TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2010 - This Day In History
Obama, Democrats Champion Equal Pay for Equal Work
Posted By jwilkes - Tuesday, January 27th, 2009 at 1:24 PM
  |   Report Abuse  |   RSS Feed

President Barack Obama hasn’t wasted any time fulfilling his campaign promise to pursue equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation.

Working with Democrats on Capitol Hill, Obama has pledged to sign the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act once it passes through Congress. A floor vote is expected within the next two weeks.

The Ledbetter Act is named for Lily Ledbetter, a woman who worked at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant for 19 years, from 1979 to 1998. She spent most of those years working as an area managers, a position occupied primarily by men. By 1997, she was the only female area manager left, and despite her nearly two decades of service, made more than $6,000 per year less than the lowest paid male employee. Many of the other male area managers who out-earned Ledbetter had less seniority and less experience.

Under current law, an individual who is the subject of pay discrimination has 180 days from the initial discrimination to file a lawsuit, whether or not they know that discrimination has taken place. Considering many workplaces (including Goodyear Tire & Rubber) forbid employees to discuss personal salaries, that makes it incredibly difficult to file a pay discrimination action. So, if person A receives a paycheck for $500 and discovers 181 days later that her male coworkers have been receiving paychecks for $10000 all along, she’s barred from bringing an action against her employer.

The Ledbetter Act would change the law so that every time an employer reissues a discriminatory paycheck, the 180 day window is renewed.

Democrats attempted to pass the Ledbetter Act in 2007, but were blocked by Republicans in the Senate. President Obama spoke at length on pay equality, and heavily criticized John McCain for his opposition to the act.



Support Eyes On Obama!


Discussion:
[-] Pass the Ledbetter Act - Guest-The Bard of Wilmette
As a part owner of a small business, I am concerned about some of the measures that are intended to correct some problem affecting private businesses or public sector work places. I am very suspicious, for example, of the government trying to decree equal pay for "work of equivalent value," which effectively seeks to impose the relative pay value for unrelated jobs. If the woman who is teaching your child how to read gets paid less than the man doing the maintenance work at the same school, it is not necessarily for sinister reasons. Supply and demand comes into play. If I was offered, and equally qualified for, a job to be a teacher or janitor at a given school, I would accept less money to take the teaching job.

However, the Ledbetter Act is (from what I understand) an entirely appropriate action to address discrimination in the work place. The Ledbetter discrimination could not reasonably attributable to supply and demand, or some other reasonable consideration. This was sex discrimination, and a valid civil rights complaint. The fact that it can take more than six months for the discriminated employee to learn about it should not be a barrier to her getting relief from improper discrimination. The Ledbetter Act should become law.
[ Posted at 2:33 PM on 1/27/09 | Reply ]
[-] it's about time - zenprise
discrimination in pay hurts families, the economy - in short, everyone. It's unbelievably stupid
[ Posted at 6:57 PM on 1/27/09 | Reply ]
right, and your smart... you sound like you're smart enough to be president
[ Posted at 4:27 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
who support big business and thus, big profits for big business. Besides, if these guys pay fairly, how can they find $1.2 million to spruce up the office?
[ Posted at 4:18 PM on 1/27/09 | Reply ]
then affirmative action! Well done.
[ Posted at 6:54 PM on 1/27/09 | Reply ]
[-] agreed - Guest-josie
this will help stamp out inequality in all its forms.
[ Posted at 6:58 PM on 1/27/09 | Reply ]
[-] LOL - Guest-MrBobDobolina
You just made my day.
[ Posted at 1:33 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
and discover that someone doing the roughly same job at pay rate B, which is higher than my pay rate A, I can sue the employer for my acceptance of the lower pay? That sounds a bit messed up. Where has personal responsibility gone?
[ Posted at 1:12 AM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
If you don't like your check, quit your damn job. You liberals have ruined this country with your lawyers!
[ Posted at 12:26 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
It's about what's fair and right. You don't think it's shady of a company to forbid salary discussions? Why would they do that if they were paying their employees fairly?
[ Posted at 1:04 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] MeMe - Guest-Me
Actually it is about what the market value of your job is. And it is up to you to negotiate for as much money as you can get. There is no way to apply "fair" and there are a thousand different definitions of it.
[ Posted at 5:29 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
for similar work is going to actually work in reverse as it will require companies to define pay levels for jobs instead of creating competition and pay based on performance. I find it odd that equal pay for equal work isn't called equal pay for equal performance. Male or female you have to toot your own horn and push your employer to pay you what you feel you deserve regardless. There is not a company out there volunteering more cash when you make them more money.

