Obama Set To Sign Equal-pay Bill

[rachael]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama[/url]

[quote]WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is signing into law an equal-pay bill that is popular with labor and women's groups and is expected to make it easier for workers to sue for decades-old discrimination.

Obama was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on Thursday during an East Room ceremony, a move that effectively ends a 2007 Supreme Court decision that said workers had only 180 days to file a pay-discrimination lawsuit. Obama and fellow Democrats campaigned hard against the court decision and promised to pass legislation that would give workers more time to sue their employers for past discrimination.

"This bill will be a big step forward not just for women, but for families," the White House said in a statement announcing the bill signing. "It is not only a measure of fairness, but can be the difference for families struggling to make ends meet during these difficult times."

The law is named for a woman who said she didn't become aware of a pay discrepancy until she neared the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala. She sued, but the Supreme Court in 2007 said she missed her chance.

The court said in a 5-4 ruling that a person must file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than it pays another worker doing the same job. Under the new bill, given final passage in Congress this week, every new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for another 180 days.

Congress attempted to update the law to extend the time, but the Bush White House and Senate Republicans blocked the legislation in the last session of Congress

Opponents contended the legislation would gut the statute of limitations, encourage lawsuits and be a boon to trial lawyers. They also argued that employees could wait to file claims in hopes of reaping larger damage awards. The bill does not change current law limiting back pay for claimants to two years.

Obama, who took office on Jan. 20, spoke strongly in support of it during his campaign and the Democratic-controlled Congress moved it to the top of the agenda for the new session that opened this month.

Obama aides said Ledbetter would attend the bill signing ceremony in the East Room, followed by a separate reception with first lady Michelle Obama.

The Ledbetter bill focuses on pay and other workplace discrimination against women. The Census Bureau last year estimated that women still receive only about 78 cents for every dollar that men get for doing equivalent jobs. But the measure, which amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also applies to discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, national origin, disability or age.

Ledbetter was a tireless spokeswoman for the law and Obama's candidacy. She addressed the Democratic National Convention in Denver last year and traveled to Washington aboard Obama's train for the inauguration ceremonies. The law will not help Ledbetter recover any money; instead, she said she owed it to other women to champion the cause.

"There will be a far richer reward if we secure fair pay," she said in Denver. "For our children and grandchildren, so that no one will ever again experience the discrimination that I did."[/quote]

[Didacus]

[quote]"It is not only a measure of fairness, but can be the difference for families struggling to make ends meet during these difficult times."[/quote]

Is it just me, or is bringing a past employer to court a poor way to earn a living?

Can't find a job - that's ok just sue a past employer to get by. There seems to be someting 'not quite right' with that thinking.




Or is it just me?

[rachael]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1765535' date='Jan 29 2009, 07:53 AM']Is it just me, or is bringing a past employer to court a poor way to earn a living?

Can't find a job - that's ok just sue a past employer to get by. There seems to be someting 'not quite right' with that thinking.




Or is it just me?
[/quote]
The thinking isn't just about 'getting by,' it's about equal pay for women...Women only make about $0.76 to every dollar a man makes. When a single women is trying to support a family, those few pennies can mean everything.

Edited January 29, 2009 by rachael

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='rachael' post='1765529' date='Jan 29 2009, 07:07 AM'][url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama[/url][/quote]

Awesome! -Katie

[Apotheoun]

What does the article mean by "equivalent jobs"?

Some of these types of bills have argued that it is unfair that a waitress makes less money than a janitor, and if that is what this bill is trying to "equalize" then it is doomed to failure, because different jobs will always have different salaries associated with them. Moreover, wages in a single field are going to be different as well for different individuals, because -- although some people may not like it -- people working within the same field are often paid based upon merit (their abilities, their level of education, and the type of degree earned, and the amount of work that they complete within a given time period) and the number of years that they have worked (seniority). People need to face reality, life is never entirely fair, and no society is truly egalitarian.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Apotheoun

[thessalonian]

That's all we need. More people trying to get a free ride in life.

