NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON — President Obama signed his first bill into law on Thursday, approving equal-pay legislation that he said would “send a clear message that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody.

Mr. Obama was surrounded by a group of beaming lawmakers, most but not all of them Democrats, in the East Room of the White House as he affixed his signature to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law named for an Alabama woman who at the end of a 19-year career as a supervisor in a tire factory complained that she had been paid less than men.

After a Supreme Court ruling against her, Congress approved the legislation that expands workers’ rights to sue in this kind of case, relaxing the statute of limitations.

“It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — we are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness,” the president said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html?hp

Bout damn time we passed something like this. Thoughts?

the guy in the far left is clearly stoned :p

also why didn't she sue them before?

the guy in the far left is clearly stoned :p

also why didn't she sue them before?

As I seem to recall, she found out later......

As I seem to recall, she found out later......

so I'm the only one who bitches and compares their wages with work colleges?

This was previously denied by the Bush Admin. Its safe to say that in the 8 or 9 days he has been in office, he has done more than Bush in his 8 years

I read this article hoping that out of all the factories and tire plants in Alabama it wouldn't be the one in my hometown where my grandma worked.

Of course it's the same effing plant.

This was previously denied by the Bush Admin. Its safe to say that in the 8 or 9 days he has been in office, he has done more than Bush in his 8 years

http://minnesotaindependent.com/21528/bush-signs-gay-rights-bill :p

the guy in the far left is clearly stoned :p

also why didn't she sue them before?

We wouldn't have gotten anywhere with all the Bush lackeys.

Yay Obama!

Hope.

WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA???

Oh...there it is....right. Well, carry on then.

the guy in the far left is clearly stoned :p

What about Obama, he looks to be saying "Yea, I'll take a piece of that."

Obama apparently craves the white meat. ;)

WHERE'S THE CHANGE OBAMA???

Oh...there it is....right. Well, carry on then.

*shoots tranquilizer dart in Neo's neck and drags him off*

But yea, good for Obama! About time women started getting equal pay for equal work.

Congress still passes laws?

Huh.

He's still "signing bills" though. Just like any other president.

That's not change! We wanted magic powers! He's a lying lying flip flopping liar and he's already thrown his constituents under the bus!

so I'm the only one who bitches and compares their wages with work colleges?

You actually divulge that information? I never talk payroll. Best you can get is a guess from the salary range for the classification.

As I seem to recall somebody told her and it was far below the average of the group.....

180 days after you start employment was a bit short. but 180 days after the last pay check is also dumb. a long term employee should by that time have received promotions and raises based off performance.

180 days after you start employment was a bit short. but 180 days after the last pay check is also dumb. a long term employee should by that time have received promotions and raises based off performance.

Of course someone should get promotions and raises based on performance. Unfortunately, some places won't give you the same starting wages, raises, or promotions that they give other workers if you happen to be a member of a minority.

Of course someone should get promotions and raises based on performance. Unfortunately, some places won't give you the same starting wages, raises, or promotions that they give other workers if you happen to be a member of a minority.

:eek: But but but doesn't that go against the free market?

Meanwhile, Bortz tells me that this will destroy American businesses and that, if he owned a business, he would lower every single worker's wage to the wage of the lowest-paid woman, would stop hiring women, and would start using mostly temp. workers. Because, you know, paying people equally for their work is HARD.

Meanwhile, Bortz tells me that this will destroy American businesses and that, if he owned a business, he would lower every single worker's wage to the wage of the lowest-paid woman, would stop hiring women, and would start using mostly temp. workers. Because, you know, paying people equally for their work is HARD.

Who the fuck is Bortz?

Who the fuck is Bortz?

He is the latest Libert talking head that some of the people here worship.

He says moronic stuff like that all the time......

He is the latest Libert talking head that some of the people here worship.

He says moronic stuff like that all the time......

What a retard.

Good this means I can work less, be worse at my job and achieve lower performance for my employer and be paid the same as someone else. It's about fucking time.

*Puts feet up*

He is the latest Libert talking head that some of the people here worship.

He says moronic stuff like that all the time......

The weird thing is that he occasionally says something that makes sense. And them I'm all :eek: "I agree with Boortz!?!?!" (which I apparently spelled wrong at first)

Good this means I can work less, be worse at my job and achieve lower performance for my employer and be paid the same as someone else. It's about fucking time.

*Puts feet up*
Guess what I would say and do to you if I were in the room when you said those words. You just viciously insulted every single woman who ever worked for her living. Not cool, BE. Neither fun, nor funny.

