Yes, salary or clock-puncher DOES matter, because clock-punchers often work under union contracts that define the hourly wage rate REGARDLESS of job performance. (Poor and good employees are paid the same, thanks to the unions.)
I am not against equal pay for equal work with equal experience, talent, skills, and judgment. I AM against bloated bureucracies that work to make running businesses so expensive that jobs are driven overseas.
If you're valuable, you'll get a raise. If not, learn how to be valuable, or simply start your own business. (You apparently believe it's easy to run a business and make a profit by "screwing" people.)
Ledbetter was "silent" for 19 years because she was not being discrimanited against. Then someone put a bug in her ear, and said, "Hey, Goodyear has deep pockets, why not go after them? They won't fight it, they'll just pay you off!" Goodyear surprised her by fighting back.
Ledbetter did not prove discrimination because of gender. The court didn't even address that issue. She had lousy performance appraisals.
NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? That is absolute LUNACY! Nonsense like that will put companies out of business left and right, as attorneys go after decades-old issues that are IMPOSSIBLE to prove. The lawyers will make fortunes and the businesses will run out of money and shut down, costing jobs.
Lilly Ledbetter was hired in 1979 by Goodyear. She was a salaried worker, not a clock-puncher. She received poor performance appraisals, although apparently not bad enough to get her fired.
She retired in 1998, then eventually filed a sex discrimination claim. The Supreme Court ruled against her, but ONLY on the legal issue of the statute of limitations, which she had not followed. The Court did NOT rule on whether there had been sex discrimantion, or whether she was a good or bad employee.
Then she has a legitimate gripe. After she found the document and noticed the issue, she had 180 days to file a complaint with the government. Isn't that enough? If she wins her case, she will receive corrected pay, retroactive to when she was hired. And the employer may receive a fine.
But why should she (or a "he," for that matter) be allowed to remain silent for another 20 years, and then ask for an additional 20 years of pay as well, along with compensatory damages?
To be consistent, you need to advocate eliminating statute of limitations rules for ALL issues. If someone tripped on your private driveway in 1981 should he be able to sue you today for the sprained ankle he says he suffered back then? Keep your wallet handy...
The chage in the law was NOT meant to protect women who were discriminated against, but to enrich lawyers and force more companies out of business - so that Americans will be more willing to accept nationalization of industries.
Next step: ridiculous "comparable worth" laws, where federal bureaucrats will decide that a plumber is "worth" x per cent of an engineer, a bus driver is "worth" x per cent of a carpenter, etc.
Would you like to bet against the bureaucrats making their own "comparable worth" percentage very high? Do you want a Washington bureacrat decigin how much you should be paid, instead of being able to negotiate it with your employer?
The argument is against removing the statute of limitations on filing a discrimination claim. Why should someone in 2009 be able to file a claim for an event from 1972? That is absolute lunacy, which will only end in a lot of mostly unearned cash to lawyers while businesses go bankrupt paying outrageous settlements granted by stupid jurors.
How long does it take you to figure out your check-stub? If you can't do that within 180 days, you're too stupid to have the job in the first place.
So if Jane has 25 more years experience than John, John should be paid the same as Jane? That doesn't seem very fair to me. Shouldn't experience count for something? The employee with more experience is generally worth more to the employer because she or he is less likely to make expensive mistakes.
Obama's desired change in the law is an invitation for lawyers to go back 30 years, seeking monetary damages that will put employers out of business. Then everybody loses... except the lawyers.
Women get paid less than men on average because they enter professions that pay less. A kindergarten teacher does not warrant the same pay as an ironworker who builds skyscrapers 50 stories up. Yes, female ironworkers should get the same pay as male ironworkers, but female check-out clerks at Wal-Mart should not be paid the same as Bill Gates. Duh!
And what about female strippers? Don't they get paid more than the male bouncers? IS THAT DISCRIMINATION? And how come I get paid less then Oprah?
What bureaucrat will determine what jobs are of "equal value?" That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen, and a good way to destroy American businesses. The socialists and leftists will destroy the economy with all these ludicrous schemes. After they've killed the golden goose of productivity, what will be left?
If Obama is elected, the producers will all move to Alaska and Texas, leaving the parasites to fend for themselves - without oil, energy, and common sense. See how long you last.
