Obama Signs Equal Pay Act.

[nevermore]

This place is built on sarcastic remarks. There are posters here don't contribute anything else.

Fact is, a lot of managers won't hire a woman or will pay her less because they think she'll get pregnant five minutes later and they'll have to pay her and her temporary replacement. Giving men equal parental leave by law means it's just as much of a "risk" to hire a man knowing his partner might get pregnant and it gives that man more time with his child.

It's win-win.

Agreed. But until that happens, this is much needed.

Um, you mean like the apparently non-existent Family & Medical Leave Act?

Covered employers must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during any 12-month period for one or more of the following reasons:

• for the birth and care of the newborn child of the employee;
• for placement with the employee of a son or daughter for adoption or foster care;
• to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
• to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.

Q. Can I still use FMLA leave during pregnancy or after the birth of a child?

A. Yes. An employee’s ability to use FMLA leave during pregnancy or after the birth of a child has not changed. Under the regulations, a mother can use 12 weeks of FMLA leave for the birth of a child, for prenatal care and incapacity related to pregnancy, and for her own serious health condition following the birth of a child. A father can use FMLA leave for the birth of a child and to care for his spouse who is incapacitated (due to pregnancy or child birth).

I've read studies in the past (don't have link) that women tend to take more sick days and miss work more frequently than men.

And of course there is maternity leave which normally isn't a male thing.

All of which are covered by other aspects of employment contracts (see "sick days" and "family leave"). They should have no bearing on hourly/yearly salaries.

Also, not all women take sick days or have children. I have taken 3 sick days in the past 4 years, have no children, don't like children, won't have children. I should not be paid less by default because other people with a similar set of chromosomes do.

That said, I do not have a problem with seniority rules that take into account amount of time actually worked. If two people have been at a company for 10 years doing the same job, but one has worked 20 hours a week and the other has worked 40, then the latter employee has produced more during his or her employment time and has therefore earned a bigger raise and more seniority than the former. Sorry to those who have a problem with that, but it's pretty cut-and-dried.

Besides which, if a company has two people wanting a job, one is willing to work for 25 thousand a year and another wants 35 thousand, why can't the company hire the 25 thousand one?

They can, as long as they're not offering the person with two X chromosomes $25,000 instead of $35,000 because she has two X chromosomes. Gender is not a "qualification" to be legally taken into consideration any more than race, religion, height, hair color or shoe size.

What about at will jobs that don't have employment contracts???

What about them? Do they get paid time off? If they do, then that would constitute an "employment contract" or in other words and "agreement to terms of employment" which would render irrelevant your bullshit claim that it's ok for women to be paid less because they might use their paid time off. The horror!

Regardless, this act simply legthens the statue of limitations during which a woman can hold her employer accountable for discriminatory pay practices. She still has to prove that there is no other reason for her lower pay. It says nothing about having to give people merit raises without them meriting them and it doesn't shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff. If the employer can show that the woman in question is paid less than a peer due to inferior performance, poor attendence or any other non-having-a-uterus based reason, then they can pay her what her inferior work merits.

Do you have an actual cogent response to any of my points, or any of the other points in this thread, or are you just going to continue to make shit up and demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge about the new law?

 

[PKTrekGirl]

This act is useless because it's impossible to prove if the woman is actually getting paid less.

I agree. This law is Obama's attempt to make his supporters feel like he is getting things done for them.

But to Corporations, this law is a joke.

All they have to do is point to ONE small thing in the man's job responsibilities that is not in the woman's job responsibilities, and they can claim it is a different job and thus not comparable.

My, how naive Obama is if he thinks this is going to change a single thing.

 

[nevermore]

^Again, this Act does not establish the right to sue, it just addresses a loop-hole in the existing legislation that allows for a longer statute of limitations. The Act came about becasue a woman who proved her case in court was told by SCOTUS that she couldn't sue because she had been employed for more than 180 days at the lower pay rate.

 

[Mallory]

I agree. This law is Obama's attempt to make his supporters feel like he is getting things done for them.

But to Corporations, this law is a joke.

Damn it, it was MY turn to be the cynic.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

^Again, this Act does not establish the right to sue, it just addresses a loop-hole in the existing legislation that allows for a longer statute of limitations. The Act came about becasue a woman who proved her case in court was told by SCOTUS that she couldn't sue because she had been employed for more than 180 days at the lower pay rate.

Do you know how often in history the congress has used its McCardle power to overrule the supreme court?

I think I can count it on my right hand. This was a political move from the start. Extending the statute of limitations to me, allows for further litigation. Period.

 

[Rowan Sjet]

Ironically, by keeping one of his campaign promises with the signing of this bill, Obama has also broken one of his promises.

At least according to the Obameter.

 

[Red Ranger]

This act is useless because it's impossible to prove if the woman is actually getting paid less.

I agree. This law is Obama's attempt to make his supporters feel like he is getting things done for them.

But to Corporations, this law is a joke.

All they have to do is point to ONE small thing in the man's job responsibilities that is not in the woman's job responsibilities, and they can claim it is a different job and thus not comparable.