Guess what I would say and do to you if I were in the room when you said those words. You just viciously insulted every single woman who ever worked for her living. Not cool, BE. Neither fun, nor funny.

Not to mention any other group of people who have been discriminated against in the workplace. IIRC, there are jobs where men tend to get paid less as well (because they are traditionally "women's jobs"), so he just insulted all those men. And people of different ethnicities. And so on....

Government stay out of business please

Guess what I would say and do to you if I were in the room when you said those words. You just viciously insulted every single woman who ever worked for her living. Not cool, BE. Neither fun, nor funny.

You would have to sew them back on first.

Actually no I didn't insult every woman who ever worked for a living I only insulted those people who think people should be paid the same regardless of their ability and/or performance in a job regardless of their gender.

Not to mention any other group of people who have been discriminated against in the workplace. IIRC, there are jobs where men tend to get paid less as well (because they are traditionally "women's jobs"), so he just insulted all those men. And people of different ethnicities. And so on....

And why should the government care about the men? They should be tough enough to be able to suck it up and if it happens to them it doesn't matter does it, they should shut up and work harder. :rolleyes:

You would have to sew them back on first.

Actually no I didn't insult every woman who ever worked for a living I only insulted those people who think people should be paid the same regardless of their ability and/or performance in a job regardless of their gender.

The people who support this bill think that people should be paid the same regardless of gender.

Disparities in performance on the job are perfectly good reasons for pay discrepancies.

The people who support this bill think that people should be paid the same regardless of gender.

Disparities in performance on the job are perfectly good reasons for pay discrepancies.

The we are of the same mind.

And why should the government care about the men? They should be tough enough to be able to suck it up and if it happens to them it doesn't matter does it, they should shut up and work harder. :rolleyes:

The government does care about the men who are discriminated against. Despite what idiotic pundits may want you to think, this bill is not specific to women.

The government does care about the men who are discriminated against. Despite what idiotic pundits may want you to think, this bill is not specific to women.

Yeah but how often do you hear going up in arms about men being paid less? And I know this isn't your government but I do get a bit sick and tired about hearing over here when they talk about how women should be paid more because they are women or they should get maternity leave, when paternity leave is mentioned, oh no we cant have that at all what do they need time off for?

It's a shame Clinton didn't get a chance to vote on it

Not to mention any other group of people who have been discriminated against in the workplace. IIRC, there are jobs where men tend to get paid less as well (because they are traditionally "women's jobs"), so he just insulted all those men. And people of different ethnicities. And so on....
Exactly. In that one remark, he managed not only to display complete ignorance of the topic but also his total disregard for other people.

You would have to sew them back on first.

Actually no I didn't insult every woman who ever worked for a living I only insulted those people who think people should be paid the same regardless of their ability and/or performance in a job regardless of their gender.
Right, and of course, the fact that someone is female is proof that they don't have the same ability to do a job. Therefore, equal pay for equal work is unfair -- in your thought-free world.

And, as an aside, you can keep your sexist jokes to yourself when you're talking about me, as well.

And why should the government care about the men? They should be tough enough to be able to suck it up and if it happens to them it doesn't matter does it, they should shut up and work harder. :rolleyes:
When what happens to them? When an employer decides that, just because of their gender, they get to be paid less than someone else doing the exact same job? So they have to work harder than the other guy just to be paid the same?

Yeah but how often do you hear going up in arms about men being paid less? And I know this isn't your government but I do get a bit sick and tired about hearing over here when they talk about how women should be paid more because they are women or they should get maternity leave, when paternity leave is mentioned, oh no we cant have that at all what do they need time off for?
And this proves that you (a) have zero notion of what the topic under discussion is and (b) have never made even the slightest effort to educate yourself about it.

Seriously, BE, THINK before you hit "submit." For a change. Please.

Right, and of course, the fact that someone is female is proof that they don't have the same ability to do a job. Therefore, equal pay for equal work is unfair -- in your thought-free world.

Yep because that is exactly what I was saying too. :rolleyes:

And, as an aside, you can keep your sexist jokes to yourself when you're talking about me, as well.

Only at you Mur, if you were working less and then complaining about not been paid as others who work harder than you would I be talking about you. You don't seem to be the type of person to be like that, so yeah wasn't really directed at you.

When what happens to them? When an employer decides that, just because of their gender, they get to be paid less than someone else doing the exact same job? So they have to work harder than the other guy just to be paid the same?

Umm, yeah I guess so and that is alright then isn't it?

And this proves that you (a) have zero notion of what the topic under discussion is and (b) have never made even the slightest effort to educate yourself about it.

