Breaking: Congress to vote on equal pay in next 48 hours!

We only have forty-eight hours to secure equal pay for women.

Do the right thing for Lilly Ledbetter.

https://act.credoaction.com/campaign/support_ledbetter/index.html

Women in the American workforce still make less money than their male
counterparts -- it's time for the discrimination to end.

Last year, the Senate failed to get the 60 votes necessary to force an
up-or-down vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would mandate
that women receive equal pay for equal work. Now, with a new session of
Congress in place, we're ready to take up the fight again. The first step
is in the House, which is expected to vote on this crucial legislation in
the next forty-eight hours.

With President-elect Obama soon to take office, we now have a real chance
to pass this legislation that could do so much for so many American women.

There will be a battle in the Senate, and the best way to come out of the
gate strong is for the bill to pass by an overwhelming majority in the
House.

Lilly Ledbetter worked 19 years at Goodyear before she learned the men at
her level were earning far more. Eventually she sued, and the case went
all the way to the Supreme Court where five male justices ruled her claim
invalid because she filed it more than 180 days after the date when the
discrimination first started.

Lilly Ledbetter and women across the country are paid less
for doing the exact same jobs as men. The only difference between men and
women in the workplace is women bring home less money to take care of
their families -- and in an economy as shaky as ours, the last thing we
need is to make life even more difficult for 50% of the American
workforce.

Women across America are counting on Congress -- let Congress know that
you're watching to make sure they come through.

https://act.credoaction.com/campaign/support_ledbetter/index.html">Click here to to tell your member of Congress to support the Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It's the first and crucial step in this year's
battle for equal pay -- a battle that, for the first time, we might
actually be able to win.

We Californians have two female senators. If they don't vote for this, there is no use signing anything.

In fact, will call her office tomorrow

Surely they won't raise all of the females' pay to meet theirs! (There are only 2 male nurses in the hospital I work at and they make more starting out than some female nurses with 14 years experience!).

I'd file a grievance.

So, they would get us on that one anyway. Isn't it stupid!? (and no we don't have a union, either) <sigh> I know.

Then you have a separate EEOC complaint. It's called reprisal. It is unlawful for an employer to take adverse action against any employee for participating (even as a witness) in the EEO process.

It's called the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Why do we need a redundant law?

Against Lilly Ledbetter. Here's a wiki, read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter

...and I'm quite familiar with it. I volunteer with the EEO office where I work and assist those who file EEO complaints. There's nothing bizarre about the case. All EEO law works that way. The ruling was consistent with the law. I see cases like this all the time where people will say their situation has been going on for years and expect to be reimbursed for something that happened from origination. The law doesn't support that, nor should it.

This woman was employed for 20 years at this plant and never filed a claim until right before she retired. Then she expects 20 years of back pay? That's the bizarre part. I generally agree with Ruth Ginsburg, but not on this case. I find it hard to believe that someone working at a union shop who was getting evaluations every year didn't know, or even suspect, that she was getting discriminated against for 20 years, if indeed that was the case.

If her claims are true, that might be an unfortunate situation, but the way EEO law works is you have to stand up for your rights at the time you're a victim of discrimination if that's what you believe. I don't believe the proposed law will further the cause of womens' rights. In fact, I believe the opposite will occur because it will cause some to put off filing for years. That doesn't do anyone any good. Furthermore businesses that choose to discriminate will simply disguise their justifications well enough so they can simply dodge the law. It's far better to challenge these actions at the time they are occurring so relevant witnesses can be of any use.

The trouble is you don't always KNOW until much later that a discrepancy exists. Employers go to great lengths to prevent employees from knowing each other salaries, or the raises they are given. You must know this, so I ask you: What recourse does a woman have when the violation is discovered more than 6 months after being hired?

Back pay can be collected up to the 6 month point. It has always been incumbent on the employee to file timely action, just like any other legal means of redress. So expanding on your question, if 6 months is not the right limitation, what is? The bill proposed says 2 years. So what does that mean for employers? Well, once the limitation gets expanded you're going to open up the flood gates for EEO lawyers, because a previously not so lucrative area is now very lucrative, and yes the frivolous complaints will increase dramatically. From experience I can tell you there are already a huge number of them. For every 1 legitimate case I see about 5 that have no business even being in the system. The expense of defending these complaints is already enormous. Add to that increased record keeping responsibilities. Since 95% of these cases are settled by compromise before the administrative law judge hearing anyway, all you're doing is tipping the scales more towards the complainant and the scales are already tipped heavily in their favor. The net effect is that more employers are going to be more reserved about hiring women and minorities in the first place because of the increased liability factor. So instead of the discrimination occurring during employment it occurs during the hiring stage where it is practically impossible to prove.

If the objective is to reduce illegal compensation discrimination, I can think of a lot of much better ways to make that happen which would actually have a meaningful effect rather than just a symbolic one. For one thing you could expand the EEOC mediation program which has been enormously successful. If you made that program mandatory for both the employee and the employer, you would get the lawyers out of the game and encourage real meaningful solutions. If your objective is to enrich EEO lawyers without having any meaningful effect, the proposed law is the way to do it.