[MithLuin]

We've always been able to sue over discrimination. This simply changes it from 180 days after the [i]last[/i] paycheck instead of 180 days after the [i]first[/i] one. And there is still a limit of 2 years of 'damages', so you can't work for someone for 20 years and then sue them for payback for all that time.

I do agree that suing your former employer is going to make you pretty unemployable - if you live in any sort of small town, people are going to know what you did and avoid hiring you.

I don't think this is a horrible thing, but I do think that people in this country sue too much, so this is just encouraging more lawsuits. After all, you can allege you were paid unfairly, and then they have to go to court to disprove you - expensive for everyone.

You are allowed to have payscales based on experience and meritorious promotions and the like. What you aren't allowed to do is have seperate payscales for men and women, or pay someone less because he is 60 and you know he can't get a job anywhere else, etc. For hourly-wage jobs, it's pretty easy to find out if anything unfair is happening.

[dominicansoul]

this kinda reminds me of that story Jesus told, about the wages: Matthew 20:1-16

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1765610' date='Jan 29 2009, 07:27 AM']What you aren't allowed to do is have seperate payscales for men and women, or pay someone less because he is 60 and you know he can't get a job anywhere else, etc. For hourly-wage jobs, it's pretty easy to find out if anything unfair is happening.[/quote]
None of the companies that I have worked for over the past 25 years have had separate pay scales for men and women, so this law -- at least on that issue -- is irrelevant.

That said, liberals have constantly been trying to establish pay scales equalizing different types of work (e.g., saying that a waitress should make as much as a janitor, etc.), and that idea is utter nonsense.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Didacus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1765613' date='Jan 29 2009, 10:33 AM']None of the companies that I have worked for over the past 25 years have had separate pay scales for men and women, so this law -- at least on that issue -- is irrelevant.

That said, liberals have constantly been trying to establish pay scales equalizing different types of work (e.g., saying that a waitress should make as much as a janitor, etc.), and that idea is utter nonsense.[/quote]

i tend to agree with you.

In general, if woman have 0.76cents per dolalrs earned by males, the difference is caused in large part to the positions held.

4 engineers in my group, only 1 female. Should we pay the two secretaries in our group equal wages as the engineers so the overall evens out?

[Winchester]

[quote name='rachael' post='1765543' date='Jan 29 2009, 07:05 AM']The thinking isn't just about 'getting by,' it's about equal pay for women...Women only make about $0.76 to every dollar a man makes. When a single women is trying to support a family, those few pennies can mean everything.[/quote]
[url="http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/"]Myth[/url]

[T-Bone _]

In a lot of jobs, your pay is based on your negotiating abilities. So now a woman can sue if she's a lousy negotiator, but a man can't? Talk about discrimination.

[cmotherofpirl]

The first job you take in your field is crucially important. If you don't negotiate a good salary you automatically start at a lower pay grade which will continue thru out your career at that particular company. This in term affects your next job as well.

[VoTeckam]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1765792' date='Jan 29 2009, 03:48 PM']The first job you take in your field is crucially important. If you don't negotiate a good salary you automatically start at a lower pay grade which will continue thru out your career at that particular company. This in term affects your next job as well.[/quote]


I think this is the larger problem. Most girls are not raised to be assertive so when it comes tiem to negotiate your salary for your first real job some girls are not comfortable asking for more than what they are offered.

Just FYI for any of your who might be entering the workforce soon... employers ususally offer 10-20% less than what they are prepared to pay you so do not be afraid to ask for more.... it is almost expected that you counter offer... the worst they can say is no! I've never heard of anyone's jb offer being recinded because of a counter offer!

[Veridicus]

Does the difference in pay not reflect on the fact that women, at least historically, have had to take more time off for pregnancy/kids/etc. issues than men? I'm not saying I agree with the difference, but it is capitalism and if one employee can more is capable of working more consistent hours it would make sense they get paid more for their capacity to more consistently contribute. AGAIN, I am not advocating a pay difference, but speculating at its reasons (outside of just blanket-statementing that its sexism). And following this, why should a single woman with no plans of having kids get penalized? Are the companies punishing her for her capacity for fertility...like just in case she changes her mind they'll be covered?

I need to research this more.