It also proves that I just wanted a place to rant.

Seriously, BE, THINK before you hit "submit." For a change. Please.

I'll try just for you.

Yep because that is exactly what I was saying too. :rolleyes:

Only at you Mur, if you were working less and then complaining about not been paid as others who work harder than you would I be talking about you. You don't seem to be the type of person to be like that, so yeah wasn't really directed at you.

Umm, yeah I guess so and that is alright then isn't it?

It also proves that I just wanted a place to rant.

I'll try just for you.
You think you didn't say what I said you did? Consider this: Equal pay for equal work means that an employer is not allowed to pay a person less ONLY because of their gender, race, ethnicity, etc.

Nothing at all about job performance. Nothing. Not one freaking thing.

The discrimination happens BEFORE the person even starts doing the job, and continues without any regard for how well they do their job.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT DISCRIMINATION.

Now do you get it? Now can you figure out why your carrying on about people not working as hard as others is bullshit in regard to this topic? And insulting bullshit at that?

I can't believe anybody opposes this.

Equal work should merit equal pay. I have little time for sexists who oppose measures such as this.

Government stay out of business please

Only if business stays out of government. Which it doesn't.

I can't believe anybody opposes this.Welcome to America. No matter how stupid we think some people's opinions are, that's what they are, and we can only do our damnedest to convince them that their opinion is wrong. Apparently, that's what happened, this time.

On the note of the bill being passed. I have...oh, one word to say.

FINALLY.

Welcome to America. No matter how stupid we think some people's opinions are, that's what they are, and we can only do our damnedest to convince them that their opinion is wrong. Apparently, that's what happened, this time.

On the note of the bill being passed. I have...oh, one word to say.

FINALLY.

Well, it's more we just told the sexists "too bad" rather than convincing them, but yeah.

Well, it's more we just told the sexists "too bad" rather than convincing them, but yeah.Whatever works. ;)

Whatever works. ;)

Indeed.

Will change nothing. Certainly hasn't anywhere else with this kind of legislation.

I support equal pay for equal work, so I support moves to eliminate discrepancies on the basis of discrimination. Now, that being said, I think we need to be careful that these kinds of protections are not abused by people that want to use discrimination as an excuse for pay discrepancies that actually stem from poor performance, but I imagine that kind of concern is addressed by this legislation.

However, in any case there should be an extension on the statute of limitations for these kinds of issues; 180 days really isn't enough time to notice a significant pay discrepancy for the aforementioned reason I stated...new hires might have different pay based upon the nature of the work or their skills, so it might take years to determine an imbalance based on discrimination.

Obama, you're making me feel good about being an American again! I like that! PLEASE KEEP DOING IT!

As for the act itself, it's amazingly useful. It won't just apply to women either. It'll apply to anyone who suffers pay discrimination. Very useful indeed.

Yeah but how often do you hear going up in arms about men being paid less? And I know this isn't your government but I do get a bit sick and tired about hearing over here when they talk about how women should be paid more because they are women or they should get maternity leave, when paternity leave is mentioned, oh no we cant have that at all what do they need time off for?
You don't hear about men getting paid less because on average, women make (I believe, let me know if I am wrong) 78% of the salary that a man does for the same job.

If men got paid less for the same jobs, we'd complain just as bitterly about it.

Please don't think that equal rights = emasculating men. It's not.

If men got paid less for the same jobs, we'd complain just as bitterly about it.Whoa. Kat, you got me there for a second. :eek:

:p
/ignore me, ignore me

Guess what I would say and do to you if I were in the room when you said those words. You just viciously insulted every single woman who ever worked for her living. Not cool, BE. Neither fun, nor funny.
I think you (all) missed the point of why it's such a horrible idea, done this way.

I think you (all) missed the point of why it's such a horrible idea, done this way....Right, and this point would be..? (Because I've obviously missed whatever it is you're on about.)

I think you (all) missed the point of why it's such a horrible idea, done this way.

...Right, and this point would be..? (Because I've obviously missed whatever it is you're on about.)
*waits eagerly for JX's explanation* *takes bets on likelihood it will include a prediction about how lazy people will use it to get more money than hardworking people*

*waits eagerly for JX's explanation* *takes bets on likelihood it will include a prediction about how lazy people will use it to get more money than hardworking people*

Remember, it's only bad if the lazy people aren't part of a corporate entity like AIG.

*waits eagerly for JX's explanation*I actually would like to hear it. My curiosity is aroused.

