When the U.S. Supreme Court let Goodyear get away with having paid far less to Lilly Ledbetter than to her male colleagues over a period of years, it was up to Congress to make it right for others in the same position. It seemed absurd that the court expected Ledbetter to have brought suit within 180 days of the company’s first act of discrimination against her, as if employees have ready access to such payroll information. Two years after the court decision, President Barack Obama signed a bill into law Thursday that rightly counts each new paycheck as an unlawful practice, while limiting potential back pay awards to two years. Unfortunately, only one member of the Kansas delegation, Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Lenexa, saw fit to vote for the commonsense legislation, which also protects those discriminated against because of race, religion, national origin, disability or age. Kansas Republicans on Capitol Hill have echoed GOP leaders’ contention that the bill was an overreaching gift to “wealthy trial lawyers.” But it’s significant that all 16 women in the U.S. Senate, including four Republicans, voted for the bill. And with their votes against it over the past week, Republican Reps. Todd Tiahrt of Goddard, Jerry Moran of Hays and Lynn Jenkins of Topeka and Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts signaled they were content to let pay discrimination go unpunished in cases where the companies were lucky enough to keep it secret for at least six months.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
149 Comments
hehehehe
What an incredibly stupid bill!
Will the damage to the ability of women to be hired in the future be worth this gigantic payoff to the trial lawyers?
I doubt it.
Tiahrt’s vote isn’t surprising. He voiced his support for corrupt, incompetent CEOs to buy luxury jets, but when it comes to women making equal pay he’s opposed to it. Now, I just want to know when Jenkins is going to cut her pay to match how she votes?
and that is why Kansas republicans SUCK. They refuse to do what is right.
I’m most disappointed in Lynn Jenkins. I’m so sorry that I ever supported her. I based my support of her on a candidate form she turned into my org back when she was running for treasurer. Apparently she’s just like a republican that will tell you only what you want to hear to get elected.
Combine that with the stuff that Boyda was doing, but Boyda would have been better than this.
Just curious, did any republicans on the board write their lawmakers in support of this? Or did you just parrot their stupid claims?
Hank what an ignorant response. Do you want to pay less in social services or not? Why would employers not hire women when they can be sued equally for hiring discrimination? Bottom line is do the right thing if you’re hiring and you won’t have to worry about it. Women are equally valuable, we should be paid as such.
It is appalling that anyone would support discrimination in this day and age. You should support this considering that your wife is the breadwinner.
So, what’s the rest of the story? If this bill is such an obviously wonderful thing, why the opposition.
We’re not getting the whole story here.
I wonder how Hank would feel if he was the one who had been discriminated against and for years paid less than those who did the same job. I wonder if he would be willing to settle for less retirement income just because of his gender? And he’d be furious if it was his wife who had been discriminated against in this way.
Amazing when the shoe is on the other foot how some would probably change their opinion. Sad how some are incapable of ever seeing anything from someone else’s perspective.
Go Obama! What a great man!
The other side of the story is that companies don’t want to be held liable for their discriminatory practices…the cost is way to high.
This is a bonanza for the trial lawyers, who gave tens of millions to the Messiah’s campaign. This is a bill about an embittered woman who lost before the Supreme Court, a woman who dawdled before going to court.
…it’s significant that all 16 women in the U.S. Senate, including four Republicans…
Lawyer’s also prefer women on juries that decide other types of civil cases where an injustice is done.
But, I tend to agree with Hank’s assessment. The determination of the case was correct in this single incident.
However, it will open up the floodgates for litigation of unequal pay, perceived or real.
Our friendly trail lawyers had to promote this bill. Since Congress politicians are mostly lawyers this was an easy one. Employers should dicate who gets paid what, where, when and how. More Nanny state crap. As others said here, I wonder what other earmarks was attached and who paid who off. WE if you comment give us all the story, but you don’t know it and I don’t either.
I’m all for equal pay for equal work and non-discrimination.
But this is a bad bill. Most businesses do not keep employment records beyond 7 years. When somebody can go back 25+ years and sue for wage discrimination, businesses wouldn’t even have the records to defend themselves, so the trial lawyers will be hitting them up on settlements also known as jackpot justice.
I see a huge trend of companies no longer hiring employees, instead they would be hiring “workers” by temp agencies. I can see many, many women finding that temp agencies is the only place to find employment.
Temp agencies do two things: 1. It puts the wage, hiring practices and etc., squarely on the backs of the temp agency and not the companies using the workers and it will keep unionization from happening in the workforce as you cannot unionize a workforce if they are not employees of that company, but temporary “workers”.
I think all along that the Democratic Party Government has every intention to bring down the entire standard of living of the USA. This might be a survival issue. We are running out of natural resources and scaling down our standard of living is probably our only choice.
Hint:
There is this cool trick called looking up your job code, skill and location to find out how much you should be earning.
If you are earning less, then demand a raise or quit and go somewhere else. If you are earning more or the same, do nothing.
However, now a million dollar lawsuit is clearly the best way to get that 5K a year raise that you deserve!
Ledbetter stayed in one place for 18 years and never once investigated how much her skills were really worth? This sounds like a case of not taking enough responsibility for your own personal interests.
I am in favor of people wanting (not forcing) to go to church, hearing sermons on “equal weights and equal measures”, and then acting with integrity towards their employees. I’m also in favor of sermons on “working heartily”. I’m sure we could all do with a sermon on, “doing all things without grumbling or complaining.”
