Fair-pay bills approved by House

[stephanie]

.S. representatives voted 247 to 171 in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would amend the Civil Rights Act to clarify that each discriminatory paycheck creates a new opportunity for workers to file charges against employers.

Tig Gilliam, chief executive officer of Adecco Group discusses Friday's jobs report, what it signals to Capitol Hill and where pockets of strength exist for people looking for employment.
(Jan. 9)The act effectively topples a controversial 2007 Supreme Court decision that limited the window to 180 days from the first time a discriminatory pay decision was made. Prior to the 2007 decision courts had commonly viewed each new paycheck as a chance to file charges.

Lilly Ledbetter, who retired in 1998, had worked for Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. for almost two decades before an anonymous tipster informed her she was paid less than male co-workers. In 1998, she filed a questionnaire with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and later filed a formal charge. The Supreme Court decided 5-4 that Ledbetter had waited too long to file a charge because she did not complain within 180 days of when the first discriminatory pay decision was made.

"For decades the courts had recognized continuing violations. The Supreme Court decision was a very radical departure," said Chris Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project. "The reality is that many people really don't know what their co-workers are being paid, and don't have a way of knowing that they have been discriminated against when their pay was set."

The Senate is expected to vote on the Ledbetter bill as early as Jan. 21, the day after the presidential inauguration. President-elect Barack Obama, who voted last year to move forward with the Ledbetter legislation, is expected to promptly sign the law.

Also Friday, the House voted 256 to 163 to approve a bill that adds muscle to the already existent equal-pay legislation that aims to prohibit gender-based wage discrimination. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which the Senate is also expected to take up soon, would take actions such as: allowing plaintiffs to get compensatory and punitive damages, and making it easier to bring class-action lawsuits.

The bill would also prohibit employer retaliation against employees who share salary information, among other actions.

read the rest..
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/lawmakers-bolster-rights-those-suffer/story.aspx?guid=%7B73A2DE13-978E-4255-BA43-E72FD65ACA5A%7D&dist=msr_1

[LiberalNation]

good bill, it will finally pass the senate this year.

[Noir]

good bill, it will finally pass the senate this year.


I concur, I'm surprised so many voted against this if it is to bring about parity of pay between those who should have it. Is the argueement against the bill purly one of privacy or are there other reasons?

[5stringJeff]

Lunacy. One error gets multiplied out by multiple paychecks?

[Little-Acorn]

Lunacy. One error gets multiplied out by multiple paychecks?

Yep. And companies get to lawyer up and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (money that will no longer go to stockholder dividends, employees' Christmas bonuses, better machines for producing the product etc.) all for the privilege of going to court and explaining to a judge and jury, who may or may not be interesteed in listening, that the reason they pay Fred for the job more than Betty, was that Betty had a record of missing work umpteen times for various common ailments and twice for a year or more for pregnancy, where Fred didn't. The company had paid Betty lots of money for maternity leave, sick time, and had gone to considerable effort to pay to train other workers to take over when Betty couldn't come in and stayed out on unpaid leave; where Fred needed none of those expenses, did work as good as Betty's when Betty DID show up, and could always be counted on in a pinch.

Used to be that the company had to go to court to explain all that, for every employee where it happened - and it happened regularly. Now they have to go to court twelve times for each employee and explain it every time... and of course their lawyers have to go over the cases from Square One each of those times, in case anything unusual turns up; getting paid hundreds of dollars per hour of course.

Sounds perfectly fair to me. After all, that company was started with the goal of providing its workers good livings and taking care of their problems, was it not? Productivity and getting the job done was secondary, if it mattered at all. What on earth are they griping about???

The "Fair Pay Act" was perfectly appropriately named.

------------------------------------------

P.S. Especially the "Act" part.

[stephanie]

it payback from the Democrats, to the lawyers and Unions..

not going to be good..