*takes bets on likelihood it will include a prediction about how lazy people will use it to get more money than hardworking people*That would make me sad. :(

Remember, it's only bad if the lazy people aren't part of a corporate entity like AIG.
Oh, right. *makes note* It's true -- money is made of magic pixie dust that miraculously transforms laziness to industriousness. The more money you have, the less lazy you look.

To some people.

I actually would like to hear it. My curiosity is aroused.

That would make me sad. :(
It might not be that. I'm just betting on it because it's the classic (non)argument against equal pay.

If men got paid less for the same jobs, we'd complain just as bitterly about it.



Would you?

Allow me to don a Devil's Advocate cap for a moment, and suggest that if the situation were reversed(which in itself suggest a complete flip in the entire dynamic of society), there would be plenty of women complaining about how giving men equal pay would be somehow emasculating/equivalent word women, to use your phrase. I see no reason why if the situation were reversed that somehow women would all be for promoting equal rights. After all, said women would have caused the situation to begin with.

It might not be that. Hopefully.
I'm just betting on it because it's the classic (non)argument against equal pay.Alright. I'm not going to bet against you.

Would you?

Allow me to don a Devil's Advocate cap for a moment, and suggest that if the situation were reversed(which in itself suggest a complete flip in the entire dynamic of society), there would be plenty of women complaining about how giving men equal pay would be somehow emasculating/equivalent word women, to use your phrase. I see no reason why if the situation were reversed that somehow women would all be for promoting equal rights. After all, said women would have caused the situation to begin with.

I imagine the proportion of women promoting equality would be about equal to the proportion of men currently doing so.

Would you?

Allow me to don a Devil's Advocate cap for a moment, and suggest that if the situation were reversed(which in itself suggest a complete flip in the entire dynamic of society), there would be plenty of women complaining about how giving men equal pay would be somehow emasculating/equivalent word women, to use your phrase. I see no reason why if the situation were reversed that somehow women would all be for promoting equal rights. After all, said women would have caused the situation to begin with.
So...in the context of this thread's discussion...is it your contention (as devil's advocate) that because SOME women might turn out to be sexists, that somehow invalidates Kat's statement that "we" (meaning in the context of the present discussion, those who advocate for equal pay for equal work) would argue in favor of equality and against discrimination for everyone, no matter who or what they were?

In other words, are you saying that she is lying when she says "we" would argue just as fiercely against pay inequality for men as we do for women?

I imagine the proportion of women promoting equality would be about equal to the proportion of men currently doing so.
Probably, but that's not the point.

So...in the context of this thread's discussion...is it your contention (as devil's advocate) that because SOME women might turn out to be sexists, that somehow invalidates Kat's statement that "we" (meaning in the context of the present discussion, those who advocate for equal pay for equal work) would argue in favor of equality and against discrimination for everyone, no matter who or what they were?

In other words, are you saying that she is lying when she says "we" would argue just as fiercely against pay inequality for men as we do for women?

No. My point is that Kat gives the impression that all women are automatically protectors of civil rights, when we all know that's not true, and that if the entire situation--the whole shebang here, mind, with society and everything--were reversed, you'd have plenty of women sexists, probably as many male sexists as we have in our own society.

In other words, I'm quibbling over a potential misunderstood assertion because I don't think we ought to generalize groups, even if this is a positive generalization rather than a negative generalization.

So...in the context of this thread's discussion...is it your contention (as devil's advocate) that because SOME women might turn out to be sexists, that somehow invalidates Kat's statement that "we" (meaning in the context of the present discussion, those who advocate for equal pay for equal work) would argue in favor of equality and against discrimination for everyone, no matter who or what they were?

In other words, are you saying that she is lying when she says "we" would argue just as fiercely against pay inequality for men as we do for women?
That's what I got from it.

For the record, before you do a Mura-rage, I do fully support this act and am an avid male feminist. I'm simply, as I said, objecting to generalizations. (Why I'm doing this I don't know...)

Probably, but that's not the point.



No. My point is that Kat gives the impression that all women are automatically protectors of civil rights, when we all know that's not true, and that if the entire situation--the whole shebang here, mind, with society and everything--were reversed, you'd have plenty of women sexists, probably as many male sexists as we have in our own society.

In other words, I'm quibbling over a potential misunderstood assertion because I don't think we ought to generalize groups, even if this is a positive generalization rather than a negative generalization.
Oy. So apparently people are only concerned if it's their ox being gored, and my assertion that we'd fight as fiercely for men being treated unequally somehow is equivalent to us being "protectors of civil rights".

