Obama, choosing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first bill to sign as president, called it a "wonderful day" and declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman an issue not just for women, but for all workers.
With Ledbetter standing by his side, Obama said she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits losses that she "still feels today." He then signed the measure that effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision and makes it easier for workers to sue for discrimination by allowing them more time to do so.
"Making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone," Obama said. "That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it's not just unfair and illegal — but bad for business — to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability."
Ledbetter said she didn't become aware of the large discrepancy in her pay until she neared the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala, and she filed a lawsuit. But the high court held in a 5-4 decision that she missed her chance to bring the action.
To clarify, absolutely nothing about this is an "equal-pay bill." It's an "extension of statute of limitations so you can file more wage discrimination suits bill."
That's not necessarily a bad thing, and I've got to say I'm pleased with the way this happened (court declined to extend the law, legislature changed the law), but it shouldn't be construed as more than it is.
Ah, thanks, this makes more sense. I read the case and agree with the legislative change.
Hautey's take on it is nonsensesical pandering for bait. :mrgreen:
If it was Hatuey's take, it wouldn't bother me so much. It's the fact that that was the AP's take that concerns me.
Obama signs equal-pay bill - Yahoo! News
.....I expect somebody on this forum to have some sort of grudge against this....
Wow...lawyer stimulus package.
It makes no sense to me how a person could work for years and receive compensation and then suddenly decide they aren't getting paid enough. Why not quit years ago?
It makes no sense to me how a person could work for years and receive compensation and then suddenly decide they aren't getting paid enough. Why not quit years ago?
How does one go about finding out what their male counterparts earn?
It makes no sense to me how a person could work for years and receive compensation and then suddenly decide they aren't getting paid enough. Why not quit years ago?
Ledbetter said she didn't become aware of the large discrepancy in her pay until she neared the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala, and she filed a lawsuit
There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.
One the one hand, if someone has been discriminated against unfairly during their entire career but just finds out about it now, as Ledbetter did, it seems absurd to say that they can't get any compensation, while someone who was only discriminated against for 3 weeks can.
On the other hand, this doesn't really do anything to decrease wage discrimination or help people discover when they're being harmed, as it only focuses on extending the statute of limitations for filing these suits. The parade of horrors that opponents presented was that huge numbers of people have colorable claims that they were discriminated against at SOME point in their working career. Under this new law, they can advance claims based on discrimination that happened 40 years ago, even if there hasn't been what most people would consider active discrimination since then. It defeats the purpose of having a statute of limitations.
I thought the bill extends your time to sue 180 days after each discriminatory paycheck. So if you like, Lily, worked at the same company for years and they continued to discriminate you you could sue as long as you were still collecting discriminatory paychecks and up to 180 days after your last one.
But you wouldn't be able to sue a job you had two years ago if you hadn't collected a check from them in two years, right?
Also, the way the news I read made it sound was you get a new 180 day extension after each discriminatory paycheck. So if the company you work for now was paying you less than they were paying men 5 years ago but they stopped doing that 2 years ago and the checks you've received in the past 180 days were non-discriminatory then you are too late to sue for the 5 year ago discrimination, right?
The way I read up on this bill what you stated in bold doesn't seem true.
He then signed the measure that effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision...
From the article in the OP:
The President nullifies a Supreme Court decision? This is outrageous. What about checks and balances? What about respecting the law?
Why aren't the resident lefties here bemoaning this unconstitutional overreach by the President?
Oh, that's right, I forgot...this is Obama and a Dem Congress overturning the Supreme Court...my bad. :roll:
Yeah, that part is rather fishy....
The Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the one clause of the law means that one must sue within 180 days of receiving the first discriminatory paycheck. By changing the law to change the wording of that clause, they have nullified a Supreme Court decision, yes. That's kinda how our government works
The Supreme Court does things besides declare laws unconstitutional ya know
From the article in the OP:
The President nullifies a Supreme Court decision? This is outrageous. What about checks and balances? What about respecting the law?
Why aren't the resident lefties here bemoaning this unconstitutional overreach by the President?
Oh, that's right, I forgot...this is Obama and a Dem Congress overturning the Supreme Court...my bad. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?