There is no glass ceiling anymore. What this law would do if it ever became enacted (which it won't, because this is just the Left getting women all excited for no reason because not a sane person in government except some fringe mentally unstable elected official would vote for this) is turn this country into a socialist state with defined pay scales for all jobs. I laugh that anyone thinks this ever has a chance of becoming law.
[ Posted at 12:33 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] American - Guest-m1cobra
This is just another non self reliant , piece of BS. And create more goverment funding for lawyers. No one willsay it outloud, But every law being written for the last 30 years, gives a laawyer a paycheck. Who would guess BHO is alawyer and so its everyone ofhis disciples
[ Posted at 1:32 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
LOL, how about some economic releif? Its getting scary dude!

RT
www.total-privacy.us.tc
[ Posted at 12:54 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
This is a bullshit act for the whiners, and I forsee many frivolous lawsuits from the lazy wanting equal pay as the ambitious. Everyone thinks they work hard and are underpaid.

Fucking Democrats, killed our economy by legislating loans for ALL and now adding the red tape to make businesses impossible to function.

Communism is getting closer everyday.
[ Posted at 12:56 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] Education - Guest-WC
You should look into those issues before you spout off nonsense.
[ Posted at 1:06 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] Direct Deposit - Guest-medfed
Unfortunately your thought process is as repulsive as your language. Consequently whatever you think or say is irrelavant.
[ Posted at 3:27 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
I find the lack of understanding directed at this bill to be not only staggering but downright medieval. The bill doesn't state that it is equal pay for the same job. What it says is if YOU can PROVE that you were paid less for discriminatory reasons, you can now actually regain what should have been rightfully yours.

This does not mean that since I know someone that does the same job as me making more money I can automatically sue. If they have more experience, etc they getting paid more for VALID work related reasons. Not because of my skin color/race/religion/sex.

All it takes is 10 seconds and the ability to read the actual bill and not the title alone to realize this.
[ Posted at 12:57 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
This is EQUALITY, not socialism. If it were socialism, we'd be paying doctors the same as McDonald's cashiers. I think everyone's assuming that this will be abused, when in actuality not every Josephina on the street can get a lawyer who will know how to fight for something like this.
[ Posted at 12:58 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] Men and women are not equal. - Guest-pathouston22
1. A womans health insurance costs more than a man
2. A woman can take time off for pregnancy

Men and women are not equal. Each has particular advantages and disadvantages over the other sex.
[ Posted at 12:59 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] assuming - Guest-baslisks
that a woman takes time off for pregnancy and all other things...

Are woman only there for producing babies?
[ Posted at 1:33 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] I will never get this. - Guest-voleur
1. It is absolutely unfair that both employers and insurance companies assume women are constantly popping out babies when so many women are not interested in having children at all.
2. Anyone male or female can take time off for medical reasons such as surgery.
[ Posted at 1:47 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] Wait.... - Guest-tomas
"Democrats attempted to pass the Ledbetter Act in 2007, but were blocked by Republicans in the Senate."

... but the majority of the senate are democrats ... so who really blocked it?
[ Posted at 1:32 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] Ledbetter Act - Guest-medfed
The House of Representatives debated this Bill I think it was on Monday.
If you want to know what is really going on you need to watch CSPAN and CSPAN2. That is where your Representatives and Senators show their true colors.

Barney Franks, Democrat opened his remarks telling the folks the Republicais denied Mrs. Ledbetter her due process and did not want Mrs. Ledbetter to be compensated for all the years she worked with less pay than the men who did the same job.

Kay Hutchinson, Republician countered with an Amendment to cure the flawed Ledbetter Bill because as written it did not take into consideration if the business was sold to a new person that person and business would be liable for the crime of the previous owner.

Mrs. Ledbetter was not denied due process, it went to the Supreme Court. Mrs. Ledbetter was denied because the Law as written requires she had 180 to file a complaint and even though she had , no way of knowing she was being discriminated against the Law as written did not protect her.

Mrs. Hutchinson's Amendment did not pass. So now we are left with another flawed law.The way the law reads now, if I understand it correctly, offers no protection to a new business owner of the same business which just opens the door for the lawyers and Kooks to stir up the pot sometime in the future. The Amendment would give the employee 180 days to file from the time the crime was discovered to file a complaint. This makes more sense to me.
[ Posted at 2:26 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] time to fix - Guest-JOe
At time of acquisition, they always review everyone's salary anyway. Its their chance to right a wrong, then they can inform the person why they are getting a salary adjustment and they can pursue what redress they want.
[ Posted at 2:39 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] Quite a hornet's nest - Guest-The Bard of Wilmette
I know that I already weighed in on the subject, but I am amazed at some of the subsequent comments.

