Obama and Equal Pay for Women

www.colony14.net campaign ad illustrating how Obama panders to women

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• commentary
• analysis
• Obama
• equal
• pay
• women

[colony14]

Ledbetter received poor performance appraisals. Should that not have consequences? If she was a poor employee, why give her raises?

[colony14]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.