My, how naive Obama is if he thinks this is going to change a single thing.

Thanks for your cynicism. Hope you work for a company that pays you less than a man doing comparable work -- real soon!

I wonder how many of the posters here who are opposed to this law have been (a) paid less than a colleague for doing the same work, (b) terminated for one reason then told it was some other reason, and (c) or are actual business owners. I'll bet the answer to all three of those questions is "no."

As for those of you lauding the temp industry, I am a freelancer/temp. Believe me, it's not a bed of roses. Companies use temps to keep their work force in a state of unease, fearing they'll be replaced by temps. BTW, the temp-to-perm option is rarely exercised by companies. I can count on one hand fellow temps who've been moved to perm status at the clients I've worked for.

Sure, employers will find ways around this, as they usually do. But opening up that statute of limitations beyond the limited 180 days is a boon for workers who may not have been aware of this restriction. It gives them time to find out, via discovery, whether they were paid less than other colleagues.

Also, the stat I cited in an earlier post, how much women are paid per dollar versus men, was recently updated to 78 cents on the dollar. And all these silly excuses that "A woman will get pregnant," is sexist. Suppose you men were paid less than a woman because you have a greater risk of having prostate cancer? That wouldn't be fair.

The example cited by Plecostomus, forced to attend a fundraiser, is illegal.

And you corporate apologists amuse me. Keep being their saps!

Red Ranger

 

[Alpha Romeo]

Sure, employers will find ways around this, as they usually do. But opening up that statute of limitations beyond the limited 180 days is a boon for workers who may not have been aware of this restriction. It gives them time to find out, via discovery, whether they were paid less than other colleagues.

I love how laymen/women throw the word discovery around like they know what it means. Discovery kicks in after the filing of suit. If the statute of limitations is blown, you get the luxury of neither. Anyone who is not aware of their rights under the law is a flaming idiot.

 

[Red Ranger]

Sure, employers will find ways around this, as they usually do. But opening up that statute of limitations beyond the limited 180 days is a boon for workers who may not have been aware of this restriction. It gives them time to find out, via discovery, whether they were paid less than other colleagues.

I love how laymen/women throw the word discovery around like they know what it means. Discovery kicks in after the filing of suit. If the statute of limitations is blown, you get the luxury of neither. Anyone who is not aware of their rights under the law is a flaming idiot.

Duh. I know that's what it means -- I worked at a law firm. It is indeed part of the process of a lawsuit. Unlike others, I don't just use words without knowing their meaning. That's something you'll find out real quick about me, Alpha.

And you're assuming everyone knows what their rights are under the law. Most people have to consult with an attorney to find that out. Are you some kind of attorney? If so, I'll bet you're one of those corporate stooges.

So thanks once again for a meaningless post, bud -- one in a series, collect them all. Trying to increase your post count, no doubt.

Red Ranger

 

[Alpha Romeo]

Sure, employers will find ways around this, as they usually do. But opening up that statute of limitations beyond the limited 180 days is a boon for workers who may not have been aware of this restriction. It gives them time to find out, via discovery, whether they were paid less than other colleagues.

I love how laymen/women throw the word discovery around like they know what it means. Discovery kicks in after the filing of suit. If the statute of limitations is blown, you get the luxury of neither. Anyone who is not aware of their rights under the law is a flaming idiot.

Duh. I know that's what it means -- I worked at a law firm. It is indeed part of the process of a lawsuit. Unlike others, I don't just use words without knowing their meaning. That's something you'll find out real quick about me, Alpha.

And you're assuming everyone knows what their rights are under the law. Most people have to consult with an attorney to find that out. Are you some kind of attorney? If so, I'll bet you're one of those corporate stooges.

So thanks once again for a meaningless post, bud -- one in a series, collect them all. Trying to increase your post count, no doubt.

Red Ranger

Attorney? Yes...Labor/Employment and Toxic Tort. Corporate stooge? Nooo not hardly. You'll also like to know that I supported Obama. I still don't think this bill does anything other than increase the liklihood of litigation. It's also the use of a tool that should not be used. Congress should not be usurping decisions made by the Supreme Court. Not unless it's one of those life or death decisions that really need to be made.

Someone blowing the 180 day statute of limitations is not life or death its just dumb. Anyone who gets fired or isn't paid a good wage should consult with an attorney way before 180 days is up.

 

[Red Ranger]

I love how laymen/women throw the word discovery around like they know what it means. Discovery kicks in after the filing of suit. If the statute of limitations is blown, you get the luxury of neither. Anyone who is not aware of their rights under the law is a flaming idiot.

Duh. I know that's what it means -- I worked at a law firm. It is indeed part of the process of a lawsuit. Unlike others, I don't just use words without knowing their meaning. That's something you'll find out real quick about me, Alpha.

And you're assuming everyone knows what their rights are under the law. Most people have to consult with an attorney to find that out. Are you some kind of attorney? If so, I'll bet you're one of those corporate stooges.

So thanks once again for a meaningless post, bud -- one in a series, collect them all. Trying to increase your post count, no doubt.

