A Bill
-
It's... sort of wacky.
Apparently, though the 1964 civil rights act should prevent wimmens from being paid less than equally qualified men in the same position, there's a gaping loophole. Supposedly this 'fixes' said loophole.
Criticisms include:
o This will increase litigation. (Maybe we need litigation mitigation? buh dum tsh)
o Women already see equal pay
o Women suck anyway
o Women take lots of time off work
o Other ridiculously sexist statements
Take away the sexism and you're left with the possibility that women already see equal pay, and maybe this will increase the risk of owning a business. Which is bad in a struggling economy.
Thoughts?
Here's the Lilly Ledbetter story for context
tldr version:
She won her lower court case, but the supreme court denied her compensation because time had lapsed. Now it's a crime every time she's paid, not just when pay is established.
-
It's also noteworthy that while this bill fulfills one of his campaign promises (one that Hillary criticized as pandering to her base, which may very well have been the case), it also 'breaks' one in which he said he'd allow on any non-emergency bill, five days for public comment, presumably on his website.
While the letter is broken, it's the sort of promise that might take a little time to implement. While not an excuse, I'm willing to wait and see if he just forgets about it entirely or still gets something set up. I was looking forward to it.
Politifact refers to his hiring ~2 people who were lobbyists less than 2 years ago as a "compromise". I think it's another broken promise, but such a step in the right direction that I can't get outraged over it.
I find the list of things in the works to be somewhat refreshing, too. -
QUOTE (ANunes @ Jan 29 2009, 06:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>o Women take lots of time off work
Statistically speaking, this is true (I'll see if I can find the studies later). Although, I really don't think it should be a criticism of the bill. As far as I know, women and men are allowed the same amount of time off (even Paternity Leave has become common).
Do you have a link to the bill? I'm interested to see what it forces. -
Yep.
"to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes."
Is the short version.
The actual text added to the bill to accomplish this seems to be:
an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice."
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!