Ugh. Worthless disaster of a bill.

Ladies, start your lawyers!

filth: Ugh. Worthless disaster of a bill.

Explain yourself.

Newsflash - after all relevant factors are considered in (time on the job, hours worked, education, work experience, expertise), women already make as much as men.

Or do women want credit for taking a few years off to raise kids or "find themself" when promotions and raises are handed out?

How sad is it that something like this is only being done in 2009?

'Course, according to John McCain and others this woman, who had been doing her job for 25 years or so, just needed more training and education...

LordZorch: Newsflash - after all relevant factors are considered in (time on the job, hours worked, education, work experience, expertise), women already make as much as men.

Or do women want credit for taking a few years off to raise kids or "find themself" when promotions and raises are handed out?

We need the wimmens to pump out babies, and this just means more cash in your pocket. Don't complain.

I have never made less than my male co-workers who did the same job that I did, and find it hard to believe that anyone within 10-15 years of my age, either way [I'm 33] can say differently.

The ONLY difference could be in overtime/bonuses, and if more men chose to work longer hours, etc... well, what do you expect?

Seems like a pointless gesture when most jobs have set salaries and that's that, male or female hired.

I thought the PUMAs said that unless Clinton got elected, this wouldn't pass!

Actually, according to hillaryis44, Hillary is actually the person responsible. Even though she didn't vote for it or sign it.

filth: Ugh. Worthless disaster of a bill.

Are you a misogynist, sir?
Why shouldn't women get equal pay given equal experience/qualification?

LordZorch: Newsflash - after all relevant factors are considered in (time on the job, hours worked, education, work experience, expertise), women already make as much as men.

Or do women want credit for taking a few years off to raise kids or "find themself" when promotions and raises are handed out?

Look at the name of the act. Then read the story about the woman the bill is named after. What you've said is not always true.

submitter: Obama signs bill assuring equal pay for womens into law

I think that's spelled, "wimmens".

serpent_sky: I have never made less than my male co-workers who did the same job that I did, and find it hard to believe that anyone within 10-15 years of my age, either way [I'm 33] can say differently.

The ONLY difference could be in overtime/bonuses, and if more men chose to work longer hours, etc... well, what do you expect?

Seems like a pointless gesture when most jobs have set salaries and that's that, male or female hired.

In most cases this is probably true. However in cases where it's not, it would be nice if one had longer than a 6-month grace period to find out one's coworker's salaries.

I think the real point of this bill is that this woman won her court case against the company, and her award was pretty much invalidated by the Supreme Court on appeal even though the facts of the case were that she was indeed being paid far less than her male counterparts doing the same job for many years. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, though.

As far as the "gift to trial lawyers" argument goes, well, if you're paying folks the same pay regardless of their gender, then you don't really have to worry about getting sued for it, do you?

what_now: filth: Ugh. Worthless disaster of a bill.

Explain yourself.

It will increase discrimination litigation.

"Because it's humiliating! A new amendment that we vote on, declaring that I am equal under the law to a man. I am mortified to discover there's reason to believe I wasn't before. I am a citizen of this country. I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old, white men. The same Article 14 that protects you, protects me. And I went to law school just to make sure. And with that, I'm going back down to the mess, because I thought I may have seen a peach."


/obscure?

shivashakti: filth: Ugh. Worthless disaster of a bill.

Are you a misogynist, sir?
Why shouldn't women get equal pay given equal experience/qualification?

You should perhaps read the language of the bill.

witchofthedogs: /obscure?

Not obscure. But its not a great argument, no matter how hot she looked in that sweater.

filth: what_now: filth: Ugh. Worthless disaster of a bill.

Explain yourself.

It will increase discrimination litigation.

If people are ACTUALLY BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, that's not such a bad thing, no is it?

keylock71: As far as the "gift to trial lawyers" argument goes, well, if you're paying folks the same pay regardless of their gender, then you don't really have to worry about getting sued for it, do you?

You absolutely do.

what_now: filth: what_now: filth: Ugh. Worthless disaster of a bill.

Explain yourself.

It will increase discrimination litigation.

If people are ACTUALLY BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, that's not such a bad thing, no is it?

Your caps lock is not data.

witchofthedogs: "Because it's humiliating! A new amendment that we vote on, declaring that I am equal under the law to a man. I am mortified to discover there's reason to believe I wasn't before. I am a citizen of this country. I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old, white men. The same Article 14 that protects you, protects me. And I went to law school just to make sure. And with that, I'm going back down to the mess, because I thought I may have seen a peach."


/obscure?

The West Wing is never obscure. However, you have the wrong bill. She was talking about the ERA. This is NOT the ERA, it's pay equity.

keylock71: As far as the "gift to trial lawyers" argument goes, well, if you're paying folks the same pay regardless of their gender, then you don't really have to worry about getting sued for it, do you?

That's not a valid argument. You don't have to be breaking any laws to be sued.

what_now: If people are ACTUALLY BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, that's not such a bad thing, no is it?