[Psychoblues]

Nothing to do with privacy, Noir. It is about the power of an employer to set wages to suit himself rather than any sense of fairness and considerations of gender recognition and pay disparities.



I concur, I'm surprised so many voted against this if it is to bring about parity of pay between those who should have it. Is the argueement against the bill purly one of privacy or are there other reasons?

The hypocrisy of the reichwingers is to be expected. History bears that out very well, doesn't it?!?!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!

God Bless Women and Equal Pay For Equal Work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Hobbit]

It's the very kind of bill you get when lawyers make the laws. It's lunacy. It's also going to lead to LESS hiring of minorities, since the fact that they can sue you every week is a liability.

[Psychoblues]

If only fairness was your overlying or even an underlying consideration, hibbit, I might agree with you.



It's the very kind of bill you get when lawyers make the laws. It's lunacy. It's also going to lead to LESS hiring of minorities, since the fact that they can sue you every week is a liability.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Hobbit]

If only fairness was your overlying or even an underlying consideration, hibbit, I might agree with you.




:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

Life isn't fair. My primary concern is liberty. When the government steps in to tell you who you can and can't hire, they take away your liberty. If I don't like somebody's hiring or pay practices, I'm not going to use the government as a truncheon to infringe on their liberty, I'm going to use my liberty to buy from somebody else.

[Psychoblues]

And I maintain that without fairness there can be no liberty, hibbit. I'm not trying to be flippant about that and I think our Constitution bears my opinion out to the nullification of your own selfish considerations.

There simply is no excuse for women and minorities performing equal and/or comparable work at less compensation considerations than the company favorites tend to earn. Tough shit, cowgirl, this is the land where All Men (people) Are Created Equal.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Noir]

It's the very kind of bill you get when lawyers make the laws. It's lunacy. It's also going to lead to LESS hiring of minorities, since the fact that they can sue you every week is a liability.

But they would only be sued if there was a discrepancy between two workers who should be on the same pay.

And if you worked in a bussiness with 4 other guys and 5 women, and it was known that even though all 10 of gas did the same work but that thevwomn to paid less for it, you think they should just have to accept that?

[Joe Steel]

Lunacy. One error gets multiplied out by multiple paychecks?

Utter nonsense.

The employer's discriminatory compensation policy was not a mistake. It made a conscious, deliberate decision and then hid it from the employee. This act removes the capacity to hide a crime.

[Joe Steel]

Yep. And companies get to lawyer up and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars (money that will no longer go to stockholder dividends, employees' Christmas bonuses, better machines for producing the product etc.) all for the privilege of going to court and explaining to a judge and jury, who may or may not be interesteed in listening, that the reason they pay Fred for the job more than Betty, was that Betty had a record of missing work umpteen times for various common ailments and twice for a year or more for pregnancy, where Fred didn't. The company had paid Betty lots of money for maternity leave, sick time, and had gone to considerable effort to pay to train other workers to take over when Betty couldn't come in and stayed out on unpaid leave; where Fred needed none of those expenses, did work as good as Betty's when Betty DID show up, and could always be counted on in a pinch.

Used to be that the company had to go to court to explain all that, for every employee where it happened - and it happened regularly. Now they have to go to court twelve times for each employee and explain it every time... and of course their lawyers have to go over the cases from Square One each of those times, in case anything unusual turns up; getting paid hundreds of dollars per hour of course.

Sounds perfectly fair to me. After all, that company was started with the goal of providing its workers good livings and taking care of their problems, was it not? Productivity and getting the job done was secondary, if it mattered at all. What on earth are they griping about???

The "Fair Pay Act" was perfectly appropriately named.

------------------------------------------

P.S. Especially the "Act" part.


Utter nonsense.

You're assuming facts not in evidence. This act protects employees from the illegal acts of employers not from reasonable compensation decisions.

[Psychoblues]

God Bless Fair Pay for Fair Work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[crin63]

The lawsuits that will ensue are yet more incentive for people not to hire women or minorities. There is always a cause and affect. Its just an extension of affirmative action.

