• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama signs equal-pay bill

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Obama signs equal-pay bill - Yahoo! News

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.

.....I expect somebody on this forum to have some sort of grudge against this....
 
:lol: how foolish of Obama to think he could simply legislate away pay disparities.


How does one prove that one is being paid less based on "gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability when one is recieving poor performance reprorts ala ledbetter?
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
I'm generally against this type of measure, but this bill fixes one of the more ridiculous problems with discrimination litigation, if only in the realm of wages. Currently one would have to sue within 180 days of being discriminated against, regardless of whether or not they know about it at the time. The Goodyear case is one example, where because Lilly discovered that she was being discriminated against more than three months after starting work, she was unable to address the situation. Another that I heard of recently involves a disabled man who sued his landlord because his apartment building violated accessibility laws. The courts ruled that he was only able to sue within 180 days of the offending building being build - nearly ten years before he moved in. The effects of the rule clearly change the laws in a way that invalidates its intentions. The new law restores the old law to its originally intended functionality, it doesn't expand the scope and try to fix problems for whom the cure is worse than the disease.
 
Wow...lawyer stimulus package.

In all seriousness, I should really be thanking Obama. He's doing his damndest to ensure that I'll have plenty of work defending large corporations and white-collar criminals.
 
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?



Yeah, that part is rather fishy....
 
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?

From the article

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
 
This is a good bill Obama signed. Put one in the positive column for the President.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The law extends the 180-day deadline every time a discriminatory paycheck is issued.

Obama signs equal-pay bill - USATODAY.com

That seems fair without being over the top and opening up lawsuits where folks are going back 40 years and suing bosses they no longer even work under.
 
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?

This is true, I was going off the assumption that the person was still at the same job.

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.

In theory, if the company could somehow prove that their prior discrimination completely ended 2 years ago and that it had absolutely no effect on your situation over the past two years, then yes, you wouldn't be able to sue.

In practice, (and this is why plaintiff's attorneys are so pumped), you can always argue that even if the company gave you your deserved promotion 2 years ago, you should have been promoted 3 years ago, which would have meant you would have been at a slightly higher pay 2 years ago, which would have meant that every paycheck that you get even now is still "discriminatory." This is especially evident in companies where there are lockstep raises based on seniority.

Say you work for a company where once you get promoted to a certain job, you get 3% raises each year. 20 years ago, you were unfairly passed over for a promotion to that job, but you were eventually given the promotion 5 years later. That means that for that entire 15 year period, even though the company "fixed" its earlier discrimination, you're still earning some combination of percentages below what you would have been earning in each paycheck if you had been promoted 20 years ago.
 
From the article in the OP:
He then signed the measure that effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision...

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:
 
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:

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
 
Yeah, that part is rather fishy....

Not really. I actually sympathized with the claimaint in that case because it's highly unlikely that an employee would know that a) there was some variance between their pay and another employee's; and b) even if such variance was known it's even more difficult to determine why the variance exists. Establishing a time limit of 180 days following the commencement of the alleged improper pay action is a tough one to overcome. Employees simply don't have the information necessary to determine when the alleged improper offense first occurred.
 
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

Yeah, I know. I'm just mocking, lefties, as I think was clear in my first post. They have for years now been incessantly whining that Bush was overreaching his authority and that congressional Republicans were overreaching their authority when they tried passing legislation that overturned court actions.
 
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:


What? That's exactly what Congress is supposed to do. This is a happy day for strict constructionists - the system worked the way it should.
 
Should I have put ~SARCASM~ before and after those comments to reflect the sarcasm? I thought my last line coupled with a rolleyes would do the trick...
 
Back
Top Bottom