Owners of businesses should not have to waste time proving to the government why they believe an engineer deserves greater pay than a file clerk. This is Washington sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. It will raise prices, put companies out of business, and cause people to lose their jobs.
If a woman is paid less than a man for the same job with the same experience and qualifications, she should file a complaint with the DOL within six months of identifying the discrimination.
Just because the equal pay act exist doesn't mean its enforced. The legislation is aimed to create greater equality in pay acknowledging that there is already a legal precedent.
It's certainly not ignorance of the law, but it may be aimed at female voters. Also, its naive to expect that Palin will be the advocate for this, both because she has shown no inclination to do so, and because McCain has placed her beside him in this issue.
As I say, it's already against the law. What Obama wants to do is set up "comrabale worth" schemes where a teach is "worth" xx per cent of an engineer, to force wages to be standardized all across the nation. That would not just be micromanaging of the economy, but certain inflation. But I'd bet his wife's position gets an increase under the scheme!
This is even remotely true. Obama's currently co-sponsoring the Fair Pay Act, which does set laws that requires companies pay equal compensation to positions traditionally held by women when they are of equal value to the company as jobs traditionally held by men. However, while there will be suggested guidelines, they won't be forced on any industry if they can explain why certain positions are paid less in accordance with their value to the company.
If you think you are being paid less solely because you are a woman, file a complaint with the DOL. Just Google Department of Labor.
Note that Obama does NOT talk about the 180 day limit. Instead, he talks about the invalid "77 cents on the dollar" argument. If he weren't pandering to women, why is he not tellimg them in his speeches to "hurry up and file a complaint now because you only have 180 days under the 1963 law?" He doesn't give a darn about their pay, he wants their votes.
What propaganda? The law has been on the books since 1963. All a woman has to do is file a comoplaint withe the US Dept of Labor.
The point of the new law is to MAKE MONEY FOR LAWYERS by eliminating the complaint period. Like we really need businesses getting nailed with 30 years of retro pay because someone was too stupid to file a complaint. That'll put more companies out of business, and send more jobs overseas.
Does it take someone more than 6 months to figure out her paycheck?
Try getting informed. The bill, dubbed the Fair Pay Restoration Act, is a response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision that ruled a person who claims pay discrimination must file a complaint within 180 days of that discrimination taking place. McCain voted against the bill and against women. Guess how Obama voted, FOR WOMEN. Seek truth and throw out your false propaganda.
For the record, any woman who feels she is being discriminated against should file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor. She does NOT have to wait for the next President to be sworn in. The equal pay law has been on the books since 1963. (But the law doesn't, of course, mean that the female president of a small-twon bank gets the same pay as the presidentof Citibank, just because they have the same title.)
Obama is pandering to the women's vote with this issue, and he knows it.
The 1963 law hasn't been enforced, and there are many rules in place that make it almost impossible for women to file a complaint successfully -- that is to say, see positive outcome from it. McCain has routinely stated he will not pass legislation that helps women to get the equal pay that by law they are required to receive. He will do nothing to ensure that the laws are enforced. Obama has said he will.
CONSERVATIVES!! COPY AND PASTE THIS EVERYWHERE PLEASE! Positions of the LEFT : -WAR IS WRONG (Unless a Democrat is President) -MOVE ON (Whenever WE are caught doing something bad) -CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL (Unless it's payday) -FREE SPEECH & TOLERANCE (Except for conservatives) -NO VIOLENCE (Unless WE need it to protest) -NO RACISM or SEXISM (Except if you hate white males) -F$@K THE POLICE (Unless we need one) -FIGHT AUTHORITY (Unless WE are in authority) The LEFT is KILLING AMERICA
Ledbetter received poor performance appraisals. Should that not have consequences? If she was a poor employee, why give her raises?
colony14 3 years ago
Yes, salary or clock-puncher DOES matter, because clock-punchers often work under union contracts that define the hourly wage rate REGARDLESS of job performance. (Poor and good employees are paid the same, thanks to the unions.)