What a sad world you live in. Fortunately I live in a world where people speak up against inequity and where there were actual, you know, white people also involved in the Civil Rights movement, and where there are actual, you know, non-illegal aliens protesting against unfair treatment there, and where there are actual, you know, civilians arguing for better care for returning veterans... and where straight folks argue vociferously for the rights of gay folks to get married too.

Oy. So apparently people are only concerned if it's their ox being gored, and my assertion that we'd fight as fiercely for men being treated unequally somehow is equivalent to us being "protectors of civil rights".

What a sad world you live in. Fortunately I live in a world where people speak up against inequity and where there were actual, you know, white people involved in the Civil Rights movement, and where there are actual, you know, non-illegal aliens protesting against unfair treatment there, and where there are actual, you know, civilians arguing for better care for returning veterans... and where straight folks argue vociferously for the rights of gay folks to get married too.
I'm not even sure of what I'm saying anymore. Please forgive me; I'm operating on about an hour of sleep.

I'll take off the cap and go back into the corner now.

*snip*I think he misunderstood your "we" in your post that he responded to in his earlier post to be "all women". As in "We, meaning all women, would argue for equal pay if the situation was reversed."

I don't know how he may have gotten that from what you posted, but...that's what I think he's saying.

Ah, my apologies then.

No. My point is that Kat gives the impression that all women are automatically protectors of civil rights, when we all know that's not true, and that if the entire situation--the whole shebang here, mind, with society and everything--were reversed, you'd have plenty of women sexists, probably as many male sexists as we have in our own society.

In other words, I'm quibbling over a potential misunderstood assertion because I don't think we ought to generalize groups, even if this is a positive generalization rather than a negative generalization.
Then your point is based on a failure of your own reading comprehension -- either that or a strawman -- because that is not what she said, nor is it the impression that she gave. She was clearly talking about herself and others who advocate for this issue, not "all women." That's just something you made up. I hope the devil doesn't have you on retainer.

For the record, before you do a Mura-rage, I do fully support this act and am an avid male feminist. I'm simply, as I said, objecting to generalizations. (Why I'm doing this I don't know...)
While you see things in Kat's post that were never there, you apparently miss things that actually are in mine. I specifically acknowledged that you were playing devil's advocate here, i.e. not arguing a position that you actually support. I know that you support equal pay.

And you are obviously doing it because you enjoy being spanked. :p

Then your point is based on a failure of your own reading comprehension -- either that or a strawman -- because that is not what she said, nor is it the impression that she gave. She was clearly talking about herself and others who advocate for this issue, not "all women." That's just something you made up. I hope the devil doesn't have you on retainer.

I seem to do this occasionally. I apologize for the strawman.

While you see things in Kat's post that were never there, you apparently miss things that actually are in mine. I specifically acknowledged that you were playing devil's advocate here, i.e. not arguing a position that you actually support. I know that you support equal pay.

Oh. I definitely need to read things more carefully.

And you are obviously doing it because you enjoy being spanked. :p

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-hehe.gif

That is a very good thing, I know for a fact that Women get paid less down here...

When I was working at Cinemark, I was hired on for $6.50/hr, and a girl hired on at the exact same time, in the exact same room, for the exact same position for only $6.25/hr...It was total crap, and it did bother the crap out of me, cause she was real nice and deserved the same pay...

I'm personally against this act. Since when did women become equal to men?? Harvard even says they are worst at Math and Science. I guess in other fields they can get paid the same but since they are scientifically proven to be inferior it is not fair to all the men out there to pay the women in their fields the same.

I'm personally against this act. Since when did women become equal to men?? Harvard even says they are worst at Math and Science. I guess in other fields they can get paid the same but since they are scientifically proven to be inferior it is not fair to all the men out there to pay the women in their fields the same.
I'm going to assume that you are also failing to play devil's advocate.

Since when did women become equal to men?? Since being female doesn't make them less of a human than men. ;) You almost got me with that one.

I'm going to assume that you are also failing to play devil's advocate.

Psych. No one (credible) disagrees with equal pay regardless of gender. This thread is useless.

Psych. No one (credible) disagrees with equal pay regardless of gender. This thread is useless.
Seriously, it's a good psych. There are plenty of non-credible people who actually think that, and who get positions of political and corporate influence. Having to still fight this fight is like shoveling back the crazy tide.

Seriously, it's a good psych. There are plenty of non-credible people who actually think that, and who get positions of political and corporate influence. Having to still fight this fight is like shoveling back the crazy tide.