It is legitimate for an employer to instruct employees not to discuss their pay rates with their co-workers. Such talk can create a lot of problems, including an impression of improper discrimination when there are actually valid reasons for pay discrepancies. It is the fact that such rules exist that adds justification to the principle that each new paycheck extends the allowable waiting time before seeking a remedy for possibly improper pay discrimination. In other words, it is OK to impose a gag rule, but the logical result is that it can take a long time to learn about the discrimination.

I do not believe the proposed law creates any new areas of discrimination. It does not redefine any formerly accepted practices as now being illegal. To the best of my knowledge and belief, it also does not shift the burden of proof to the employer, or reduce the employer's defense arguments to justify the apparent discrimination. What it does do is make it easier for pay discrimination victims additional time to seek remedies for their grievances.
[ Posted at 3:03 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] Recommendation - Guest-John Galt
I recommend that everyone who has commented here go read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Very interesting and relevant book. An excellent cautionary tale against government over-involvement in markets.
[ Posted at 3:24 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] Quite a Hornet's Nest - Guest-medfed
You are right it does give the victims additional time to seek remedies. In fact it gives the victim until eternity. The Hutchinson Amendment who have put a stop date. 180 days from the time the discrimination is discovered seems more reasonable to me. This Open-Ended Law cures nothing. Lawsuits can go on forever and ever and ever > > >
[ Posted at 3:40 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] You've got to be kidding me. - Guest-LockDeltz
"What it does do is make it easier for pay discrimination victims additional time to seek remedies for their grievances"

And what's wrong with that? That's what's wrong with this country their is people like you, who don't give a damn about discrimination, it's sad that we have people with that mentality. It's not about a gag rule, it's about equal opportunity and deserving pay, no matter how much time she is given. Yes it's only fair for pay discrimination victims to get all the they need. It's not a honest nest and we need less assholes like you.
[ Posted at 4:45 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
I am a democrat and even I don't like the way that sounds.... seriously it is communist. Coming from a communist country myself, it is not pleasant at all. We lived poor, hungry, and desperate for help every day.
[ Posted at 4:30 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] Best part - Guest-Jeff little
The Best Part of this law is that it will only effect greedy bastards. So unless your an asshole this shouldn't bother you.....
[ Posted at 5:44 PM on 1/28/09 | Reply ]
[-] It's a myth - Guest-Jim
...that men get paid more then women for equal work. I've looked into it extensively, and discovered sevearal things:
1) men work, on average about 6 hours a week more than women. Women are more likely to take time off for child care, etc. When you compare not just the annual salaries, but the number of hours worked during the year, men work more hours and so of course they get paid more.
2) Men are also less likely to take time off for maternity leave, so when you look at both men and women in the same job, men usually end up having much more uninterrupted experience, which makes them more qualified, and thus more valuable to the employer, thus a higher salary.

There are other reasons too, but I won't take the time to go into them. But think about it - if an employer could get by with paying women less for the same job, why would he/she hire any men? He or she would save money by hiring lower paid workers - supposedly women. It just isn't true that men get paid more for the same job worked.
[ Posted at 11:34 AM on 1/29/09 | Reply ]
[-] OBAMA! - Guest-WalgetIt
yeah obama!!! equality for all--- that's the way to go. 99problems helped celeberate obama's inauguartion http://tinyurl.com/d4ew3f
[ Posted at 6:30 PM on 4/3/09 | Reply ]
[-] Press Operator - Guest-BrandyMetcalfe
On September 24, 2009 I was offered a job at ink cycle as a team lead. They offered me $12 an hour because that is what I put that I would start working at on my Monster job profile. With that amount I put on there I was refering to a starter position such as line workers or single machine operators. I told them the next day I would like $15 an hour and they told me they couldn't pay me that. So I toke another job as a press operator, of course making less money but enough for the position. I met one of the leads out at my current job that told me he was offered the same job for $14 an hour. I sent them an email and asked for the same amount that they had offered him, but didn't tell them that I had hear it from a man they offered the same exact job to. I never heard back from them. Would that be considered discrimination if they were offering him $14 an hour a month before they offered me the job? If so what would I need to do to file a lawsuit against them?
[ Posted at 5:04 AM on 10/17/09 | Reply ]

Back to Blogs

Copyright © 2010 EyesOnObama.com. All Rights Reserved.
Home | About | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Links | Feedback | Contact | RSS

  
FeedbackClose




Email Address:

Comments


Image Verification:
(Case Sensitive)

JoinClose


Username:
Password:
Retype Password:
Email:
Image Verification:
(case sensitive):


Forgot Pass?Close


Username:
Email:
Image Verification:
(case sensitive):


Add FriendClose


To:
Subject:
Image Verification:
(case sensitive)

Compose Message Close


To:
Subject:
Image Verification:
(case sensitive)

Message: