Republicans block pay discrimination bill

[suedanim]

Lilly Ledbetter, at 70, a powerful symbol in the fight against pay discrimination.

Opposition to this bill denies remedy to women, blacks and other poc, elderly and disabled to equal pay for equal work. It is an outrage to deny the ability to sue. The threat of suit would help to force employers to pay according to job title/description, regardless of sex or ethnicity.


Backers of the bill complained that the Supreme Court, in its 5-4 ruling last May, reversed decades of legal precedent by declaring discrimination claims must be filed within 180 days of the first alleged offense.

And rolling by the clock to a time when discrimination was upheld by the courts, legal... has been an ongoing effort by the Bush administration.

Poverty has been partly linked to the wage gap, particularly among households headed by single mothers.


Republicans block pay discrimination bill (http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2339947420080424)
Wed Apr 23, 2008 8:06pm EDT

By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked legislation to reverse a Supreme Court ruling that makes it tougher for workers to sue for pay discrimination.

Democratic presidential rivals Barack Obama (http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/barackobama) and Hillary Clinton (http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/hillaryclinton) interrupted their campaigns to return to the Senate to vote for the bill. The measure would lift tight time restraints to file claims that could expire before workers realize they were treated unfairly.

On a 56-42 vote, mostly Democratic supporters of the bill fell short of the needed 60 in the 100-member Senate to clear a Republican procedural hurdle and move toward passage of the bill approved earlier by the House of Representatives.

The Senate action likely kills the bill for the year.

Yet it is certain to be an issue in this November's congressional and presidential elections, particularly among female voters sensitive to pay inequity between the sexes.

The blocked Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named for an Alabama woman who lost her case in the Supreme Court last year, is backed by women's and civil rights groups that argue it would give workers a fair chance for justice.

It is opposed by the White House and business groups, which warn it would trigger an explosion of lawsuits and allow suits to be filed years and even decades after alleged offenses.

On average in the United States, women are paid about 23 percent less than men, while minorities receive even less -- despite laws that mandate equal pay for equal work.

In a failed plea for the bill before the vote, Clinton, who would be the first female U.S. president, told colleagues: "I'm hoping you will stand up and vote to make it clear that women who get up every single day and go to work deserve to be paid equally to their male counterparts. That's all Lilly Ledbetter wanted."

The White House said it opposed discrimination in the workplace. But it threatened to veto the bill if Congress passed it, saying in a statement the measure would "impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved."

Obama, who would become the first black U.S. president, said in a statement: "This pay gap is an ugly reflection of the discrimination that still exists in the workplace. And as the son of a single mother and the father of two young daughters, I believe we have a responsibility to close it."

Backers of the bill complained that the Supreme Court, in its 5-4 ruling last May, reversed decades of legal precedent by declaring discrimination claims must be filed within 180 days of the first alleged offense.

The court rejected the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's contention that each new discriminatory paycheck triggers a new 180-day statute of limitations.

The failed legislation would have amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act by putting the old EEOC standard into law, and cover pay discrimination based on gender, race, national origin, religion, age and disabilities.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell denounced the bill, saying, "The fundamental problem is that it creates massive new opportunities to sue."

Sen. John McCain (http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/johnmccain) of Arizona, the Republican presidential candidate, did not return to Washington to vote on the bill.

Instead, he continued his tour of depressed areas of the United States. Poverty has been partly linked to the wage gap, particularly among households headed by single mothers.

[suedanim]

:unreal:
McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ilwlQYv-XRhmiQFTlUtTmjvWMV_gD907SJG80)

By LIBBY QUAID – 2 hours ago

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Republican Sen. John McCain, campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.

Senate Republicans killed the bill Wednesday night on a 56-42 vote that denied the measure the 60 votes needed to advance it to full debate and a vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had delayed the vote to give McCain's Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, time to return to Washington to support the measure, which would make it easier for women to sue their employers for pay discrimination.

McCain skipped the vote to campaign in New Orleans.

"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."

The bill sought to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination.

It is named for Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., who sued for pay discrimination just before retiring after a 19-year career there. By the time she retired, Ledbetter made $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor and claimed earlier decisions by supervisors kept her from making more.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 last year to throw out her complaint, saying she had waited too long to sue.

Democrats criticized McCain for opposing the bill.

"Senator McCain has yet again fallen in line with President Bush while middle-class families are falling by the wayside," Clinton said in a statement following the vote. "Women are earning less, but Senator McCain is offering more of the same."

Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Karen Finney said: "At a time when American families are struggling to keep their homes and jobs while paying more for everything from gasoline to groceries, how on Earth would anyone who thinks they can lead our country also think it's acceptable to oppose equal pay for America's mothers, wives and daughters?"

McCain stated his opposition to the bill as he campaigned in rural eastern Kentucky, where poverty is worse among women than men. The Arizona senator said he was familiar with the disparity but that there are better ways to help women find better paying jobs.

"They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else," McCain said. "And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them.

"It's a vicious cycle that's affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least," he said.

McCain chose to visit the tiny hamlet of Inez, Ky., because it is where President Lyndon B. Johnson declared war on poverty. But McCain said Johnson's poverty programs had failed.

"I wouldn't be back here today if government had fulfilled the promise that Lyndon Johnson made 44 years ago," he said.

In recent weeks, McCain has proposed a series of tax breaks for corporations, government-backed refinancing for struggling homeowners and a summer holiday from gas taxes. He proposed another new program Wednesday: a tax write-off for companies that provide high-speed Internet access for underserved, low-income communities.

[Drocket]

I love McCain's reasoning: Discrimination against women isn't the problem, its the lawsuits that follow that we need to worry about.

[ECW]

Once there is a super-majority in the Senate next year and a Democratic president, this kind of crap won't be happening anymore.

[Osborn F. Enready]

ECW said:
Once there is a super-majority in the Senate next year and a Democratic president, this kind of crap won't be happening anymore.

ROFLMAO.....

Yes, surely the pure, squeaky clean, uncorrupted democrats can make positive change...... (never mind they have been an equal part of the problems and corruption all this time)

LOL.

[David]

Once there is a super-majority in the Senate next year and a Democratic president, this kind of crap won't be happening anymore.

You mean the Congress that makes Bush look like a benevolent and competent god? :madlaugh:

[4Reaganomics]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22239438-26397,00.html

The Legislature

attempting to solve problems that our society can fix itself while our borders remain open and criminals still threaten our safety and the safety of our children.

[Buck Laser]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22239438-26397,00.html

The Legislature

attempting to solve problems that our society can fix itself while our borders remain open and criminals still threaten our safety and the safety of our children.

There ya go, Ray! Change the subject if you can't think of something to contribute. This thread is about a specific measure the Senate failed to pass by a party line vote, and you gas on about unknown criminals "threatening the safety of our children." PLEASE pay attention.

[ptif219]

Once there is a super-majority in the Senate next year and a Democratic president, this kind of crap won't be happening anymore.

Dream on the approval of the congress shows the majority is not popular.

[PostmodernProphet]

Once there is a super-majority in the Senate next year and a Democratic president, this kind of crap won't be happening anymore.

we thought the same thing in 2000.......but instead, we got a bunch of folks who acted like Democrats.....with your luck, you'll get a bunch that act like Republicans.....

[apdst]

this kind of crap won't be happening anymore.

I have serious doubts about it happening now.

This saounds like another one of those bills that forces employers to pay someone more than they are worth, because of their sex and/race.

[Drocket]

This saounds like another one of those bills that forces employers to pay someone more than they are worth, because of their sex and/race.

So your argument is that women are inherently worth less than men?

[apdst]

So your argument is that women are inherently worth less than men?

No, my argument is that a person shouldn't be paid above their job description.

For instance, a janitor at an engineering firm shouldn't get paid as much as one of the staff engineers.

[Drocket]

So what if you have a situation where you have 10 employees, 5 women and 5 men, all of whom have the same job position in the company, all have been there the same amount of time, all of them with the same degrees and experience, and all 5 of the women make less than any of the men? Because this is, unfortunately, a depressingly common situation, and one that this bill would have helped fix.

[AlanC]

So what if you have a situation where you have 10 employees, 5 women and 5 men, all of whom have the same job position in the company, all have been there the same amount of time, all of them with the same degrees and experience, and all 5 of the women make less than any of the men? Because this is, unfortunately, a depressingly common situation, and one that this bill would have helped fix.

Can you name even one place in America where that situation even actually exists?
I mean if its so common, you should be able to do that, right?

[suedanim]

Can you name even one place in America where that situation even actually exists?
I mean if its so common, you should be able to do that, right?


Here! Here! Good God man...

EVERY job I worked in, my male counterparts earned more while I, in fact, had more experience in my last 3 jobs, was in the senior position, doing lectures, published author in scientific journals and developing research methods.

This problem is far more common than you think. I don't want to write a long work history, but the fact is women ARE greatly discriminated against. From lower pay rates, fewer opportunities to advance to being forced to resign before maternity leave, not hired because of pregnancy and harassment, rude treatment when a child is sick and they must miss work.

In my early career I had to work harder, longer hours than the men, who could sit back, feet up, shoot the shit with the male supervisor, make fun of the women along with some serious sexist bullshit... and STILL get paid less.

The excuse was always... he's got a family, he's the only wage earner. Names and faces changed, but the behavior didn't. Later.... after I had kids and divorced... still outperforming and by that time a supervisor or lead tech... I STILL got paid less than the men I either supervised or shared the same job with which I shared title and job description.

I went to the department head about it...and within a year the problem was somewhat better, but no matter how many promotions I got... I never really caught up until I moved to the west coast.

My situation was not unique and its still happening, which is apparent. I've known plenty of female PhD scientists who make far less than their male counterparts OR get assigned the lesser juicy research project.

This is nothing more than workplace overt discrimination and conservatives cosign to it, protect it, excuse it. Its one of those issues that seriously piss me off.

[Drocket]

Can you name even one place in America where that situation even actually exists?
I mean if its so common, you should be able to do that, right?

There was just a Supreme Court decision based around this, the one that provoked the bill that we're discussing. The court decided that, despite the fact that the bias against female employees was quite obvious, a legal loophole existed that prevented a lawsuit from proceeding because a 90 whole days had passed before the lawsuit was filed, and thus "too bad, so sad" for the women getting screwed over simply because the company managed to keep their discrimination secret long enough.

[apdst]

So what if you have a situation where you have 10 employees, 5 women and 5 men, all of whom have the same job position in the company, all have been there the same amount of time, all of them with the same degrees and experience, and all 5 of the women make less than any of the men?

Of course everyone should get paid the same. No one is saying otherwise. All I'm saying, is that I don't believe that it's as common an occurance as you think it is.

Anyone who stays at job where they get paid less than they think they are worth is either stupid, or don't want to admit to the reality that they are actually getting paid what they are really worth.

Personally, I don't want my fellow employees knowing what I make. A bill such as this will make it possible for all my shit to be put out on the street and I think that my salary is no one's business but mine and my employer's.

[AlanC]

Here! Here! Good God man...

EVERY job I worked in, my male counterparts earned more while I, in fact, had more experience in my last 3 jobs, was in the senior position, doing lectures, published author in scientific journals and developing research methods.

This problem is far more common than you think. I don't want to write a long work history, but the fact is women ARE greatly discriminated against. From lower pay rates, fewer opportunities to advance to being forced to resign before maternity leave, not hired because of pregnancy and harassment, rude treatment when a child is sick and they must miss work.

In my early career I had to work harder, longer hours than the men, who could sit back, feet up, shoot the shit with the male supervisor, make fun of the women along with some serious sexist bullshit... and STILL get paid less.

The excuse was always... he's got a family, he's the only wage earner. Names and faces changed, but the behavior didn't. Later.... after I had kids and divorced... still outperforming and by that time a supervisor or lead tech... I STILL got paid less than the men I either supervised or shared the same job with which I shared title and job description.

I went to the department head about it...and within a year the problem was somewhat better, but no matter how many promotions I got... I never really caught up until I moved to the west coast.

My situation was not unique and its still happening, which is apparent. I've known plenty of female PhD scientists who make far less than their male counterparts OR get assigned the lesser juicy research project.

This is nothing more than workplace overt discrimination and conservatives cosign to it, protect it, excuse it. Its one of those issues that seriously piss me off.

Well thanks for the information. I do find that curious, because in my experience, I have never seen that. I have only seen women and men getting exactly the same compensation for for work in all positions up and down the ladder.

I have seen claims such as yours, ie. more education, experience, production than people promoted. I have seen the same claims from women, minorities and white men who all think they were treated unfairly in some promotional process. I have seen investigations into such allegations and I have done such investigations.

In each case, the accusations proved false. In a few cases the conclusions that the accusations were false had to be proven in court. But in the end, they were always upheld. That doesn't mean you don't have valid complaints, but it does mean that those types of complaints, in my experience, have been shown to be false a lot more than they have been sustained.

And I also know personally that you can show people in black and white that they have not been discriminated against in any way. Some accept that and feel better because they know. Others just go on believing that what is in front of them is a lie and that they are still right.

Does that mean your experience isn't valid? Of course not. But I am saying that my experience doesn't match yours. To the extent that it exists, it needs to be corrected and changed. But, I would not favor the government involving itself in private business anymore than it already does. That really isn't the answer.