risks that nurses take every day. Yes they take precautions against needle stick and exposure, but those precautions are there because the dangers are real. I am not saying that truck driving is without danger, but the danger to nurses is just as real.

I won't say anything bad against nurses - my grandmother was one for years. She assisted in the birth of me and my two brothers - which is a pretty neat story.

Still, awful analogy that Senator Enzi might have drawn, there are differences between the jobs that make a direct comparison tough - for one thing nurses don't routinely work away from their families for days on end. Some do, but that isn't the norm in the profession. Over the road drivers, the best paid in the trucking industry, do have to deal with this.

Are there income disparities between male and female nurses? That's the question to ask. And if there are, is there a reason besides discrimination? My wife right now is taking time off of work for years to raise our kids - we know full well that this will impact her income not only now but when she begins to work again. We're living with that choice.

[Guinastasia]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Why do you suppose that Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano were confirmed to their positions? Did an anonymous senator not notice that they were women?

Ditto Madelaine Albright and Janet Reno.

[furt]

Originally Posted by lee

I also think that it is outrageous that Mike Enzi asserted a major reason that women dominated fields are paid less is they are less dangerous than traditional man's job.

Outrageous or not, it is a fact.

Truck Drivers and Nurses Aides aside, men are much more likely to be injured on the job, and FAR more likely to be killed. It is only reasonable that this gets factored into their compensation.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils23.pdf

[KellyM]

Clinton and Napolitano were both too high-profile to be held up by anonymous holds; if a Senator had tried that Rahm Emanuel would have been stalking the halls of the Senate to find which Senator was responsible and would have personally ripped out that Senator's toenails by way of his eyesockets. The objections to Geithner and Holder were not made anonymously; they were made openly in committee. The Chavez appointment was held up by open, public objections as well. None of these situations is in any way apposite.

The situation that Senator McCaskill is objecting to is the use of anonymous holds to block these four candidates from being considered at all, without identifying the Senator who is blocking consideration and without giving reasons. Please, people, let's stick to the facts and stop muddying the water with irrelevancies.

[St. Urho]

Originally Posted by lee

I also think that it is outrageous that Mike Enzi asserted a major reason that women dominated fields are paid less is they are less dangerous than traditional man's job. The comparison job they have been using as an example is a truck driver and a nurse's aide. What immediately sprung to my mind is my grandmother's back injury from moving patients, and the risks that nurses take every day. Yes they take precautions against needle stick and exposure, but those precautions are there because the dangers are real. I am not saying that truck driving is without danger, but the danger to nurses is just as real.

There's a big difference between the education, training, and responsibilities of a nurse and a nurse's aid. As a result, nurses make significantly more money and are fairly well paid.

[Mr. Moto]

Originally Posted by KellyM

Clinton and Napolitano were both too high-profile to be held up by anonymous holds; if a Senator had tried that Rahm Emanuel would have been stalking the halls of the Senate to find which Senator was responsible and would have personally ripped out that Senator's toenails by way of his eyesockets. The objections to Geithner and Holder were not made anonymously; they were made openly in committee. The Chavez appointment was held up by open, public objections as well. None of these situations is in any way apposite.

The situation that Senator McCaskill is objecting to is the use of anonymous holds to block these four candidates from being considered at all, without identifying the Senator who is blocking consideration and without giving reasons. Please, people, let's stick to the facts and stop muddying the water with irrelevancies.

Okay - here are two facts.

President Obama has in his career been conscientious on this issue - I don't think he has used secret holds and indeed he has had them used against him before.

The same cannot be said of our Vice-President, who applied secret holds in 2002 against two administration appointees that he didn't even oppose - he did this because he was pissed off over a railroad bill.

We do know Biden loves his trains.

If there was an outcry over this at the time, it seems to have blown over quickly - I had to look this up to pin down the details myself. I remembered it only vaguely.

Senate opposition to these holds is bipartisan, as is their use. Until now there hasn't been enough critical mass to end the practice. I do hope these holds can be eliminated - perhaps there will be momentum now to do so now that someone else's ox is being gored.

[lee]

Originally Posted by St. Urho

There's a big difference between the education, training, and responsibilities of a nurse and a nurse's aid. As a result, nurses make significantly more money and are fairly well paid.

You are correct about the difference between nurses and nurses aids, but Nurse's aids do face significant danger from workplace injuries and exposure to infection and workplace hazards.

[lee]

If I were in the senate, I would be pissed that anonymous holds placed like this on only female appointees looks awful. The anonymous nature of the holds makes it difficult to find who is the obstacle and why. Those who placed them are cowards for not showing their face. It seems to me the anonymous hold are pure dickery.

[dgrdfd]

Originally Posted by lee

The comparison job they have been using as an example is a truck driver and a nurse's aide. What immediately sprung to my mind is my grandmother's back injury from moving patients, and the risks that nurses take every day. Yes they take precautions against needle stick and exposure, but those precautions are there because the dangers are real. I am not saying that truck driving is without danger, but the danger to nurses is just as real.

I am assuming you have some evidence to suggest that injury is equally likely for each?

[kaylasdad99]

Umm, LINKY, PLEASE?

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by lee

If I were in the senate, I would be pissed that anonymous holds placed like this on only female appointees looks awful.

And as far as it "look[ing] awful," do you think Harry Reid looked like a racist when he said that Roland Burris shouldn't be seated as a senator?

The situation that Senator McCaskill is objecting to is the use of anonymous holds to block these four candidates from being considered at all, without identifying the Senator who is blocking consideration and without giving reasons. Please, people, let's stick to the facts and stop muddying the water with irrelevancies.

The fact is that it is overwhelmingly likely that each of these nominations will be confirmed in the next week or so. This is a tempest in a teapot. While I may disagree with the reasons why someone may oppose the nominations in question, no nominee -- whether male or female -- is entitled to be confirmed simply because s/he is the President's pick for the job. They aren't even entitled to an up-or-down vote. Why? Because the Senate is supposed to be a check against the President picking his own officials without any kind of review.

And I will say, the reasons given for the opposition to one of the nominees, Hilda Solis, don't sound entirely unreasonable.

Senate Republicans, frustrated over the answers they say they're not getting from Rep. Hilda L. Solis, may try to block her confirmation as Barack Obama's secretary of labor.

"She answered no questions," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. "If she won't answer the questions, how can you support the nomination?"

During the California Democrat's Jan. 9 confirmation hearing, Solis repeatedly told senators that she could not speak for the incoming Obama administration on the card check bill, and she told Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) that she was "not qualified" to speak about maintaining right-to-work laws that prohibit workers from paying union dues as a condition of employment.

"These aren't positions that you're allowed not to have an opinion," Wyoming Sen. Michael Enzi, the ranking Republican on the committee, told Politico. "These are extremely critical things that she was asked about. Each of the people that asked questions from the Republican side asked about different areas of labor law and wondered what she was going to do. And we still don't know."

link.

Furthermore, Susan Rice, who I believe was one of the four nominees mentioned by Senator McCaskill, was confirmed today. This horrible sexism afflicting the United States Senate appears to have been ameliorated in the case of one nominee in just a matter of hours.

I'd be willing to bet that the rest of the nominations get votes within, say, the next week.

[Ravenman]

Update: three of the four nominees were confirmed yesterday. I guess Senator McCaskill defeated 75% of the sexism in the Senate with just a short, two minute speech. Way to go!