It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama signs equal-pay bill

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Obama signs equal-pay bill


news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signed an equal-pay bill into law Thursday before cheering labor and women leaders who fought hard for it and the woman whose history-making lawsuit gave impetus to the cause.

Obama, choosing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first bill to sign as president, called it a "wonderful day" and declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman an issue not just for women, but for all workers.

With Ledbetter standing by his side, Obama said she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits losses that she "still feels today." He then signed the measure that effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision and makes it easier for workers to sue for discrimination by allowing them more time to do so.

"Making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone," Obama said. "That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it's not just unfair and illegal — but bad for business — to pay someone less because of their gender, age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability."

Ledbetter said she didn't become aware of the large discrepancy in her pay until she neared the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala, and she filed a lawsuit. But the high court held in a 5-4 decision that she missed her chance to bring the action.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Look, okay, I am just shocked that this is only happening now. I read about pay discrimination between men and women before. I'm not getting all of my hopes up. What's to stop these employers from paying women less anyways and not listening to the rule?

I know it's a historical decision. But, men have always tended to discriminate against women. So, what's to stop them from doing that in the future?

My only hope is that it won't be used for reverse discrimination.

I would think this is a good move by Obama on his part, and, a sign that the Democratic congress is actually getting things done.

But, I want to know the actual specifics in that bill... I would want to know how the government would actually enforce it.

A bill that's passed that's not enforced is worth nothing.
news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Frankidealist35]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I am sorry, but I have always been under the belief that those "equal" bills passed by the federal government only create more ways that people can take advantage.

And to be quite honest, even as a woman, I think that a person should always have just been paid what they are worth.

If because of physical weakness somebody is less productive, they should be paid less, instead of being paid the same while forcing the hard workers around them to shoulder extra work to make up for it.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
And yet people are routinely paid more based on how many brats they have. If you're childless and the guy next to you has say 5 kids, you will pay thousands of $ more each year come tax time.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
There are still ways around it. All a supervisor has to do is give a man a merit raise based on his job performance. So pay discrepancies will still exist even if a man and a woman are doing the same job.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
More stupid PC legislation.

What's the point?

People are paid fairly, and according to what they are worth. You think a firm is going to deliberately underpay a well-performing employee just because she's a woman? Or are they going to overpay a sub-par employee just for being a man?

Alan Sugar (the entrepreneur) got into hot water over here in the UK because he claimed that he was reluctant to hire women because they are simply bad value as workers- his chief concern was that mandatory maternity leave provisions leave his company having to pay a woman for not working for a year + having to pay for a replacement within that time too.

Isn't this world meritocratic any more? A person should simply be paid what they are worth. Why should a woman walk out if a male colleague is getting more than her. If she was happy up until that point, it just shows that her self worth is not based on her own salary, but upon her relative salary to others. If she really thought she was being undervalued, she wouldn't have taken the job/ resigned long before realising that she wasn't getting paid the same amount.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
The trial lawyers are licking their chops today. John Edwards, where are you?

I will expect to see some cheesy new TV commercials anytime now.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   
It isn't just about physical labor. Wow, that just blows my mind. That is the kind of excuse companies use to pay women less.
Now, this woman may not have been able to lift huge tires, but what if she was a better manager and far more time efficient, saving the company a lot of money? Should she still get paid less?
But not only does these restrictions and high expectations single out women, they single out ethnic groups of slighter build also, keeping out many minorities. They said this woman got paid less because she couldn't lift Hummer tires. I don't know too many men that can lift hummer tires either.

The company just has to buy some inexpensive equipment and the woman can continue doing her job. This is 2009. We don't have to use a handpick to cut through hard rock anymore. There are now cheap devices that allow anyone to lift anything.
Maybe men should go back to clubbing a woman over her head and dragging her by her hair back to the cave.

Women are discrimintate against all across the board. As a woman, I have been discriminated against several times, blatantly. AT the time it was a limited field so I chose not to pursue it. There is no excuse for it.

People always worry about someone taking advantage of the sytem. And they do.But there are just as many people who don't take advantage of the system.

My last company blatantly discriminated against women and minorities, and pregnant women got hell. When I tried to get some women to defend themselves, they wouldn't. They were afraid of word getting around and not getting other work.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer


People are paid fairly, and according to what they are worth. You think a firm is going to deliberately underpay a well-performing employee just because she's a woman? Or are they going to overpay a sub-par employee just for being a man?


Either you live in some sort of BS fantasy land or have never owned a business.

Pay is based on what people will accept because they need the job. Performance is so nebulous and subjective it's not even funny. Companies are in many cases are very illogical in their business model, And butt kissing will take you further up the corporate ladder than performance.

The "Peter Principal" is more prevalent than you can imagine. I'll bet you aren't even aware of the "Peter Principal" Google it, Read it, believe it!

I have trained new employees that started out making more money than I was currently getting. That's why I went into business for myself.

Obama.....bout time! Next...investigate the scumbag oil companies that jack the American consumer around every chance they get.





[edit on 29-1-2009 by whaaa]

[edit on 29-1-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
I am curious to see if this will do anything to curb "reverse age discrimination".