I don't get it either, but I'm hopeful that my generation (whatever they call us these days) has grown up on more wholesome Wheaties than the boy's clubbers of old, and this behavior gets nixed.

Let's not give Obama too much credit here. This act did not make it illegal to pay women less for the same work.

That's been the law for the very long time. Obama did not change that. We can't give him credit for making it illegal to discriminate based on gender, that has been there since before Obama (or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, and probably even Carter) came to office.

This was a procedural change to the statute of limitations. The previous law said that you had 180 days to file a complaint starting from the day of the first defective paycheck. In essence, from the minute you actually got paid less, you had 6 months to act. Fail to do that, and you couldn't recover back pay. You were only able to recover 6 months of illegally withheld salary, from the date of your official complaint.

This amendment was spurned by a woman who didn't find out for years that she was being shorted. She filed a complaint, but was told, ultimately, that there were several years of back pay she just couldn't recover, because more than 6 months had passed.

What this does is eliminate that 180 day statute of limitations. Now that's a GOOD THING, certainly, but it's not earth shattering advancement for the cause of gender equality.

You think you didn't say what I said you did? Consider this: Equal pay for equal work means that an employer is not allowed to pay a person less ONLY because of their gender, race, ethnicity, etc.

And when was I saying this was wrong? Though I am amazed that it has taken this long for something like this to come through in the USA.

Nothing at all about job performance. Nothing. Not one freaking thing.

The discrimination happens BEFORE the person even starts doing the job, and continues without any regard for how well they do their job.

THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT DISCRIMINATION.

Now do you get it? Now can you figure out why your carrying on about people not working as hard as others is bullshit in regard to this topic? And insulting bullshit at that?

Yes I can see why it is bullshit if we are to limit it to exactly this bill, as for insulting well not really but yeah.

And when was I saying this was wrong? Though I am amazed that it has taken this long for something like this to come through in the USA.

It hasn't been that long. Read the article and my post. This was a procedural change to the statute of limitations that makes it easier for workers who have been discriminated against to sue.

That's a good thing, but don't believe that this is what made gender discrimination illegal. It's been illegal for quite a while. This is just a procedural change to the statute of limitations.

It hasn't been that long. Read the article and my post. This was a procedural change to the statute of limitations that makes it easier for workers who have been discriminated against to sue.

That's a good thing, but don't believe that this is what made gender discrimination illegal. It's been illegal for quite a while. This is just a procedural change to the statute of limitations.

Oh yeah missed your post :$

Cool, well yeah if people have been paid wrongly due to whatever reason they should be able to sue regardless. But and I may be reading the article wrong it doesn't actually remove the limitations but rather just restarts the 180 day period every time a paycheck is issued. Doesn't it?

So, I hear America is a socialist hell hole now.

So, I hear America is a socialist hell hole now.

A socialist caliphate. *nods*

Let's not give Obama too much credit here. This act did not make it illegal to pay women less for the same work.

That's been the law for the very long time. Obama did not change that. We can't give him credit for making it illegal to discriminate based on gender, that has been there since before Obama (or Bush, or Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, and probably even Carter) came to office.

This was a procedural change to the statute of limitations. The previous law said that you had 180 days to file a complaint starting from the day of the first defective paycheck. In essence, from the minute you actually got paid less, you had 6 months to act. Fail to do that, and you couldn't recover back pay. You were only able to recover 6 months of illegally withheld salary, from the date of your official complaint.

This amendment was spurned by a woman who didn't find out for years that she was being shorted. She filed a complaint, but was told, ultimately, that there were several years of back pay she just couldn't recover, because more than 6 months had passed.

What this does is eliminate that 180 day statute of limitations. Now that's a GOOD THING, certainly, but it's not earth shattering advancement for the cause of gender equality.

At the same time, let's not underplay the value of what he did.

The original rule effectively took away a tool that individual citizens could use to combat discrimination by making it harder to bring a suit against an employer. As you say, the woman in the suit that led to the current legislation had been the victim of unfairly unequal pay for years before she knew about it. That is because the employer was using salary confidentiality to hide their discriminatory practices. The rule that Obama just changed forced an unreasonable requirement that the victim of discrimination had to know about it nearly from its beginning, which considering the lengths some employers go to to cover their asses is usually just not possible. And that unreasonable requirement was itself new. This new law has really just brought things back to the reasonable level they were before.

This is not really an advancement, but rather the removal of an obstacle that had not been there before. Considering the trend we've been going through for the past several years, I consider that pretty happy-making.

The real message of it, as far as I'm concerned, is the message that the government is not 100% committed to screwing working people.