RepubliCONs just don’t get it.
White men don’t run the world anymore. They don’t get to make the rules that everybody else has to live by.
I make less than the peer I share an office with. We have about the same background, but I (in a technical field) stay more abreast of changes in our field. I feel that I am worth more because the technology I use will last longer.
He gets paid quite a bit more than I do. I don’t know exact figures, but of this I am certain.
Yes, I would like to trade paychecks with him, but he better negotiated his rate than I did. I don’t hold that against him; quite the contrary. Bully for him. If you feel you are not fairly paid for the job you are doing, it is your responsibility to negotiate what you feel is fair or leave the position.
Repubs, against the statue of limitations when it applies to Geithner, for a statue of limitations when it’s applied against a woman who had no knowledge of someone’s wrongdoing.
Remember folks, you can only go back 2 years to get compensation. This will not be a big deal for trial lawyers. Each paycheck updates the effective date of awareness, but the statute of limitation is absolutely 2 years.
The trial lawyers bring public unfairness to the forefront. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) have been fighting against workers for a decade. We need a balance against the liberty of employers to abuse.
Sol–
Every dollar that your pal unfairly makes is a dollar stolen from you who really earn more for the company.
But such are the scraps that slaves fight over.
You can choose to work at an unfair wages or you can starve in the street.
That’s what un-fettered capitalism calls “free choice.”
For FAR too long, this country has weighted heavily in favor of exploi….er…employers. It is long past time the field was leveled.
LOL, BluJ!
And mega-dittos.
capnSocialism,
Did I ever write that I was paid unfairly? Only an extreme socialist would assume that money was stolen from me. A socialist that can not think for himself but obediently obliges his master.
I had an opportunity to negotiate a better wage. I didn’t do as well as my peer. That is freedom. Socialists demand the same regardless of ability. Just another cog in the wheel.
BJ,
Without employers, there are no jobs. Please tell me you aren’t that ignorant.
You know, capnSocialism and BJ are the strongest proponents of socialism. Read their posts. They are always looking for something for nothing. They want those that achieve in this world to pay their way, on their terms.
Do you see that America was built on this notion? Did we become a world power by having our hands outreached?
Strong dedicated Americans built this country with the strength of their backs and the sweat of their brow. No you two show up with your hands outreached.
“Did I ever write that I was paid unfairly? Only an extreme socialist would assume that money was stolen from me. A socialist that can not think for himself but obediently obliges his master.”
“I make less than the peer I share an office with. We have about the same background, but I (in a technical field) stay more abreast of changes in our field. I feel that I am worth more because the technology I use will last longer.”
So what is your point? I failed to negotiate a better wage. Please highlight where I said that money was stolen from me.
Or even that it is unfair. My peer did a better job negotiating. Is that unfair? Not to me. But then again, I’m not a socialist. Are you?
I am somewhat ammused by the stupidity and ignorance of the libs on this BLOG.
I seriously doubt there is one of them that can intelligently discuss the details of this bill. It does very little for women and will probably hurt them in the long run.
It is, however, a gravy train for trial lawyers!
Two people get the same job with the same duties and responsibilities, at the same time. One is male. One is female. In every instance, the male gets paid more, not based on merit, longevity or any other factor.
This is what someone suing for equal pay must establish, and they have the burden of proof, still. The new law simply says that they are not statutory barred from suing if they fail to find out within a short time.
If the employer rectifies the disparity years before they find out, tough luck. In the actual Ledbetter case, the disparity continued throughout the entire 19 years, but the Supremes faulted her for not acting on information she did not know earlier.
The other stupid blather I’m seeing is like objecting to anyone insisting two customers receive the same meal they ordered, because someone else ordered a different meal. It’s ludicrous, needlessly obsfucates a very simple issue.
“You can choose to work at an unfair wages or you can starve in the street.”
-Capn
I’ll take the J-O-B. Thank You.
Rage
Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:28 am
The other stupid blather I’m seeing is like objecting to anyone insisting two customers receive the same meal they ordered, because someone else ordered a different meal. It’s ludicrous, needlessly obsfucates a very simple issue.
======================================
Not all rib eyes are created equal. :)
“You can choose to work at an unfair wages or you can starve in the street.”
Yeah… cuz you know… there is only one job in the world. What a maroon.
Employers will gladly continue to pay their workers the least possible wages and benefits as long as there are enablers like solly around. They not only bend over for cheap, they encourage employers to continue to screw their employees and find new and more efficient ways to screw them, and chuckle all the way to the bank. Solly, you’re a disgrace to your fellow employees!
I love how he’s surrounded by women in that picture. Because the bill deals directly with women.
Unlike another photo-op with Bush surrounded by a sea of white men.
Seriously, all this bill does is not reward employers for keeping discrimination a secret for 6 months. There is no “gravy train” to be had. I can’t go back 10 years and expect to be paid a decade of the pay discrepancy.
Why do CONs hate women? Besides the ones who can’t get laid, I mean?
Jed,
You are a chuckle head. Would you have the government decide pay scales? Or are you a Union-tard that follows your master blindly like capnSocialism?
Of course a company is going to try to buy as cheaply as possible. Only a moron would pay more than needed. Hey, next time you fill your car up, why don’t you practice what you preach and pay $4.00 per gallon. You paid that much before, why not now?