I am not against equal pay for equal work with equal experience, talent, skills, and judgment. I AM against bloated bureucracies that work to make running businesses so expensive that jobs are driven overseas.
colony14 3 years ago
If you're valuable, you'll get a raise. If not, learn how to be valuable, or simply start your own business. (You apparently believe it's easy to run a business and make a profit by "screwing" people.)
Ledbetter was "silent" for 19 years because she was not being discrimanited against. Then someone put a bug in her ear, and said, "Hey, Goodyear has deep pockets, why not go after them? They won't fight it, they'll just pay you off!" Goodyear surprised her by fighting back.
colony14 3 years ago
Ledbetter did not prove discrimination because of gender. The court didn't even address that issue. She had lousy performance appraisals.
NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS? That is absolute LUNACY! Nonsense like that will put companies out of business left and right, as attorneys go after decades-old issues that are IMPOSSIBLE to prove. The lawyers will make fortunes and the businesses will run out of money and shut down, costing jobs.
This is simply a make-money-for-lawyers bill.
colony14 3 years ago
Lilly Ledbetter was hired in 1979 by Goodyear. She was a salaried worker, not a clock-puncher. She received poor performance appraisals, although apparently not bad enough to get her fired.
She retired in 1998, then eventually filed a sex discrimination claim. The Supreme Court ruled against her, but ONLY on the legal issue of the statute of limitations, which she had not followed. The Court did NOT rule on whether there had been sex discrimantion, or whether she was a good or bad employee.
colony14 3 years ago
Then she has a legitimate gripe. After she found the document and noticed the issue, she had 180 days to file a complaint with the government. Isn't that enough? If she wins her case, she will receive corrected pay, retroactive to when she was hired. And the employer may receive a fine.
But why should she (or a "he," for that matter) be allowed to remain silent for another 20 years, and then ask for an additional 20 years of pay as well, along with compensatory damages?
colony14 3 years ago
To be consistent, you need to advocate eliminating statute of limitations rules for ALL issues. If someone tripped on your private driveway in 1981 should he be able to sue you today for the sprained ankle he says he suffered back then? Keep your wallet handy...
The chage in the law was NOT meant to protect women who were discriminated against, but to enrich lawyers and force more companies out of business - so that Americans will be more willing to accept nationalization of industries.
colony14 3 years ago
Next step: ridiculous "comparable worth" laws, where federal bureaucrats will decide that a plumber is "worth" x per cent of an engineer, a bus driver is "worth" x per cent of a carpenter, etc.
Would you like to bet against the bureaucrats making their own "comparable worth" percentage very high? Do you want a Washington bureacrat decigin how much you should be paid, instead of being able to negotiate it with your employer?
colony14 3 years ago
The argument is against removing the statute of limitations on filing a discrimination claim. Why should someone in 2009 be able to file a claim for an event from 1972? That is absolute lunacy, which will only end in a lot of mostly unearned cash to lawyers while businesses go bankrupt paying outrageous settlements granted by stupid jurors.
How long does it take you to figure out your check-stub? If you can't do that within 180 days, you're too stupid to have the job in the first place.
colony14 3 years ago
So if Jane has 25 more years experience than John, John should be paid the same as Jane? That doesn't seem very fair to me. Shouldn't experience count for something? The employee with more experience is generally worth more to the employer because she or he is less likely to make expensive mistakes.
Obama's desired change in the law is an invitation for lawyers to go back 30 years, seeking monetary damages that will put employers out of business. Then everybody loses... except the lawyers.
colony14 3 years ago
Women get paid less than men on average because they enter professions that pay less. A kindergarten teacher does not warrant the same pay as an ironworker who builds skyscrapers 50 stories up. Yes, female ironworkers should get the same pay as male ironworkers, but female check-out clerks at Wal-Mart should not be paid the same as Bill Gates. Duh!
And what about female strippers? Don't they get paid more than the male bouncers? IS THAT DISCRIMINATION? And how come I get paid less then Oprah?
colony14 3 years ago
What bureaucrat will determine what jobs are of "equal value?" That sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen, and a good way to destroy American businesses. The socialists and leftists will destroy the economy with all these ludicrous schemes. After they've killed the golden goose of productivity, what will be left?