Oh yeah missed your post :$

Cool, well yeah if people have been paid wrongly due to whatever reason they should be able to sue regardless. But and I may be reading the article wrong it doesn't actually remove the limitations but rather just restarts the 180 day period every time a paycheck is issued. Doesn't it?
It effectively says that every time a company issues the unfairly lower paycheck, that is a fresh act of discrimination, and the limitation period starts at that point. That way, it brings the start of the time window in which to bring a suit closer to the time the employee finds out about the discrimination, as opposed to when the discrimination actually started.

And I don't see anything wrong with having limited times within which to bring a suit. It is not reasonable to demand that someone has to know that someone else has decided to start them over secretly in order to bring a suit within 180 days the start of the screw-over. But it is also not reasonable to have no limitation on when a suit can be brought, so that a person could bring a suit against a company they stopped working for and stopped being harmed by years and years ago.

180 days after any act of discrimination (thus after the victim becomes aware of the discrimination, regardless of when it started) seems acceptable.

It effectively says that every time a company issues the unfairly lower paycheck, that is a fresh act of discrimination, and the limitation period starts at that point. That way, it brings the start of the time window in which to bring a suit closer to the time the employee finds out about the discrimination, as opposed to when the discrimination actually started.

And I don't see anything wrong with having limited times within which to bring a suit. It is not reasonable to demand that someone has to know that someone else has decided to start them over secretly in order to bring a suit within 180 days the start of the screw-over. But it is also not reasonable to have no limitation on when a suit can be brought, so that a person could bring a suit against a company they stopped working for and stopped being harmed by years and years ago.

180 days after any act of discrimination (thus after the victim becomes aware of the discrimination, regardless of when it started) seems acceptable.

Yeah fair enough that is what I thought it was saying. Is 6 months along enough time? Good thing it is from the last paycheck but people might find out about this much later such as the women it was named after, and had this bill been in place she whould never have won anyway. Now I wouldn't say many years is a good thing but one or two years after the last paycheck might be more appropriate.

Yeah fair enough that is what I thought it was saying. Is 6 months along enough time? Good thing it is from the last paycheck but people might find out about this much later such as the women it was named after, and had this bill been in place she whould never have won anyway. Now I wouldn't say many years is a good thing but one or two years after the last paycheck might be more appropriate.

The thing is, as it was, from my understanding, it wasn't based on the last paycheck. If you'd been working at a place longer than 6 months and found out, you could sue, but you would only get back pay for the last 6 months, and not for anything before that.

The thing is, as it was, from my understanding, it wasn't based on the last paycheck. If you'd been working at a place longer than 6 months and found out, you could sue, but you would only get back pay for the last 6 months, and not for anything before that.

Really? That isn't what I was reading from both the article, Mur's and Neo's posts was saying something different, I may be wrong of course.

Yeah fair enough that is what I thought it was saying. Is 6 months along enough time? Good thing it is from the last paycheck but people might find out about this much later such as the women it was named after, and had this bill been in place she whould never have won anyway. Now I wouldn't say many years is a good thing but one or two years after the last paycheck might be more appropriate.
Six months is not a lot, but it's not 90 days, either. I'd be happier with a year or so, to give the complainant time to get the evidence, but a lot can be accomplished in 6 months, if you put your mind to it.

Also, this is not like suing for back pay. If you worked and never got paid for it, then the company owes you that money, no matter how much time passes by. So you would expect that, if they still had not paid up several years after you stopped working for them, you could still sue them for wages owed (I'm sure the rules on that vary from place to place).

This issue is about something different. It's about suing over damage that was done/has been done/is being done to you. A company is discriminating against an employee. Once the employee stops working for them, they are no longer in a position to discriminate against them. So I do think it is reasonable to have a shorter statute of limitations on that because it is hard to argue that you have to take action to stop a harm that stopped being inflicted on you years ago. Once you stop getting the unfairly lower pay, it's hard to argue that you are being harmed by being unfairly paid less.

Yeah but how often do you hear going up in arms about men being paid less?

Whenever it happens. Fortunately for men, there are really only a few professions where they have to worry about it.

And I know this isn't your government but I do get a bit sick and tired about hearing over here when they talk about how women should be paid more because they are women or they should get maternity leave, when paternity leave is mentioned, oh no we cant have that at all what do they need time off for?

Which isn't my government?

And I've never heard anyone claim that women should get paid more because they are women. Just that they shouldn't get paid less for that reason.

Meanwhile, I support equal maternity and paternity leave. Both parents need time to bond with and get used to their new child.