Your claims are socialist and ridiculous.
You are a disgrace to a free society.
Wahine_Tara
Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:49 am | Permalink
I love how he’s surrounded by women in that picture. Because the bill deals directly with women
=============================
Wait, you haven’t seen nothing yet!
Later on, Obama will be wrapping himself in the flag and doing a ’statue of Liberty’ pose in a Valley Forge ‘river crossing scene’ while hoisting the flag at Iwo Jima!
Tara,
Why are you out of the kitchen?
I have an idea. Why don’t we ask Tiahrt why he opposed the bill? Instead of listening to all these liberal lies about how Rpublicans don’t care about women or pay equaility?
Oh, wait, Tiahrt has told us why, you liberals just don’t care about the truth:
“Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Although I join my colleagues in steadfast opposition to pay discrimination, this ill-advised, over-reaching, and disingenuous overhaul of civil rights law is the wrong approach.
Pay discrimination is not a partisan issue. Pay discrimination strikes at the heart of the American Dream. For more than 40 years, the 1963 Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has made it illegal for employers to determine an employee’s pay scale based on his or her gender. I wholeheartedly agree and support these laws. Every American should be able to work hard, and make a living for his or her family. We can not tolerate gender discrimination in the workplace.
This legislation, however, is about bad politics rather than good policy. H.R. 11 was supposedly written to remedy a sad situation for one person–Lilly Ledbetter. She was apparently paid significantly less than her counterparts at Goodyear Tire Company during her tenure there. Decades later Ms. Ledbetter filed a claim of discrimination. Taking her claim through the courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29, 2007 that the statute of limitations had unfortunately run out.
Instead of simply restoring prior law, by overturning a Supreme Court ruling against Ms. Ledbetter, in reality, Democrats will gut a decades-old statute of limitations that prevents the filing of “stale” claims and protects against abuse of the legal system. Current law rightly provides a statute of limitations to file a discrimination claim, up to 300 days after the alleged workplace discrimination occurred. Under this bill, however, employees or retirees could sue for pay discrimination years, even decades, after the alleged discrimination.
How can a company defend itself when the accused offenders left the company decades before? The answer is–they can’t. And that is exactly the answer desired by the trial lawyers who support this legislation. This legislation will not end pay discrimination, but it will certainly encourage frivolous claims and lawsuits. It is inevitable that under this legislation employees will sue companies for reasons that have little if anything to do with the accused discrimination.
Madam Speaker, the issue of pay discrimination is too important to consider this poorly crafted, politically motivated piece of legislation. As much as we sympathize with Ms. Ledbetter, H.R. 11 is bad legislation. Let us instead join together, work in a bipartisan manner, to address pay discrimination while not destroying decades-worth of solid employment discrimination law. Until then, I ask my colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation.”
For anyone interested in the truth, feel free to read what I just posted.
For you liberals more interested in promoting your lies about the Republicans, you probably didn’t bother to read it.
Tara,
Why do you hate the truth and have to lie? Why would a Christian woman be concerned about “getting laid?”
Not a very Christian attitutde.
One fundamental tenet of our economic structure is the freedom to choose with whom you do business – including employment. No argument there.
Part of that choice is to accept or decline the terms of employment – of which, compensation is an element. No argument.
Negotiation of that compensation is a function of both the employee and the employer. Many factors are taken into account: experience, reliability, value of the work, market conditions, etc. Certainly, the skill of the negotiators also affects the resulting compensation plan.
All this equals the FREEDOM associated with our capitalism and yields a high rate of employment. Anything counter to these principles will increase the cost of labor beyond market equilibrium. The result: lower employment.
“I’ll take the J-O-B. Thank You.”
Exploiters everywhere are grateful for eager serfs such as you.
The SECOND that one man works for the progress or wealth of another, that first man has lost a measure of his freedom. Be that person male or female, government should err on the side of protecting what little freedom that exploited person has left.
The majority of people who voted against this bill appear to be white males, which reminds me of the men who protest abortion. Easy to rally against something that couldn’t possibly happen to YOU! Its really sad that this bill is even needed, but any woman in the workplace can tell you that it is.
Here is BlueJay!
He wont work for someone because of some misguided principles, but he has no problem holding his hands out for the government to take that money to pay for his son to live instead.
“Tara,
Why are you out of the kitchen?”
I’ll admit it, I laughed.
“Tara,
Why do you hate the truth and have to lie? Why would a Christian woman be concerned about “getting laid?”
Not a very Christian attitutde.”
Hint: Christians are allowed to make jokes.
BJ,
Your posts and positions are utterly asinine. In order not to fit this strawman mold you have concocted, every single American should not work and get paid by the government. How utterly imbecilic.
If you have ever performed a service for any other individual or business, you have helped “the man” and been exploited. Are you too dense to understand this?
I am very proud that I did not learn marching in line skills like you did Nathan. I also don’t get to cop to a higher power to tell me I aint living right. I have to look around for solutions instead of up.
BlueJay,
Do you have a feeling of “Pride” and are you “Proud” when you have to go to the government to pay for your sons healthcare instead of being able to do it yourself?
“take that money to pay for his son to live instead.”
My son gets a measure of State health care. Perhaps you wish he had been aborted?
I happen to believe that health care is a right in a civilized society Nathan.
Why don’t you go ahead and tell us what you think should happen to the ailing poor? Be honest for the first time in your life.
“The majority of people who voted against this bill appear to be white males, which reminds me of the men who protest abortion. Easy to rally against something that couldn’t possibly happen to YOU! Its really sad that this bill is even needed, but any woman in the workplace can tell you that it is.”
Nola, your excellent point is highlighted by this snippet:
“But it’s significant that all 16 women in the U.S. Senate, including four Republicans, voted for the bill.”
Some CON men just don’t get it.
Tara,
Do you think they supported it because they actually agreed with it or because they knew if they didn’t the people like you would resort to the typical lie campagin against them as not supporting women?
BlueJay,
And who pays for that right when you think on principle working for others wealth is wrong?
I find myself in the place of defending working people Nathan. You, as usual take the stand of exploiting and judging them.
I can’t stay and play. Who raised you? It wasn’t your father. Did that person work? Did they get assistance of some sort to raise you up to assist in standing on the throats of others? How is it you came to be such a staunch defender of using others for fun and profit?
BlueJay,
The only person here who is using others and saying it is a right… IS YOU.
Seriously, if everyone followed your principle of not working for “the man” who is going to pay for your alleged right to health care?
Where do you think that money is coming from?
Typical CON.
Women can’t think for themselves, they need the strong white men to do it!
No, all the women in the Senate voted for it because they were scared of the backlash. There’s no other reason. Silly little dears. Step back and let the real men handle it.
Russian scientist say woman have brain size of squirrel.
Tara,
You yourself are an example of the simple minded women out there who would sit around and accuse those Republican women of not caring and being “typical CON’s” if they had not supported the bill.
This will help companies hire more people using temp firms. If that doesn’t work, they can always move work to China. If we go with European law, a company will have to seek a courts permission to fire someone or do layoffs. Most of this bill was about Obama seeking ego gratification and validation. He sure paid his own female campaign staff less for the ladies.
As usual, Tiahrt spouts false talking points instead of the truth.
(B) In addition to any relief authorized by section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), liability may accrue and an aggrieved person may obtain relief as provided in subsection (g)(1), including recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful employment practices with regard to discrimination in compensation that occurred outside the time for filing a charge.’.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111xh1qcc:e924:
“You yourself are an example of the simple minded women out there who would sit around and accuse those Republican women of not caring and being “typical CON’s” if they had not supported the bill.”
Really?
Sol seems to be one of those women, and I haven’t said a word.
When issue pertain directly to women, yes, I think it’s worse for a man to vote against it than a woman.
I’d be very careful calling other people “simple-minded”, Nathan. How did kangaroos get to Australia, again?
Tara,
And how did God involve himself in Evolution again?
Where in the science books does it talk about God giving Adam and Eve souls?
Your belief is no less worthy of mocking than mine is.
Nathan.
You have still never answered my question, “What is science?”
Until then, there’s no use engaging in this dialogue except for my occasional snarks about marsupials.
Sol seems to be one of those women,
I cry foul. 100% red bloded Male American.
;~>
Whoops :)
For some reason your post a few upwards led me to believe otherwise. Not calling you a girly-man, I promise!
So that’s…zero…women against this bill? I wonder why that is?
Oh, because they’re afraid of a backlash, that’s all.
Tara,
Would you like for me to quote you the textbook definition of what “science” is?
Actually, I think you do bring up a good point. Perhaps we could talk about all the various ways that Evolutionary theory doesn’t even meet the definition of what “science” is.
Why don’t you copy/paste the textbook definition of science, and then explain it in your own words so I can check your understanding.
I’m a very good teacher.
But probably on the open thread.
Tara,
The point? I am not seeking your approval or teaching advice on my understanding of what science is.
The point is, if you correctly understood what science is, you would realize how questions like:
“Where in the science books does it talk about God giving Adam and Eve souls?”
are dumb.
Your beliefs are on par with flat-earth theory. Because, seriously, how do you think Kangaroos got to Australia? Bonus points if you provide evidence.
how do you think Kangaroos got to Australia?
kangaroos are some hellah hoppers!!!
Bonus points if you provide evidence.
Have ya seen em HOP!?!?!?!?
Tara,
You point out that my beliefs are not “scientific” while your beliefs are not either.
My questions are not dumb, they are meant to illustrate how absurd it is for someone like you to mock me for my belief when yours are not any better.
How do you think the first life came into existence from which Evolution allegedly began? Bonus points if you provide evidence.
Wow, the bill extends the right to file from 180 days to two years from the date of an illegal pay check. Being as it is against many companies policy to discuss pay, many women may never know they are being underpaid with regard to their male counterparts (in many companies, discussing pay can get you fired). But Tiahrt, that bastion of convoluted neo-con thinking, thinks it’s a bad bill.
But I suppose supporting the businesses paying for the elections of those same neo-con leaders is AOK. After all, if they don’t get reelected, how will they support their families in this time of need? It’s not like they could get hired by those same companies to lobby for more worthwhile bills.
(Sarcasm off)
#
Wahine_Tara
Posted January 30, 2009 at 12:48 pm | Permalink
Your beliefs are on par with flat-earth theory. Because, seriously, how do you think Kangaroos got to Australia? Bonus points if you provide evidence.
======================================================
Why Tara, I thought you knew: God decided the island should have critters that hop around and raise their kids in pouches. Sheeesh . . .what are you thinking?
THE US scientist who cracked the human genome is poised to create the world’s first man-made species, a synthetic microbe that could lead to an endless supply of biofuel.
Craig Venter has applied for a patent at more than 100 national offices to make a bacterium from laboratory-made DNA.
It is part of an effort to create designer bugs to manufacture hydrogen and biofuels, as well as absorb carbon dioxide and other harmful greenhouse gases.
DNA contains the instructions to make the proteins that build and run an organism.
The J. Craig Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland, is applying for worldwide patents on what it refers to as Mycoplasma laboratorium based on DNA assembled by scientists. When asked whether the world’s first synthetic bug was thriving in a test tube, Dr Venter said: “We are getting close.”
The Venter Institute’s US Patent application claims exclusive ownership of a set of essential genes and a synthetic “free-living organism that can grow and replicate” that is made using those genes.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/designer-bug-holds-key-to-endless-fuel/2007/06/09/1181089398547.html
=======================================================
So, Nathan, if Craig Venter does create life, does that make him a God? I mean if God created life, then by all rights, if man creates life he is by virtue of your own definition, a God.
“How do you think the first life came into existence from which Evolution allegedly began? Bonus points if you provide evidence.”
We don’t know. The research in the origins of life is slim, and something that most biologists think need attention in the next 200 years.
There is a hypothesis that seems to be in favor that life first began as RNA. It is called a hypothesis, and not a theory, because there is little evidence for it. All we have is evidence from Miller-Urey that amino acids can be spontaneously synthesized, and that RNA is capable of reproducing and copying itself.
Other ideas of the origins of life can be found here as a starting point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Short answer: We don’t know, which is why there are no theories on this topic, just hypotheses. I have ideas, but they are not supported or rooted in science, just imagination.
However, “we don’t know” is NOT a problem for science. It means just that and only that, “we don’t know”. Still open for research.
“We don’t know” to religion means “we don’t know and therefore God did it and there’s no need to look further”
Secondly, the widely supported, widely researched theory (not hypothesis) of evolution supports common descent, which is why science looks at abiogenesis as a starting point.
In your next post, you will jump on my “I don’t know” as an “AHA see evilotion is a lie!” but you will be throwing out 200 years of work and evidence on evolutionary biology itself, which is the easy way out instead of debating the evidence.
And then I will make another snark about kangaroos.
JM Walker,
You don’t grasp logic very well do you?
What you just did was use a strawman argument. A strawman argument is where you create a false argument and attribute it to someone you are arguing against. You then procede to argue against this made up argument as if it were something the person you are arguing with said when they did not.
In simple terms:
I have never defined God to be God merely because he created life.
Thus, your argument that if someone else creates life they will be God too is false. A strawman argument.
When the U.S. Supreme Court let Goodyear get away with having paid far less to Lilly Ledbetter than to her male colleagues over a period of years . . .
Uh, just a small point. The SCOTUS did not “let Goodyear get away with it,” Congress did. Congress set the 180 day statute of limitations at issue in Ledbetter.
Congress created the problem that cost Ledbetter. Congress had to fix it. Let’s just get our facts right.
JMWalker
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
THE US scientist who cracked the human genome is poised to create the world’s first man-made species, a synthetic microbe that could lead to an endless supply of biofuel.
—————————————
Before you celebrate Man creating Life, tell me, where did Venter get his raw material for his ‘life creating’ work?
So, “Nathaniel” –
Tell me the physiology of resurrection.
Does the heart start beating spontaneously, pumping blood to the brain to trigger cerebral firing of neurons which re-start the autonomic nervous system establishing basic homeostasis in the body and facilitate voluntary muscles so one can rise from the grave? Or does resurrection involve the brain first, triggering the heart and lungs and arms and legs?
It’s in your book a few times, Lazarus and the Big Guy, etc. It’s the central tenet of your faith, your life, your world view….
Just how does the process work?
But the main question is: What the h ell does evolution have to do with women’s pay? Oh, I know: since woman was made from Adams rib, she owes males from then to eternity! Tara, please feel free to send me ten dollars, or give me back my d amn rib!
GMC70
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
When the U.S. Supreme Court let Goodyear get away with having paid far less to Lilly Ledbetter than to her male colleagues over a period of years . . .
Uh, just a small point. The SCOTUS did not “let Goodyear get away with it,” Congress did. Congress set the 180 day statute of limitations at issue in Ledbetter.
Congress created the problem that cost Ledbetter. Congress had to fix it. Let’s just get our facts right.
————————————
Say GMC, any idea which Congress passed that 180 day limit?
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
You don’t grasp logic very well do you?
What you just did was use a strawman argument. A strawman argument is where you create a false argument and attribute it to someone you are arguing against. You then procede to argue against this made up argument as if it were something the person you are arguing with said when they did not.
In simple terms:
I have never defined God to be God merely because he created life.
Thus, your argument that if someone else creates life they will be God too is false. A strawman argument.
======================================================
Now if that isn’t typical Nathan convoluted logic, I don’t know what is.
Craig Venter is a jerk, but the man is brilliant.
#
JimJohnson
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
Before you celebrate Man creating Life, tell me, where did Venter get his raw material for his ‘life creating’ work?
===================================================
Burger King
“GMC70:” Re –
“…The SCOTUS did not “let Goodyear get away with it,” Congress did. Congress set the 180 day statute of limitations at issue in Ledbetter. “
What was the constitutional issue at stake that persuaded the SCOTUS to accept the case?