Red Ranger

Attorney? Yes...Labor/Employment and Toxic Tort. Corporate stooge? Nooo not hardly. You'll also like to know that I supported Obama. I still don't think this bill does anything other than increase the liklihood of litigation. It's also the use of a tool that should not be used. Congress should not be usurping decisions made by the Supreme Court. Not unless it's one of those life or death decisions that really need to be made.

Someone blowing the 180 day statute of limitations is not life or death its just dumb. Anyone who gets fired or isn't paid a good wage should consult with an attorney way before 180 days is up.

Well, perhaps attention to this story might help some people out there who didn't know about the statute of limitations. I don't see anything wrong with Congress correcting an egregious, pro-business ruling by the Supreme Court, which often sides with business interests, while hiding this bias by invoking the Founders and the Constitution as if they were supernatural beings.

You wouldn't feel the same way if you were Lilly Ledbetter, the woman who, because, as a factory worker, she was "ignorant" of the law, lost out not only on wages but on on retirement money as well as a result of the wage discrimination she suffered. She and others like her are the real victims, not the "poor business owners" (boo-hoo) who wilfully paid them less than they should have.

As you seem to be saying, if ignorance is no excuse for employees, it's no excuse for employers, either. Maybe some will think twice about pulling this crap in the future, as fear of litigation might make a few shape up. Maybe! And I doubt there'll be a backlash against hiring women, as they are in greater numbers in the workforce, many just as qualifed as their male counterparts.

As for your contention all it will do is increase litigation, bring it on! Again, it may have the same ultimate impact -- employers will consult their attorneys on the dos and dont's and weigh them accordingly.

Red Ranger

 

[Hermiod]

Um, you mean like the apparently non-existent Family & Medical Leave Act?

Does that actually say that when it's time for a woman to stop work when she's pregnant the father can also stay home right up until she returns to work herself ?

 

[trekkiedane]

That O is just the gift that keeps on giving isn't he? -congratz (again)!


In these parts we have the EU equal pay(?) directive from 1975 (which kinda became Danish law in 1976)
It states rules and regulations about what kind of work is of the same value, the right to disclose what youre paid, what direct and indirect discrimination is and lots more…

I am however deeply concerned (and quite embarrassed) to learn that we, as a modern industrial western social democratic society, still are worse off than countries like Benin and Albania in this respect.

But -and this is why I needed to post in this thread- having kids (being pregnant) isn't a one-woman thing, darnit, it does take a man too!

Women can take leave from 4 weeks before (expected) giving birth and 14 weeks after + 32 weeks of parenting leave. Men have 32 weeks of parenting leave (these are the minimum rights!). Depending on your job you can have anything from ½ to full pay in this period.

And, of course, there's the "child's first sick-day"-leave which any parent will know is a good thing to have every now and then when you have small kids in the family.

 

[Hermiod]

^However, how member states implement that directive changes country by country - here in the UK fathers have nothing like that kind of equality.

Women receive 32 weeks, the first 6 of which are at 90% pay and the rest are at a flat rate of £112.75 per week. Men receive 2 weeks at £112.75 per week. These are the statutory minimums.

At my own place of work, women with more than 26 weeks of continuous employment are entitled to 10 weeks leave at 100% pay with an additional 2 weeks for every year of continuous service (so someone who had worked here for 4 years would get 18 weeks) up to a maximum of 39 weeks. The remainder of the 39 weeks are paid at the £112.75 a week rate. They are also entitled to take an additional 13 weeks of unpaid leave.

On top of that, company benefits continue to accrue. The woman will still gain holiday days as if she was at work, her pension will be contributed to and she will still receive the company bonus.

Paternity leave is just 10 days at 100% pay.

 

[Hoser]

You get money? Sweet.
I don't believe it's paid here. I know if I take time off in April for the birth of my daughter, it wouldn't be.
Heck, when my son was being born I was almost fired because I took time off for the birth. Stupid at will employment....

 

[Hermiod]

You get money? Sweet.

Well, I don't, what with being me and all.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I love how laymen/women throw the word discovery around like they know what it means. Discovery kicks in after the filing of suit. If the statute of limitations is blown, you get the luxury of neither. Anyone who is not aware of their rights under the law is a flaming idiot.

And you're assuming everyone knows what their rights are under the law. Most people have to consult with an attorney to find that out. Are you some kind of attorney? If so, I'll bet you're one of those corporate stooges.

So thanks once again for a meaningless post, bud -- one in a series, collect them all. Trying to increase your post count, no doubt.

Order in the court, please. You don't want me to declare a mistrial.

 

[Hoser]

Does mistrial get paid as much as mrtrial?

 

[Hermiod]

Does mistrial get paid as much as mrtrial?

Who cares ? Mistrial was only employed for her looks anyway.

 

[Thespeckledkiwi]

Along the lines of this, I was taking a course at my new job about harassment and such and did you know that age discrimination is usually for people 40 or above? WTF?

BTW I agree that this is fair and is a long time coming but equality has still a long ways to go. Next road is courts and father rights in court.