I support equal pay for equal work, so I support moves to eliminate discrepancies on the basis of discrimination. Now, that being said, I think we need to be careful that these kinds of protections are not abused by people that want to use discrimination as an excuse for pay discrepancies that actually stem from poor performance, but I imagine that kind of concern is addressed by this legislation.

I think it's covered more by the process. This particular legislation just changes the statute of limitations.

However, the burden of proof on these types of cases is generally very high, because the company can always try and claim that it was performance-based, rather than discriminatory. The person suing has to demonstrate that such problems did not exist and that they were still paid less.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us/politics/30ledbetter-web.html?hp

Bout damn time we passed something like this. Thoughts?

It's absolutely horrific. It's a despicable and totally illegitimate violation of sacred rights of free association and contract.

It's absolutely horrific. It's a despicable and totally illegitimate violation of sacred rights of free association and contract.

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/aynrandposter3.jpg

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p233/poliwanacraca/aynrandposter3.jpg

Yes.

Government stay out of business please

No, it won't on this. And it's a good thing. And "business" is powerless to change it. :)

<piccy snip>
Will this be the response to any market fundementalist's argument now?

Will this be the response to any market fundementalist's argument now?

You use the word "argument" way too liberally.

Will this be the response to any market fundementalist's argument now?

Hopefully.

Whenever it happens. Fortunately for men, there are really only a few professions where they have to worry about it.

Which isn't my government?

And I've never heard anyone claim that women should get paid more because they are women. Just that they shouldn't get paid less for that reason.

Meanwhile, I support equal maternity and paternity leave. Both parents need time to bond with and get used to their new child.[/QUOTE]

Australian government, and it is time's like these I wished I kept news articles linked. Well I am glad you do, I just wish that certain elements in the government and the anti-sex discrimication commisoner did also.

I think it's covered more by the process. This particular legislation just changes the statute of limitations.

However, the burden of proof on these types of cases is generally very high, because the company can always try and claim that it was performance-based, rather than discriminatory. The person suing has to demonstrate that such problems did not exist and that they were still paid less.

Yeah that's true, more of a step in the right direction rather than any real progress.

Six months is not a lot, but it's not 90 days, either. I'd be happier with a year or so, to give the complainant time to get the evidence, but a lot can be accomplished in 6 months, if you put your mind to it.

Also, this is not like suing for back pay. If you worked and never got paid for it, then the company owes you that money, no matter how much time passes by. So you would expect that, if they still had not paid up several years after you stopped working for them, you could still sue them for wages owed (I'm sure the rules on that vary from place to place).

This issue is about something different. It's about suing over damage that was done/has been done/is being done to you. A company is discriminating against an employee. Once the employee stops working for them, they are no longer in a position to discriminate against them. So I do think it is reasonable to have a shorter statute of limitations on that because it is hard to argue that you have to take action to stop a harm that stopped being inflicted on you years ago. Once you stop getting the unfairly lower pay, it's hard to argue that you are being harmed by being unfairly paid less.

Ah I see, yeah true.

This bill he signed into law is pointless as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 already does everything this current one Obama signed does, save, perhaps, a few minor changes like the time in which you are allowed to file a suit. The Equal Pay Act is part of the Fair Labor & Standards Act of 1938, so as you can see, it has been illegal to discriminate against race, gender, religous creed, etc on the basis of pay, among other things, for a while now.

So I'm at a loss why everyone is all excited and happy about Obama signing this. He isn't doing anything that hasn't already been done. Prosecuting more businesses who do discriminate would be more of a reason to celebrate as he would be enforcing law already in place. Should he do that, then I think praise should be lavished as he'd actually be enforcing law that no other adinistration has placed on its top priority list.

This bill he signed into law is pointless as the Equal Pay Act of 1963 already does everything this current one Obama signed does, save, perhaps, a few minor changes like the time in which you are allowed to file a suit. The Equal Pay Act is part of the Fair Labor & Standards Act of 1938, so as you can see, it has been illegal to discriminate against race, gender, religous creed, etc on the basis of pay, among other things, for a while now.

So I'm at a loss why everyone is all excited and happy about Obama signing this. He isn't doing anything that hasn't already been done. Prosecuting more businesses who do discriminate would be more of a reason to celebrate as he would be enforcing law already in place. Should he do that, then I think praise should be lavished as he'd actually be enforcing law that no other adinistration has placed on its top priority list.

the problem is the law is unenforceable 99% of the time.
Because after the first pay increase the employer can simply say the other person got an increase in pay because of performance. (and that may well be the case)