If Obama is elected, the producers will all move to Alaska and Texas, leaving the parasites to fend for themselves - without oil, energy, and common sense. See how long you last.
colony14 3 years ago
Owners of businesses should not have to waste time proving to the government why they believe an engineer deserves greater pay than a file clerk. This is Washington sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. It will raise prices, put companies out of business, and cause people to lose their jobs.
If a woman is paid less than a man for the same job with the same experience and qualifications, she should file a complaint with the DOL within six months of identifying the discrimination.
colony14 3 years ago
i guess you don't follow supreme court news.
yonibronstein 3 years ago
Just because the equal pay act exist doesn't mean its enforced. The legislation is aimed to create greater equality in pay acknowledging that there is already a legal precedent.
It's certainly not ignorance of the law, but it may be aimed at female voters. Also, its naive to expect that Palin will be the advocate for this, both because she has shown no inclination to do so, and because McCain has placed her beside him in this issue.
completebs91 3 years ago
As I say, it's already against the law. What Obama wants to do is set up "comrabale worth" schemes where a teach is "worth" xx per cent of an engineer, to force wages to be standardized all across the nation. That would not just be micromanaging of the economy, but certain inflation. But I'd bet his wife's position gets an increase under the scheme!
colony14 3 years ago
This is even remotely true. Obama's currently co-sponsoring the Fair Pay Act, which does set laws that requires companies pay equal compensation to positions traditionally held by women when they are of equal value to the company as jobs traditionally held by men. However, while there will be suggested guidelines, they won't be forced on any industry if they can explain why certain positions are paid less in accordance with their value to the company.
heartsleeve 3 years ago
*isn't remotely true
heartsleeve 3 years ago
If you think you are being paid less solely because you are a woman, file a complaint with the DOL. Just Google Department of Labor.
Note that Obama does NOT talk about the 180 day limit. Instead, he talks about the invalid "77 cents on the dollar" argument. If he weren't pandering to women, why is he not tellimg them in his speeches to "hurry up and file a complaint now because you only have 180 days under the 1963 law?" He doesn't give a darn about their pay, he wants their votes.
colony14 3 years ago
What propaganda? The law has been on the books since 1963. All a woman has to do is file a comoplaint withe the US Dept of Labor.
The point of the new law is to MAKE MONEY FOR LAWYERS by eliminating the complaint period. Like we really need businesses getting nailed with 30 years of retro pay because someone was too stupid to file a complaint. That'll put more companies out of business, and send more jobs overseas.
Does it take someone more than 6 months to figure out her paycheck?
colony14 3 years ago
Since you can't go around asking people what they make, yeah.
clairissad 3 years ago
Yes, when she's been prohibited by corporate policy from speaking with other coworkers about pay.
heartsleeve 3 years ago
Try getting informed. The bill, dubbed the Fair Pay Restoration Act, is a response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision that ruled a person who claims pay discrimination must file a complaint within 180 days of that discrimination taking place. McCain voted against the bill and against women. Guess how Obama voted, FOR WOMEN. Seek truth and throw out your false propaganda.
allodola11 3 years ago
For the record, any woman who feels she is being discriminated against should file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor. She does NOT have to wait for the next President to be sworn in. The equal pay law has been on the books since 1963. (But the law doesn't, of course, mean that the female president of a small-twon bank gets the same pay as the presidentof Citibank, just because they have the same title.)
Obama is pandering to the women's vote with this issue, and he knows it.
colony14 3 years ago
The 1963 law hasn't been enforced, and there are many rules in place that make it almost impossible for women to file a complaint successfully -- that is to say, see positive outcome from it. McCain has routinely stated he will not pass legislation that helps women to get the equal pay that by law they are required to receive. He will do nothing to ensure that the laws are enforced. Obama has said he will.
I fail to see your argument.
heartsleeve 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
AmericanKnowItAll 3 years ago
Hey delete my canadian comment (wrong comment) use the one about the left (above) Sorry for the mistake
AmericanKnowItAll 3 years ago
O Canada!
Our home and native land (of socialists)!
True patriot love in all thy sons (or frenchie pussies)command.
With glowing hearts (and little dicks)we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free (from reason)!
From far and wide (the vaginas of our women),
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee, except at rock concerts).
bbbwaaaHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
AmericanKnowItAll 3 years ago