That's not a valid argument. You don't have to be breaking any laws to be sued.

filth: Your caps lock is not data.

Neither is your snark. Let me ask you: Do you think Goodyear was in the right to pay Lily Ledbetter so much less than men doing the same job?

what_now:

The West Wing is never obscure. However, you have the wrong bill. She was talking about the ERA. This is NOT the ERA, it's pay equity.

It's not pay equity at all. We've had pay equity for years and years.

SchlingFocker: That's not a valid argument. You don't have to be breaking any laws to be sued.

Of course not. Most companies probably don't do this anymore, but those that do deserve to be sued.

This bill rights a wrong. You can't let a loophole like this stay because you're afraid of a few trials, like Filth is.

what_now: filth: Your caps lock is not data.

Neither is your snark. Let me ask you: Do you think Goodyear was in the right to pay Lily Ledbetter so much less than men doing the same job?

I'm not being snarky at all. You made an assertion. I question that assertion.

I don't know much about the underlying facts, but Goodyear would have a very hard time convincing me that it had a good reason for the pay disparity.

what_now: Do you think Goodyear was in the right to pay Lily Ledbetter so much less than men doing the same job?

The article is light on facts.

How long had she been in the position? How much experience did she have? How long had she been working for the company?

You'd have to normalize for a bunch of variables before saying that she was being paid less BECAUSE she was a woman. If you have those variables handy, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

filth: It's not pay equity at all. We've had pay equity for years and years.

With a glaring loophole. That's been fixed.

what_now: Of course not. Most companies probably don't do this anymore, but those that do deserve to be sued.

Yes, if a company is paying someone less based on their gender, they deserve to be sued.

This bill rights a wrong. You can't let a loophole like this stay because you're afraid of a few trials, like Filth is.

I don't have an issue with this bill, really. I just think the argument that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is a horrible argument to use.

From what I can recall, the part that has some people nervous is that the statute of limitations (so to speak) is extended every time that "benefits" are paid out, which could include pensions or other such benefits after one has already retired. They claim (whether it's true or not) that someone could have retired 20 years ago, then turn around and sue their employer because of alleged unfair pay. The employer would have very little defensive evidence in such a situation -- the people on staff during the employee's tenure are either retired or dead, payment documentation shredded, etc.

It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure how much of a problem it will really be in practice. I suppose you could get ambulance chasers running those TV ads late at night, "are you a retired woman who is currently receiving a pension or other benefits from a past employer? You may be entitled to money damages!" but I'm not sure it would be widespread enough to merit halting the bill altogether.

filth: keylock71: As far as the "gift to trial lawyers" argument goes, well, if you're paying folks the same pay regardless of their gender, then you don't really have to worry about getting sued for it, do you?

You absolutely do.

Please explain how a company paying a man and a woman the same pay for doing the same job can be successfully sued under this act. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps you have some insight I'm missing.

The main point, as far as I can tell, seems to be to prevent what happened to the Ledbetter woman from happening in the future. i.e. Mrs Ledbetter was awarded compensation for obvious discrimination by a lower court and that award was invalidated by the Supreme Court because of the time limit associated with this type of discrimination, even though she was indeed discriminated against.

Again, if I'm mistaken, I would appreciate being set straight.

what_now: SchlingFocker: That's not a valid argument. You don't have to be breaking any laws to be sued.

Of course not. Most companies probably don't do this anymore, but those that do deserve to be sued.

This bill rights a wrong. You can't let a loophole like this stay because you're afraid of a few trials, like Filth is.

It wasn't a loophole. It was exactly the way Congress wrote the law. Now everyone is blaming the courts for applying the law as written. It's ridiculous.

I'm really not scared of trials. They're kind of my job.

filth: what_now:

The West Wing is never obscure. However, you have the wrong bill. She was talking about the ERA. This is NOT the ERA, it's pay equity.

It's not pay equity at all. We've had pay equity for years and years.

I for one think "what_now" should be paid more than "filth". She is clearly smarter based on her posts.

SchlingFocker: what_now: Do you think Goodyear was in the right to pay Lily Ledbetter so much less than men doing the same job?

The article is light on facts.

How long had she been in the position? How much experience did she have? How long had she been working for the company?

You'd have to normalize for a bunch of variables before saying that she was being paid less BECAUSE she was a woman. If you have those variables handy, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

Here's some stuff on Ledbetter. It's only wiki, but I have a meeting I have to get to. She actually did WIN her discrimination case, but it was ruled that she didn't file soon enough.

filth: what_now: filth: Ugh. Worthless disaster of a bill.

Explain yourself.

It will increase discrimination litigation.

Do you think it should be legal or illegal to pay women less than men for working the same job?

keylock71: Please explain how a company paying a man and a woman the same pay for doing the same job can be successfully sued under this act. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps you have some insight I'm missing.

He didn't say anything about being successfully sued.

Just being sued is a lengthy, expensive, headache-inducing process.