[stephanie]

hardest hit will be the small business owners..

the very people the Democrat party says they are looking out for..

and people will buy it, hook, line and sinker, because it won't be any skin off their asses...

[No1tovote4]

After the first few lawsuits made easier by these laws people will understand that sometimes they are harmful.

However, women do deserve to be paid the same as anybody else doing the same job.

I don't want my daughters to be counted as worth less than some dorky idiot because he is the proud owner of a shlang...

[Noir]

I don't get the problem, what's wrong with women being paid the same as men?

[crin63]

I spend a great deal of time around 50-75 women. I have never heard any of them complain about their pay. They have never mentioned it to my wife and many of them are department heads where they work.

When my daughter starts working out in the world if she gets paid less than a man for the same job I'll tell her to talk to her boss or find a new job if she's not happy.

[stephanie]

I don't get the problem, what's wrong with women being paid the same as men?

there is no problem with that, if the woman is as qualified and able to do the same type work.

[Hobbit]

I don't get the problem, what's wrong with women being paid the same as men?

That's not the issue here. The issue is being able to throw around hundreds of lawsuits for every perceived slight. Just keep in mind that when NOW puts out statistics about how women get paid less, they don't factor in type of work being done, willingness to put in extra hours, and such things as maternity leave. When factoring those things in, pay difference between the sexes is negligible. The reason the raw data shows men getting paid more is that a) men don't take maternity leave and b) men are, biologically, more ambitious and more willing to take risks.

[5stringJeff]

Utter nonsense.

You're assuming facts not in evidence. This act protects employees from the illegal acts of employers not from reasonable compensation decisions.

And you're assuming that every case in which a woman makes less than a male counterpart is conscious discrimination based on nothing but gender.

[Joe Steel]

And you're assuming that every case in which a woman makes less than a male counterpart is conscious discrimination based on nothing but gender.

Nonsense. I'm assuming nothing. I'm merely commenting on the intent of the law. It would allow a woman to sue regardless of when she discovered what she thought was discrimination. The Court could allow or dismiss the suit based on the evidence.

[Little-Acorn]

there is no problem with that, if the woman is as qualified and able to do the same type work.

And willing.

See other posters' comments about taking of maternity leave, unpaid family leave, etc., which women historically do more often than men. Even unpaid leave imposes cost increases on the company, since it must train others to do the work the employee was doing. Such additional training is often unproductive while taking place, though necessary.

[stephanie]

And willing.

See other posters' comments about taking of maternity leave, unpaid family leave, etc., which women historically do more often than men. Even unpaid leave imposes cost increases on the company, since it must train others to do the work the employee was doing. Such additional training is often unproductive while taking place, though necessary.

agree..

[LiberalNation]

lawsuit abilty is the only way we will ever see income equality. If the companies have no fear they have no incentive which is why that part is in the bill. to give it teeth.

[stephanie]

lawsuit abilty is the only way we will ever see income equality. If the companies have no fear they have no incentive which is why that part is in the bill. to give it teeth.

I hope you don't get sued some day.you won't think it is such a piece of cake.

[5stringJeff]

lawsuit abilty is the only way we will ever see income equality. If the companies have no fear they have no incentive which is why that part is in the bill. to give it teeth.

Wrong. Companies have every incentive to pay women equally for equal work and equal abilities, because if they don't, another company will come along and hire that woman for a higher salary.

[Joe Steel]

Wrong. Companies have every incentive to pay women equally for equal work and equal abilities, because if they don't, another company will come along and hire that woman for a higher salary.

That's the way economics say it's supposed to work. The problem is, for women, it works at a lower level.

Employers pay the going rate. As far as women are concerned, that rate is kept low by the necessity to accept low pay to get and hold jobs employers expect them to treat as inferior to their families in importance. In other words, our society expects women to put their families, and especially their children, before their employers. Their rates of pay reflect their employers' expectations. Our sense of economic justice, however, demands women be paid a fair amount for their labor and that fair amount is determined by the rate earned by workers of equal competence regardless of gender.