#
Wahine_Tara
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
Craig Venter is a jerk, but the man is brilliant.
==================================================
We are in total agreement. Where’s my ten bucks?
Wasn’t the original 180 day limit established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Passed by Democrats?
So Democrats celebrate ‘correcting’ their own mistakes?
Yiiiipppppeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(But blame the current Supreme Court for passing the 1964 law.)
JM Walker,
I hope you are just pulling my leg now.
Burger King
==================
Life is best flame broiled.
“We are in total agreement. Where’s my ten bucks?”
I no longer owe you 10 bucks for the rib because Obama says so :P
“We are in total agreement. Where’s my ten bucks?”
I no longer owe you 10 bucks for the rib because Obama says so :P
It is always nice seeing a fellow Christian and diest making fun of another Christians beliefs.
But when I dare say either of you are wrong or anyone else is?
I am the judgemental one and close minded.
#
Wahine_Tara
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:27 pm | Permalink
“We are in total agreement. Where’s my ten bucks?”
I no longer owe you 10 bucks for the rib because Obama says so :P
#
Wahine_Tara
Posted January 30, 2009 at 1:27 pm | Permalink
“We are in total agreement. Where’s my ten bucks?”
I no longer owe you 10 bucks for the rib because Obama says so :P
===================================================
Okay, how about five and a good Hawaiian rib recipe? There was a Hawaiian restaurant in Santa Monica Ca, that served the best ribs I’ve ever tasted. They were served black, which put many people off, but they weren’t burnt, and tasted like heaven on earth. Name was Kelbo’s. Unfortunately, they’re closed now.
Nathan,
You must be a hit at parties.
With the Super Bowl just two days away – I’d love to test a new rib recipe.
Tara? Anyone?
Back on topic: Women should be paid twice what men make, because women are tho ones who usually have to clean up man’s mess after super bowl parties. That’s gotta be worth major bucks:-)
Rib Recipe…………………………
Buy ribs at Dillon’s
Marinate over night in solution of lemon juice (1/3) and water or cola and select spices, shaking and turning each time you hit the fridge for another beer.
Rinse ribs and pat dry.
Hand rub ribs with mixture of spices, rubbing mixture well into the meat. Use combination of black pepper, curry, cummin, dry mustard, garlic and cayene.
Smoke ribs over hickory fire at 225 for vertical smoker, a little higher for horizontal unit. Four to six hours should have them done, flip over half way and sprinke with rub mixture.
Smoke to an internal temp of about 165.
Serve with homemade cole slaw and steak fries. Serve with hot barbecue sauce on the side.
Provide plenty of beer and napkins.
Invite your friends and not your relatives.
Tara,
Actually, I am a pretty funny guy. I have my fathers sense of humor.
My friends all seem to like to have me around.
I, unfortunately, don’t do the grilling. I leave that to my fiance because it’s a man’s job and I would get paid less :D
However, the best ribs I ever had here were due to a Guava barbeque sauce from a local company.
So the secret to amazing island style ribs is “wierd fruit”?
I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of people like JM Walker is all.
It’s just that the internet is serious business, right?
No worries, I do that too.
because it’s a man’s job
=============
You’re damn right it is!!
(ANTI looking for something to pee on)
PS: When smoking any meat, always start FAT SIDE UP.
It’s the law.
What was the constitutional issue at stake that persuaded the SCOTUS to accept the case?
Monkeyhawk, here it is, in one paragraph:
http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/05-01074qp.pdf
What GMC said is technically correct, but also irrelevant., The more important issue was addressed in (a) of the same section I quoted.
And so he’s wrong on the greater point: the Supreme Court, not the Congress, let Goodyear get away with it.
(ANTI looking for something to pee on)
Keep em comin brother. We all need to show our teeth more !!!
“Rage” –
Thanks for the link, but it seems to focus on the facts of the case, not the constitutional issue involved.
I thought that was the purpose of the SCOTUS.
thought that was the purpose of the SCOTUS.
They do statutory intrepretation, too, as in this case.
This was a case of statutory rather than constitutional interpretation. The plaintiff in this case, Lilly Ledbetter, characterized her situation as one where “disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period.” In rejecting Ledbetter’s appeal, the Supreme Court said that “she could have, and should have, sued” when the pay decisions were made, instead of waiting beyond the 180-day statutory charging period. The effect of the Court’s holding was reversed by the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear
P.S. In short the Supremes said that if you’re still receiving disparate pay in 2008 due to decisions made in 1989, you should have sued in 1989. Tough luck if it’s still affecting you now.
#
WSClark
Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:04 pm | Permalink
PS: When smoking any meat, always start FAT SIDE UP.
It’s the law.
=========================
I tried that with some Salmon and it burned on both sides. :D
Thanks, “Rage” –
Which makes me wonder about the Statute of Limitations.
Is it just a housekeeping measure? Too many unsolved crimes, we can’t keep track of them and prosecute after a few years?
Which means, basically, you can get away with all sorts of crimes if you avoid justice for seven years or 180 days or whatever?
Seems like an odd approach to “justice.”
MH –
GMC70 is not only “technically” correct, he’s factually correct as well.
