"Fairness"

by Tita Freeman

"Fairness" is in quotes for a reason, as reported:

The House will likely vote this week on two pay-discrimination bills that were passed by the last Congress but stopped in the Senate by Republican-led filibusters. The first measure, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, would overturn a May 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it more difficult for employees to challenge pay discrimination in the workplace. The bill, named after an employee who worked at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, would extend the statute of limitations for claims filed by employees regarding pay discrimination.  The Paycheck Fairness Act would allow women to sue employers for possible compensatory and punitive damages.

Randy Johnson on Ledbetter:

"Statutes of limitations are put into law so both sides can get timely information when going to the court," Johnson said. "We are interested in a compromise on this issue, but we believe the bill goes way too far."

and on the other:

"The Paycheck Fairness Act would allow women to sue employers for possible compensatory and punitive damages. Businesses object that these damages would be awarded "even in cases where no intentional discrimination is demonstrated," said Mr. Johnson, who cited studies by the Government Accountability Office that traced much of the male-female pay differential to seniority, education and other legitimate, nondiscriminatory factors." The remaining, unexplained pay gap should not be assumed to be based on gender discrimination, he said.

The argument(?) on the other side is:

I just have to ask how can anybody be against equal pay for equal work? Who among us can be against this principle?! Comment by Anon- January 5, 2009 at 2:09 pm (WSJ Law Blog)

Indeed no one is against fairness, as noted:

2:09, no one is against equal pay for equal work, so good luck getting people to torch that strawman. As pointed out above, this legislation isn’t about equal pay– it’s about drumming up more business for trial lawyers and making it easier for them to collect massive fees by removing damage caps. Comment by 11:22- January 5, 2009 at 2:41 pm (WSJ Law Blog)

This isn’t about her pay dispute. This is about lawyers nursing a poster child case to get a gravy train law passed. Comment by Under the table- January 5, 2009 at 12:59 pm (WSJ Law Blog)

Gravy train indeed, as Carter notes

There are so many messages being sent, but clearly one of those messages goes to the plaintiff's bar. It's "Thank You."

From the Financial Post:

The "two bills, which may be brought to the House of Representatives as early as Friday, according to Mr. Johnson, may seem arcane but could open business to potentially time-consuming and costly new litigation, always a drag on business activity."

Fortunately the economy is just humming along right now...for more, here is a snip from a Key Vote Letter we just sent a letter up to House Members strongly urging them to

Oppose H.R. 12, the “Paycheck Fairness Act,” which the House is scheduled to consider this week. The Chamber strongly supports equal employment opportunity and appropriate mechanisms to achieve this important goal. However, this bill would, among other things, expand remedies under the Equal Pay Act (EPA) to include unlimited punitive and compensatory damages, significantly erode employer defenses for legitimate pay disparities, and impose invalid tools for enforcement by the Labor Department...It strains logic to mandate that damages conceived and designed to punish and deter wrongful conduct should apply to claims of inadvertent, unintentional conduct that has the effect of violating the EPA.

Read the full letter (pdf)

Comments

[jv]

unless you and washington D.C get rid of the free trade agreement were not going any where

[jv]

all amercans to be hired first

make outsourcing ileagle

MADE IN THE USA here is an idea every store around every state has one row of this and that put two rows of the same item together one made in the USA the other made in china ect ect lets see if you can do this

[jv]

i hope you are smart enough to remember when republicans had the power and democrats had to do as they wanted WE DONT GO THE REPUBLIAN WAY WE HAVE THEM WHERE THEY DONT WANT TO BE SO DONT GO WITH THEM