Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

GOP, The WORK act and "War on Moms"

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

I'm not a conservative, but I'll bite:


Sincerely appreciate the "bite"


Originally posted by The Old American
1) All women have the right to reproduce at any time, unless they are found to be a danger to themselves or children. Please show us where conservatives try to cut a woman's right to reproduce.


Reproductive rights are not rights when the decision is legislated for you via eliminating organizations that provide contraception like planned parenthood, over-turning Roe vs. Wade, ending sex-ed in schools, prohibiting programs that provide contraception to sexually active teenagers in schools, excising contraception from women's health coverage etc.

This is akin to saying that voting is a "right" as long as you pay for your own ballot and associated administrative costs to count that ballot and due to funding cuts thier will be only one voting booth per state...while at the same time having the government invest 100's of Millions of dollars into programs that espouse that voting is sinful and wrong.


Originally posted by The Old American
2) I'm pretty sure the Equal Pay Act of 1963 is still in effect.

Which has been eroded by loop-holes and a long series of conservative court rulings. The last was Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co where the court ruled that the woman who was being paid less than her peers must realize it and file suit within 6 months.

In the Walker-Wisconsins situation, he just repealed a state law that allowed women to plead their case in the less costly, more accessable state court system. Absent the law that he repealed any potential victims of discrimination must now make thier case in Federal Court ...which is much more complex, costly and difficult for the average wisconsin woman.
edit on 19-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


And maybe you should follow your own advice. The information is out there, I suggest you open your eyes long enough to see it.

Republican legislatures have lately set their sites on repealing their state's equal pay acts - and read along with me now - their state's act, such as the one Walker just banished in Wisconsin and the ones the GOP has targeted for elimination in Michigan and in Iowa.

Opp onents: Repeal of Equal Pay Act makes workplace discrimination easier

What this will mean for these state's residents is they will no longer be able to avail themselves of small claims courts or their state's circuit court to fight gender discrimination.

Obama's has also authored the Ledbetter Act, which allows for discrimination suits against an employer to proceed no matter how much time has lapsed when an employee discovers they have been discriminated against based on pay. Prior to the Ledbetter act, you could only go back 180 days from the last pay period, and not back to the actual perceived discrimination.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by MrXYZ
3) Workplace rights and choice of work


to do with the enforcement or non-enforcement of the law.

3) Not sure what you're talking about there unless you're talking about OSHA and workplace safety, in which case see #2.


Choice of work has to do with health benefits. Many women are limited in thier choice of work due to pre-existing conditions...which insurance companies consider pregnancy, plans to be pregnant or ever having a child as a pre-existing condition. Actually I had BCBS agent once tell me that having a wife who was pregnant actually effected my individual policy alone...being a father is a high health risk to insurers


As for OSHA and safety in the work-place, it harkens back to WW2 and women in the factory.

The GOPs disdain for OSHA is not secret, they have been very vocal about it.

OSHA Budget Cut Plan Spotlights Regulatory Debate


Congressional Republicans are promising to scrub the government for what they say are "job killing" regulations. One of their primary targets is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA.

www.npr.org...

House GOP Aims to Slash OSHA Funds


Congressional foes of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have proposed to slash tens of millions of dollars from the agency’s standards, enforcement and information programs for the rest of this year.

The cuts would return OSHA to its 2004 funding level and could force shutdowns for several months, officials said.

"The Republicans have proposed a 20% cut, and given [that] half a year's over, that really means a 40% cut," OSHA administrator David Michaels says. "It would really have a devastating effect on all of our activities."

The cuts would likely mean layoffs of hundreds of inspectors and thousands fewer health and safety inspections, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis told a House Committee.

The cuts would delay new standards, eliminate about 18,000 workplace safety inspections, and possibly lead to the layoffs of several recent OSHA hires, including 200 inspectors, Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis has testified before the House Education and the Workforce Committee.

www.paintsquare.com...

Just a couple of hundreds of articles you can google...the GOP isn't shy about what they want to do to OSHA.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


reply to post by Indigo5
 


I have followed my own advice. A state law can act in tandem with a federal one, but it cannot override it (much as a lot of us would like it to). The law in Wisconsin that was just repealed, which I can't for the life of me figure out why, does nothing to protect or hinder women from the federal law on equal pay. It only provides an alternate path for them to take through the court system.

Women are still fully protected under the federal law, protection of which they are guaranteed. But they aren't guaranteed a cheap or expedient path.

/TOA
edit on 19-4-2012 by The Old American because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


So then, how would you characterize a political agenda directed at making it more difficult and expensive for women pursue justice in cases of workplace discrimination?...a poltical agenda executed through the repeal of various state laws and conservative court rulings/case law redefingin the act at the Federal level limiting those protections?
edit on 19-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Again...We sit on opposite sides of the fence and have had some loud disagreements in the past, but I respect that you are posting and present on a thread that doesn't offer you "easy punches" to throw. It shows intellectual courage. I starred your posts for that alone.....now if you would just stop with the right wing spin ops


Perhaps there is a win/win possibility here for both Dems and Repubs.

Is this still in "draft" mode or is there some language that is at least comparable to the current laws.

If they analyze the proposals themselves, both sides might get to common ground and give voters some hope.

Can someone direct to the proposals if they are available.

Some people here might actually be able to make suggestions to their own Senators and Congress people.

They do listen sometimes.

and even cooperate to a point sometimes.
There is this thread to look at www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Again...We sit on opposite sides of the fence and have had some loud disagreements in the past, but I respect that you are posting and present on a thread that doesn't offer you "easy punches" to throw. It shows intellectual courage. I starred your posts for that alone.....now if you would just stop with the right wing spin ops


Perhaps there is a win/win possibility here for both Dems and Repubs.

Is this still in "draft" mode or is there some language that is at least comparable to the current laws.



Honestly..? My sense is that this law was written soley for rhetorical purposes, with no expectation that it will ever make it to the GOP dominated floor of the house. Alas...such is the state of our nation.

The bill was introduced yesterday and sent to the "ways and means" comitee where I expect it will linger until hell freezes over. Bills that the majority doesn't want to vote on can be "in comitee" for years.

On GovTrack they don't have the text of the bill yet...just the title..

H.R.4379 - To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to permit States to exempt single parents with children under 60 months of age from TANF participation rate requirements.
edit on 19-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 



H.R.4379 - To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to permit States to exempt single parents with children under 60 months of age from TANF participation rate requirements.


That's what I was looking for.

Thanks.

I will follow up and see if I can find out what's up with it.

H.R.4379

Believe it or not, I will email some Congress people and see what responses I get.

We could see some written stuff soon.

Then we compare and analyze.

There might be common ground on that single issue.

Whatever else is being proposed will determine the forward movement if any.

If the bill is clogged with too much garbage, the whole thing will sit.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by The Old American
 


So then, how would you characterize a political agenda directed at making it more difficult and expensive for women pursue justice in cases of workplace discrimination?...a poltical agenda executed through the repeal of various state laws and conservative court rulings/case law redefingin the act at the Federal level limiting those protections?
edit on 19-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


Taking the aforementioned legislation that was appealed in Wisconsin, nothing was made more difficult than it was prior to that legislation came into effect. The Equal Pay Act (simplified) says, "Women must be paid the same as men. Those that aren't can sue for damages in federal court."

The Wisconsin legislation added a state court avenue; it went an extra step. So two steps forward. Repealing that didn't make it more difficult, it took a step back. Two steps forward, one step back. It was reset to its former setting. If you have a beef, it should be with the Equal Rights Act for not allowing a state court option. Which means that, yet again, both sides of the aisle have failed America.

/TOA





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join