It’s important to remember the SCOTUS often decides questions of constitutional import, but certainly not always. In this case, the case was accepted on petition for cert to resolve differences between the federal circuits on the isue. Moreover, the question presented Rage quotes is in fact the question presented by Ledbetter in her petition for cert; in other words, she chose the question to be decided by the court.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1074.pdf
So, while it’s politically convenient to blame the SCOTUS for all evils, real or imagined, in fact the Congress set the 180 day statute of limitations at issue in this case. And Congress had to fix it. They have done so. End of story.
#
Nathaniel
Posted January 30, 2009 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
I am merely pointing out the hypocrisy of people like JM Walker is all.
=========================================================
That would be your definition of hypocrisy; mine is very different.
Iceland has named a new Prime Minister to get them out of the fiscal mess brought on by the testosterone laden “wizards” who have led them to bankruptcy. A former air stew who fought for a fair wage for her sisters, got into politics and is now the first openly gay woman to head a government, anywhere! Love it………
The good thing is that every time the discrimination occurs, one can still sue, even if they find out 5 years later, they can at least recoup 2 years of discrimination. I think it should had been 5. I don’t think any of you understand how long it takes just to find out you were discriminated against. I was there for 4 before I found out. and then after getting threatened with being fired just for knowing, the employer said that they couldn’t get men to do that kind of work if they paid less.
I won’t be able to go back and sue now, nor would I want to other than to prove a point…but at least hopefully this law has scared them into evening out the wages now.
MH –
Statutes of limitations are common in the law. Criminal statutes all have statutes of limitations, in Kansas, typically five years, with the exception of murder. Civil statutes which create rights under which a claimant may recover also routinely include statutes of limitation; in the case at issue here, 180 days.
And yes, if you don’t meet a SOL, you’re SOL. The law’s cool, huh?
While it may seem odd to limit justice in this way, SOL’s serves other important interests. It is important to encourage claimants to make claims timely so that any harms determined to exixt can be corrected. It makes plaintiff’s, whether civil plaintiff or the State bringing a criminal charge, bring that charge promptly when witnesses are available and before evidence is lost. It also serves interests of finality, so that a business entity (or yes, a criminal) does not have to spend years looking over his shoulder, waiting for the hammer to drop.
Boy howdy Political Momma,
Yer pretty much a victim of everything aintcha?
exixt = exist
Editing is cool.
P_Mom,
When a woman aborts a female fetus, haven’t her civil rights been breached?
Here is the salient point:
Ginsburg argued that the broad remedial purpose of the statute was incompatible with the Court’s “cramped” interpretation. Her dissent asserted that the employer had been, “Knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward” during the 180-day charging period, and therefore could be held liable.
Essentially, the majority declared that the equal pay violation solely occurred when the initial decision to discriminate was made–even if it continued with the employer’s willful knowledge.
I would wager you would not find anything in the 1964 statute that supports this interpretation. What about those were receiving disparate pay for years before the statute was passed? The decision was certainly made years beforehand. Even if they filed timely–as Ledbetter did–they would be out of luck.
It takes a warped mind to conclude that, in a civil-rights law crafted at the height of Jim Crow, that Congress intended such a thing.
“GMC70″ brings up a straw man with –
“…technically….”
I don’t think I used that term.
In fact, throughout the discussion on Ledbetter I’ve merely asked questions. Y’know, to learn something?
Why do you have to be so defensive?
I liked your use of “SOL.”
Is that a law school joke or something?
I don’t think I used that term.
. . .but I did, my point being, GMC was correctly making the wrong point, to support a wrong conclusion.
This cracks me up:
“…I don’t think any of you understand how long it takes just to find out you were discriminated against. I was there for 4 before I found out.”
Reminds me of the old story of the hoooker calling the police: “you see, detective, I didn’t realize I’d been raped until his check bounced.”
I tried to get harassed, but couldn’t get any females to volunteer to grope me.
The SCOTUS ruled 5-4 in this case, against Ledbetter. Congress changed it. That’s the way it should be. 5 smart people won against 4 smart people. I have a feeling the 5 smart people were following the law. The 4 smart people were trying to legislate from the bench.
“I tried to get harassed, but couldn’t get any females to volunteer to grope me.”
Ain’t it the truth. Lose my virginity? HA!
I was trying to give it away.
WHY is it more acceptable to discuss our sex lives than our income? This silly societal rule has worked in favor of employers since time began.
We SHOULD discuss what we make, that way employees will know if they’re getting a fair wage or not. Keeping our salaries a secret just works against us and allows employers to manipulate us.
I completely disagree.
If you are satisfied with the compensation you’re receiving. Great.
If not. Look elsewhere.
What others are making is irrelevant.
Not if you getting paid less for doing the same work and have the same seniority. There is no excuse for discriminating against someone because of their race, gender, etc
When Ledbetter starting stirring the pot, Goodyear transferrd her to a position where she’d have to lift and move heavy tires. She retired at that point but still had the guts to fight it all the way. Too bad there aren’t more courageous people like her.
What others are making is irrelevant.
And you have daughters, you should be ashamed.
Mary, Long ago, I read a book by Allen Sherman, the comedian. It was called, “The Rape Of the APE (American Puritanical Ethic). Quite an eye opener. Written in the early 70’s, it is nonetheless current for today, and more so after reading some of the hogwash posted by the conservatives. It is still available:
http://www.amazon.com/rape-APE-American-Puritan-ethic/dp/B000716ZB0
GolfNut is correct.
In the capitalistic system that the CONs literally worship, fairness is utterly irrelevant.