SchlingFocker: "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" is a horrible argument to use.

Ok. I agree with that. But Filth's boobies was "This is terrible" and when asked why, he said "because it will lead to trials".

soosh: Do you think it should be legal or illegal to pay women less than men for working the same job?

Objection, your honor!! Relevance?

SchlingFocker: keylock71: As far as the "gift to trial lawyers" argument goes, well, if you're paying folks the same pay regardless of their gender, then you don't really have to worry about getting sued for it, do you?

That's not a valid argument. You don't have to be breaking any laws to be sued.

Fair enough.

From what I know about this case, the woman had been working at the plant for about 25 years and she was informed annonymously that male coworkers doing the same job as her (some with less experience) were making more money. She won the case, and was awarded back pay and punitive damages which were invalidated on appeal based on the time limits associated with this type of discrimination.

I don't think the Supreme Court ruled she wasn't being discriminated against, just that the award of back pay could only be from when she filed the suit onward, not the full 25 years she was paid less than her male counterparts. As I understand it, of course...

keylock71: filth: keylock71: As far as the "gift to trial lawyers" argument goes, well, if you're paying folks the same pay regardless of their gender, then you don't really have to worry about getting sued for it, do you?

You absolutely do.

Please explain how a company paying a man and a woman the same pay for doing the same job can be successfully sued under this act. I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps you have some insight I'm missing.

This is America. You can be sued for anything by anyone at any time. The successful suits are not a problem, but no one makes those determinations before the suit is filed.

what_now: Ok. I agree with that. But Filth's boobies was "This is terrible" and when asked why, he said "because it will lead to trials".

Well, in general, increased litigation is a bad thing.

Am I reading the legislation correctly? This bill does extends the time period from 6 months to two years when you can bring a discrimination suit?

what_now: Here's some stuff on Ledbetter. It's only wiki, but I have a meeting I have to get to. She actually did WIN her discrimination case, but it was ruled that she didn't file soon enough.

That's a little better, but still not enough information for me to give a valid opinion one way or another.

And, no, I don't take a ruling handed down by a jury for a grain of salt. Juries are, by and large, incompetent. They're filled with lowest common denominator morons.

soosh: filth: what_now: filth: Ugh. Worthless disaster of a bill.

Explain yourself.

It will increase discrimination litigation.

Do you think it should be legal or illegal to pay women less than men for working the same job?

The specific question you're trying to ask is whether it should be legal to pay women less than men simply because of their gender (or partially because of their gender, depending on which circuit you ask). That should be, and has been for a long time, illegal.

keylock71: From what I know about this case, the woman had been working at the plant for about 25 years and she was informed annonymously that male coworkers doing the same job as her (some with less experience) were making more money. She won the case, and was awarded back pay and punitive damages which were invalidated on appeal based on the time limits associated with this type of discrimination.

She may very well have had a valid case. I don't have enough information to say :)

johnny_vegas: Am I reading the legislation correctly? This bill does extends the time period from 6 months to two years when you can bring a discrimination suit?

It basically says that the time period in which you must file a suit is reset to 6 months every time a new paycheck is cut to you.

My only problem with this legislation is that there is no such thing as equal work.

In some bizarro world if a man and a woman have the EXACT same education and experience, and performance on the job is not a factor, than yeah they should each get paid the same. Since this will almost never be the case, I can't see how this bill is even valid.

Pay should be completely performance based so I am for equal pay for equal work. If I consistently sell more than my female counterpart then I should have a better commission structure (and vice versa). If I make more widgets per hour than my female counterpart I should be paid more for my effort (and vice versa). Etc.

I've always heard statistics like "Women are paid 71 cents on the dollar of men, and women of color are 65 cents" etc. etc. There was a redlit thread on here a while ago where a GREAT explanation was provided by SusanIvanova at how these figures are normally arrived at:


The figures are probably pretty accurate, but the implicit assumption is that the full-time jobs done by the various groups are pretty much identical, and the qualifications are as well, and therefore this difference must be due to discrimination.

E.g. women are more likely to become teachers than men, men are more likely to become bankers then women, and both teaching and banking are full-time jobs. Yet if you look at a group of 10 teachers (say, 8 female, 2 male), and 10 bankers (8 male, 2 female), the women will make, on average, probably something like 35% of what the men do. This applies even if the people in a given profession make the same amount of money regardless of their sex (e.g., $40k/yr for all teachers, $400k/yr for all bankers).

It does not mean that women are being paid 78% of what men are being paid for doing the same thing. We (on average) are being paid 78% of what men are for doing different things.

Check the thread for more information. Very interesting.

SchlingFocker: what_now: Ok. I agree with that. But Filth's boobies was "This is terrible" and when asked why, he said "because it will lead to trials".

Well, in general, increased litigation is a bad thing.

Hey now! No it isn't if it's telling you something about increasing injustice. I just believe that in the case of Title VII and ADEA we have actual evidence of reduced injustice; so I don't see a good reason to loosen the rules.