Uh, wrong again. The Supreme Court decision reversed long-standing law. This legislation merely re-establishes that law. If the area was "previously not so lucrative," it was not so lucrative under the law of many years that Congress will soon restore.

If you think the law was reversed, feel free to cite the law that says back pay can be awarded > 6 months.

She didn't find out she was paid less than her male counterparts; that's why the paycheck rule was in place - so that with each paycheck, a new violation is made.

"I find it hard to believe that someone working at a union shop who was getting evaluations every year didn't know, or even suspect, that she was getting discriminated against for 20 years, if indeed that was the case." Really? At which evaluation you have had did they reveal your coworkers' pay to you?

And as for "if indeed that was the case," there is NO QUESTION of the facts in this matter, and that she prevailed on the merits in a court of law.

Even the Chamber of Commerce didn't expect this gift from the Supreme Court.

"the way EEO law works is you have to stand up for your rights at the time you're a victim of discrimination . . "

Let me edit your statement: "the way EEO law works is you have to stand up for your rights at the time YOU LEARN THAT you're a victim of discrimination . . "

There. That's better.

I'll let you know.

Until then I would appreciate it if you refrained from the practice.

That would make it much more better.

Are you stamping your feet and making a face, too?

I made a substantive rebuttal to your statement. Seems to me that was what you asked of other posters.

I see you joined DU after Christmas. Why? To bash workers' rights?

If you actually want to make a "substantive rebuttal" then do so without the childish tactic of editing my comments. I don't play those games, period. If you do, bugger off and go find someone else to play with.

you are ill informed, ignorant of the facts

If you want an answer I suggest you do some research.

If you want to argue, go find someone else - I'm not in the mood to try to educate the willfully ignorant.

ar⋅gue
   /ˈɑrgyu/
verb, -gued, -gu⋅ing.
–verb (used without object)
1. to present reasons for or against a thing

You have no idea what my knowledge is or isn't. In fact the chances are pretty good that I have more knowledge and experience on the matter than you will ever obtain in your lifetime, and I have no desire to be "educate(d)" by someone as narrowminded as you anyway. So why you thought otherwise is anyone's guess. I volunteer my time and efforts towards reducing workplace discrimination and have for the past 6 years. What have you done?

you still insist that I explain the obvious to you.

I merely asked a reasonable question. If you can't or refuse to support your position, that's your business.

I don't insist you explain anything. You've already made it quite clear you have no interest in being reasonable. Since you've already used up your quota for unreasonableness, I have no interest in replying to you again. Feel free to have the last word as I'm sure such things matter greatly to you.

:thumbsup:

again

corporations with different pay scales for men and women. The position I worked in paid women $25 an hour and men $45 an hour. Exact same job, exact same responsibilities. I was one of the "lucky" women who was give $35 an hour because I was far more experienced than my male peers and often had to correct their work. WHY was this going on? Because "men just need more stuff" and "women can always get married". No, don't tell me that I should have sued. This is one of America's biggest corporations; they don't lose lawsuits. Ever. And because the pay scale wasn't "official" they get away with it-just like a million other companies. The 1964 ruling did nothing to help women when it comes to equal pay for equal work.

then leadership better not send it to the White House before the 20th. Bush would probably veto it.

What few people realize is very very few people who are actually discriminated against ever come forward with their complaint. Why is that? The reason is because the EEO process is very intimidating for not only the complainant, but also for the employer. Few employers actually understand how EEO law works. Even less employees understand it. Many employees feel extremely intimidated by the process, and for good reason. Quite often lawyers get involved. Their boss gets extremely agitated by simply the thought of going through the process. They wonder what their coworkers are going to think about them and if they are going to be perceived as one of those employees who bring forth false complaints. In many ways the system does encourage false complaints far more than it encourages real ones.

So where do all these false complaints come from? Believe it or not, most people don't file false complaints because that's their intent. They generally do so because they don't have all the information or because they don't understand the process or the law.

I believe that discrimination law is a very good thing. In fact, I believe in it so highly that I volunteer my time to explain the process and options available for those who feel they are aggrieved. From my experience, I can tell you that the process is very much broken because far to many people who do have legitimate complaints never come forward and far too many people that don't do. Some might feel the answer to that problem is this law, but I feel it will do much more harm than good.

The EEOC mediation program has been enormously successful where it has been tried. Employees and employers sit down together with a disinterested 3rd party mediator to try and resolve their disputes in an informal manner without going down the more formal road of very costly investigations, legal expenses, and administrative law judge proceedings. If mediation doesn't work, the complainant retains all legal rights to pursue the formal side. More often than not, this program does work, and it works beautifully. Instead of working out their differences in an adversarial environment, both sides collaborate on solutions together.

I feel the mediation program should be expanded. I feel it should be made mandatory. The reason is because it has been proven to work and it actually addresses the problem and not just the symptoms. Mediation is also far less intimidating for both sides. As such it encourages those who feel they have been discriminated against to come forward. There are also many more innovative alternate dispute resolution processes that have yet to be fully explored. For those of you who feel the answer lies on the formal side of the process, I would challenge you to learn more about what the actual problem is and not just the few cases than manage to find their way to the USSC.

and must confess that, in my pig-ignorance, I ashamedly was not aware that women still do not get equal pay.