In the Old South, the capitalists figured out how to make people work for nothing . . . it was called slavery and involved a lot of whipping.
Now they don’t own slaves, they just rent us.
A few people become fabulously wealthy under this system and that’s proof that everybody can be fabulously wealthy if only God loved them enough or something.
Kinda like somebody in Ark City won the lottery once, so that means that we all have the chance to win the lottery too.
Employers should haven’t to pay workers the same.
Nor should companies have to charge everybody the same.
For instance, I think that RepubliCONs should be charged triple for everything they want.
Hey, if they don’t like it, they can go someplace else where they can be charged triple.
Sol this has nothing to do with abortion. But women who can support themselves are far less likely to have an abortion.
SCOTUS practically begged congress to change the law- they had to vote according to the law that was written, now personally I think that they could have ruled the 180 days unconstitutional. But instead they asked congress fix the problem and congress did.
after reading some of the hogwash posted by the conservatives.
Yes…
JMWalker is serious about bringing about a bipartisan solution without prejudice.
(rolls eyes)
Since Reguliars eyes are rolling, perhaps he’s having another stroke!
WEB LOG WINNER!!!
Wahine_Tara to Nathan:
The point is, if you correctly understood what science is, you would realize how questions like
“Where in the science books does it talk about God giving Adam and Eve souls?”
are dumb.
*****
Concise. On target. Classic.
Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…
Every once in awhile, you can find the evidence in the Hebrew Bible that the Israelites were once pantheistic before they became monotheistic and excised the old references to their pantheism–that’s one hint right there: “Let us make man . . .”
Another is the Psalm 86 8Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.
And Psalm 82
1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Evidently, my last post had a bad word in ti, go figure. Anyway, Mary, try the book sold here:
http://www.amazon.com/rape-APE-American-Puritan-ethic/dp/B000716ZB0
#
Regular
Posted January 30, 2009 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
I tried to get harassed, but couldn’t get any females to volunteer to grope me.
======================================================
You might have had more luck if you were roasting on a barbecue spit. They’d have been lathering BBQ sauce all over you:-)
#
Regular
Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
after reading some of the hogwash posted by the conservatives.
Yes…
JMWalker is serious about bringing about a bipartisan solution without prejudice.
(rolls eyes)
======================================================
Shouldn’t that read, (rolls eye)?
Tara,
“Because, seriously, how do you think Kangaroos got to Australia?”
Actually that is quite easily explained. Kangaroos are marsupials and therefore have pouches that rest on their fronts, and the weight of their young throws them off balance causing the females to hop in a predominantly southerly direction, and after millions of years of hopping, they arrived in Australia, with the males following shortly afterward. There!
#
JMWalker
Posted January 30, 2009 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
after reading some of the hogwash posted by the conservatives.
Yes…
JMWalker is serious about bringing about a bipartisan solution without prejudice.
(rolls eyes)
======================================================
Shouldn’t that read, (rolls eye)?
==========================================
Visual acuity has nothing to do with the motor control effected by muscles of the eye. Both eyes move together, not independently (99.99 percent of the time)
It’s why if you have an eye injury, they bandage both eyes even if only one is injured, so you will less the chance of moving your eyes because of visual distractions.
“NEW YORK (AP) — To President Barack Obama, Wall Street’s $18.4 billion in bonuses is “shameful.” To thousands of bank employees who don’t sit in corner offices, that money helps pay the bills”
Poor babies, in the real world, bonuses are paid for superior performance, not when you bankrupt the company and country!
CapnAmerica
Posted January 30, 2009 at 10:00 pm | Permalink
GolfNut is correct.
————————————————
Per usual.
this bill will do nothing but make money for Omama’s trial lawyer buddies. If you honestly think that this will change, your on something.
“your on something”
That should be “you’re on something” or “you are on something.”
Work on that grammar – it may help you get a real job in the future – one not dedicated to selling fries.
Rage –
I understand your position; I simply believe you are wrong. Courts do not (or at least should not attempt to) divine the intent of Congress; Congress, as a corporate body, has no “intent” other than the words they pass, and their ordinary meanings are (or should be) applied for what it says. Individual members, as they vote for or against bills, may have any number of intents.
Intent is decided by the words used; nothing more, nothing less. And the SCOTUS ruling was hardly unique; it was in fact the holding of the Court of Appeals below, and the rule followed by at least some other federal circuit courts of appeals; I don’t know just how many.
You don’t object to the rationale of the decision as a legal matter, you object to the outcome and its percieved (and perhaps actual) unfairness. But the SCOTUS is there to apply the law, without regard to who the litigants are. There’s a reason lady justice is blind.
So once again, I understand it’s politically convenient and makes you feel better to rail against the SCOTUS, but as usual you’ve picked the wrong target.
And as noted above the SCOTUS practically begged Congress to change the law. They have done so.
MH – When I was in law school, a professor told us of a time when he used the term that certain plaintiffs were ‘SOL,’ meaning exactly what most of us use it as. According to the professor, a first year student shortly after approached the professor, earnestly asking for the meaning of the term, and telling the professor that he couldn’t find the term in Black’s law dictionary anywhere . . .
ANY job I do, any place I apply, I demand to know up front the compensation in wages and benefits as compared to those employed or considered. If I am refused, I walk away.
Card check legislation and the reinvigoration of unions can only help in this.
Word up cons, feudalism ALMOST worked. You almost got it.
But not quite.:)