To start, I am 25 years old. I took over the duties for the previous Network Administrator at my company when he resigned. At the time (2 years ago) I was making $35,000/yr as as "systems technician" doing entry level telephony work, but when he left I also assumed his duties as a network admin. He was making $61,000 at that point, and in the last two years I have gotten a total of $3,000/yr in pay increases putting me at $38,000/yr currently. Not only has my pay barely gone up, but my boss also refuses to change my title to Network Administrator from Systems Technician.

The reason I am given is because I am not old enough for such a title. I am also not old enough to be paid appropriately, and I am told "You are doing well for a 25 year old so don't complain". In doing my research several months ago I found that age discrimination does not apply unless you are over 40, etc. Sad.

-Sanity's Last Day



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Sanitys Last Day
 

I'd say yes, you are being discriminated against. What you need to do is get a better offer from another company, then go to your boss and tell him/her about the offer, and I'll bet you get a raise in no time. Sounds like you're very valuable to them, and they will probably offer you more to keep you.

As for the equal pay for women bill, I thought that was passed years ago. It's certainly time to close the loopholes as much as possible. I wish Ms. Ledbetter all the best.

People are definitely not paid what they are really worth to a company, that's a given. The difference between a worker's pay and the amount of value he creates is pure profit. An employer will always pay as little as he or she can get away with and still have someone competent to do the job. Retail workers, for instance, are paid notoriously badly, not because their jobs are easy (they aren't) but because there are so many people who will accept third-world pay.

When I was younger I worked for a short time as a telemarketer for an insurance company. When I had sold a million dollars' worth of insurance I got a little plaque and a raise of 35 cents an hour. Needless to say I didn't stay there any longer than it was financially necessary to.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
This so called fair pay law is just another smoke screen.Everyone is supposed to be equal under tha law.This new law is strictly discriminatory.This fair pay law discriminates against white males as they are not in the "protected class".A white male employee can't use this law for legal protection against pay discrimination.How FAIR is that??

One would think in a free democracy that one law would serve for all.Yet they clamor for new ways to seperate us into different classes.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
I sure hope this really works.

I have been a victim of this "women are less" notion that employers have.
Years ago I went to work for a just opening business. At the same time they hired a young man who had a wife and a baby. I was a single mom with 2 small children. He was a "family man", and he got paid $75.00 a week. Me, just a lowly female got paid $50 a week.
We were doing the identicle job.
Oh, but it didn't stop there -- later when I was making this fantastic salary of $15K a year, they hired a man that came under my tutalege and they paid him $30K a year. Just goes to show you that you gotta be hung right or you're out of luck.

Yes, soulslayer, they would. I was good at what I did and had the reputation for being good. I was "Queen Bee" and VP. I was the one everyone came to for answers. But after all, just a woman.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by OhZone]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
I applaud this, though I actually believe in negative tax and that all people be substantively, and according to family size paid the same, including the politicians and the elite business men. Now that I will applaud fully, or the abolishment of money altogether and complete equality for everyone, regardless of abilities, age, health, sex, etc. Good move though. Hope its not just to make himself look good.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostNemesis
I am sorry, but I have always been under the belief that those "equal" bills passed by the federal government only create more ways that people can take advantage.

And to be quite honest, even as a woman, I think that a person should always have just been paid what they are worth.

If because of physical weakness somebody is less productive, they should be paid less, instead of being paid the same while forcing the hard workers around them to shoulder extra work to make up for it.


It would be an ideal society if lazy people of any gender got paid what they're worth... but that will never happen.

I watched my mother discriminated against as one of the first female pipefitter/welders in Ohio. While huge and burly men next to her could not pull their share because of old football injuries from High School. The men were paid more. It's a fact. I won't even go into the sexual harrassment.

Personally, I was/am paid less than men on several jobs I have had yet I am an extremely strong and hard worker. Jobs such as bussing tables and nursing assistant.

Women are paid less, given less credit, denied jobs and treated as more expendable in spite of their contribution being equal or surpassing their male fellow employees. It is a sad fact.

But... for some... there will always be excuses for making discrimination sound legitimate.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
There is a ton of age discrimination running around, too. Companies only want to hire kids right out of school in certain industries, because they don't want to deal with more health issues or retirement in older generations. That's what my dad is going through, and if you're over 50 it's going to be really difficult to get a job compared with a 30 year old.

That's not okay, either.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


I do not see much discrimination against women, like you imply. To be honest, I have used being female to my advantage in the past. What woman hasn't?

I am pretty sure it's being female and using looks to my advantage that I have gotten jobs men who tried for the same jobs were turned down on. NO KIDDING.

At least two times in the past, I have gotten jobs that male friends who were interviewed at the same time, didn't get.

Take it for what it is worth, I would hate to be a white male these days, being told that women and minorities are more important.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I dont know what women are bitching about, I see alot more women who have better paying jobs then men.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Woo-Hoo! My whole career I was paid less than my mail counterparts (electronics) even though I did better work, had more experience and was with the company longer. They did it because they could and there wasn't a thing I could do about it.

This is great news! Thanks, Mr. President!



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 



The trial lawyers are licking their chops today.


Isn't Biden's son a trial lawyer for Asbestos cases?

If he is, I wonder if he is going to open up his business to equal pay cases?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join