[5stringJeff]

That's the way economics say it's supposed to work. The problem is, for women, it works at a lower level.

Employers pay the going rate. As far as women are concerned, that rate is kept low by the necessity to accept low pay to get and hold jobs employers expect them to treat as inferior to their families in importance. In other words, our society expects women to put their families, and especially their children, before their employers. Their rates of pay reflect their employers' expectations. Our sense of economic justice, however, demands women be paid a fair amount for their labor and that fair amount is determined by the rate earned by workers of equal competence regardless of gender.

Except that, because women enter and exit the workforce due to family reasons (i.e. having kids), men and women don't always being the same experience to the job. So the market may price a woman's salary lower if she's been out of the workforce for a couple of years, even if she has the same academic qualifications. Again, that determination is made by the woman and her employer. All else being equal, if Company X wants to hire that woman at $60K/year, and Company Y wants to hire her at $65K/year, where do you think she'll go? The cream will always rise to the top.

[Joe Steel]

Except that, because women enter and exit the workforce due to family reasons (i.e. having kids), men and women don't always being the same experience to the job. So the market may price a woman's salary lower if she's been out of the workforce for a couple of years, even if she has the same academic qualifications.

Yes. That's why I said:


Our sense of economic justice, however, demands women be paid a fair amount for their labor and that fair amount is determined by the rate earned by workers of equal competence regardless of gender.


Again, that determination is made by the woman and her employer. All else being equal, if Company X wants to hire that woman at $60K/year, and Company Y wants to hire her at $65K/year, where do you think she'll go? The cream will always rise to the top.

That's the way it's supposed to work. However, I think most women (and men for that matter) work in positions where the distinction between one worker and another is not significantly quantifiable. For them, the only path to economic justice is government regulation.

[5stringJeff]

That's the way it's supposed to work. However, I think most women (and men for that matter) work in positions where the distinction between one worker and another is not significantly quantifiable. For them, the only path to economic justice is government regulation.

So, we should have more regulation based solely on opinion? How about less regulation, based on facts?

[Joe Steel]

So, we should have more regulation based solely on opinion? How about less regulation, based on facts?

Excellent idea!

Here's a fact: women earn less than equally competent men in comparable positions.

I think we should do something about it. If that means regulating employers, so be it. If it means subsidizing women with government money, OK.

[stephanie]

Excellent idea!

Here's a fact: women earn less than equally competent men in comparable positions.

I think we should do something about it. If that means regulating employers, so be it. If it means subsidizing women with government money, OK.

is there any Socialist programs you don't support.?
If you want full blown Socialism, why are you living here? why not move to Cuba, or North Korea?

[5stringJeff]

Excellent idea!

Here's a fact: women earn less than equally competent men in comparable positions.

I think we should do something about it. If that means regulating employers, so be it. If it means subsidizing women with government money, OK.

More facts: the gap is closing, on its own, without regulation. Women in their 20s make more than men. (source (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0334472920070803)).

Given these facts, I believe the best course of action is to let the market continue to work itself out.

[Joe Steel]

is there any Socialist programs you don't support.?
If you want full blown Socialism, why are you living here? why not move to Cuba, or North Korea?

The need is greater here.

[stephanie]

The need is greater here.

so you are here to help implement it and do you think it will succeed?

[avatar4321]

Excellent idea!

Here's a fact: women earn less than equally competent men in comparable positions.

I think we should do something about it. If that means regulating employers, so be it. If it means subsidizing women with government money, OK.

Can their truly be a comparable position between people, let alone between the sexes?

This is the problem ive always had with affirmative action. Everyone has different levels of education and experience. Everyone has different skills and attitudes. No one is in a comparable position.

BTW you want true equality for people, you can't force it. It just doesnt work that way.