Why are so many people terrified of President Obama?

[gazhekwe]

OK, I see you are much more willing to allow extenuating circumstances in the case of majority group members claiming discrimination by or in favor of historically disadvantaged people.

In Lily Ledbetter's case, she knew nothing of the discriminatorily unequal pay for most of her time on that job. Someone in payroll eventually blew the whistle to her, and she sued. She had plenty of evidence in her favor, and all the courts below agreed with her. In Ledbetter's case, her performance over time was strictly reviewed and compared to her more highly paid colleagues, and she came out equal or better.

The Supreme Court, in its inexplicable ruling, relied not on the evidence showing discrimination, but on the timeliness of her complaint. For some reason, they held her accountable for not finding out about the discrimination with 90 days of her first unequal paycheck.

Now, I have been working on investigating employment complaints for many years. For decades, the longstanding, court sanctioned policy for timeliness of unequal pay claims extended the timely period to within 90 days of the LAST unequal paycheck, not the first. The holding was that EVERY unequal paycheck constituted a new and separate act of discrimination which was continuous from its inception. The USSCt rescinded longstanding precedent, ignoring the extenuating circumstances in equal pay cases, where employers actively conceal employee wages from each other. They ignored evidence compiled over the years of continuing discrimination.

The Lily Ledbetter Act restores that rule of law, and again, employers are responsible to assure that employees are paid equally for their work.

[firstandten]

Well, sounds like you'd like to make it that way. It is because he's young and hip. Now who is the racist?

Thats funny because among the black folks I know he's closer to being a nerd , than hiphop. Among black folks I know the word hiphop and Obama don't equate.

Maybe thats just a "white thang" !

[Lorax]

OK, I see you are much more willing to allow extenuating circumstances in the case of majority group members claiming discrimination by or in favor of historically disadvantaged people.

In Lily Ledbetter's case, she knew nothing of the discriminatorily unequal pay for most of her time on that job. Someone in payroll eventually blew the whistle to her, and she sued. She had plenty of evidence in her favor, and all the courts below agreed with her. In Ledbetter's case, her performance over time was strictly reviewed and compared to her more highly paid colleagues, and she came out equal or better.

The Supreme Court, in its inexplicable ruling, relied not on the evidence showing discrimination, but on the timeliness of her complaint. For some reason, they held her accountable for not finding out about the discrimination with 90 days of her first unequal paycheck.

Now, I have been working on investigating employment complaints for many years. For decades, the longstanding, court sanctioned policy for timeliness of unequal pay claims extended the timely period to within 90 days of the LAST unequal paycheck, not the first. The holding was that EVERY unequal paycheck constituted a new and separate act of discrimination which was continuous from its inception. The USSCt rescinded longstanding precedent, ignoring the extenuating circumstances in equal pay cases, where employers actively conceal employee wages from each other. They ignored evidence compiled over the years of continuing discrimination.

The Lily Ledbetter Act restores that rule of law, and again, employers are responsible to assure that employees are paid equally for their work.

Bravo for explaining this in terms even the Rethuglicans can understand. What would be interesting is discovering the political leanings of the court at the time, and how the numbers fell. I can probably bet it was a Rethuglican majority court at the time.

[firstandten]

In the Lily Ledbetter's case, she knew nothing of the discriminatorily unequal pay for most of her time on that job. Someone in payroll eventually blew the whistle to her, and she sued. She had plenty of evidence in her favor, and all the courts below agreed with her. In Ledbetter's case, her performance over time was strictly reviewed and compared to her more highly paid colleagues, and she came out equal or better.

The Supreme Court, in its inexplicable ruling, relied not on the evidence showing discrimination, but on the timeliness of her complaint. For some reason, they held her accountable for not finding out about the discrimination with 90 days of her first unequal paycheck..

Great post ! I would only comment on why you would say inexplicable. Thats just another example of the RW supreme court in a typical 5-4 decision trying to advance their agenda. The same thing folks are accusing Sotomayor of doing.

[Lorax]

Agreed. When the SCOTUS decided to disallow Florida a recount in the 2000 election, ending with the de facto appointment of Tush as president, I knew we had to do something about reducing the influence of the activist SC.

I've always felt the SC should be elected by the people by a simple majority, not presidential political appointments. Just as the Electoral College needs to be eliminated.

[Sstashmoo]

"I deserve this/that because I'm a [[inject any gender or race here).

Anyone see a problem with a statement like that? I do. It commits the very act it is meant to defeat.

[Lorax]

"I deserve this/that because I'm a [[inject any gender or race here).

Anyone see a problem with a statement like that? I do. It commits the very act it is meant to defeat.

I know this is reaaaallly hard for you to do, but try putting yourself in Lily Ledbetter's shoes. What if you discovered you were purposely underpaid for no other reason than your gender, your race, your sexual orientation?

What would your reaction be?

Go ahead, make my day.

[gazhekwe]

Tashmoo, that is where you are wrong. People are not saying I deserve this because I am black or female or whatever. They are saying ' I deserve this because I am doing the same work as [[whites, men, whatever) who are paid more.'

Heh, their explanation to me was inexplicable, because they decided that she hadn't proved discriminatory intent in issuing each and every check.

The SCt is supposed to be non-partisan, so it is better to say who appointed them. Here is the decision breakdown:

Alito for the majority, appointed by George W. Bush
Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush
Scalia, appointed by Ronald Reagan
Kennedy, appointed by Ronald Reagan
Thomas, appointed by George HW Bush

Ginsburg, Dissent, appointed by Bill Clinton
Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford
Souter, appointed by George HW Bush
Breyer, appointed by Jimmy Carter

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "OK, I see you are much more willing to allow extenuating circumstances in the case of majority group members claiming discrimination by or in favor of historically disadvantaged people. "

I never said that. I said the examples you presented did not provide enough information to make a decision. Since you're so keen on deciding matters of such delicate nature on such little information, maybe we don't need any courts, and should just ask you from now on.

Quote: "In Lily Ledbetter's case, she knew nothing of the discriminatorily unequal pay for most of her time on that job."

I hate to break it you, but regardless of what Helen Gurley Brown and her minions have been brainwashing you with over the last 50 years, Women are not capable of the same physical labor abilities that a man is. You know someone? We all know someone, the reality is, on the whole they are not equal.

Quote: "where employers actively conceal employee wages from each other. "

Of course they do. If my employer told any of my coworkers how much I made, I'd be pissed, that's my business and no one else. And I don't want to know what anyone else makes, I worry about how much I make. You should suggest nametags with the labor rates displayed for each employee. You guys are off the charts laughable.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "What if you discovered you were purposely underpaid for no other reason than your gender, your race, your sexual orientation?

What would your reaction be?"

I would very politely confront my supervisor and ask for an explanation. If not satisfied, I would exhaust all avenues within that organization, up to and not excluding the owner. If I knew I was worth more and they refused to meet my price, I'd tell them to kiss my ass and roll, then move on to a better paying job, and a company with a lower concentration of Aholes. I've done that very thing incidentally.

[Lorax]

So, though you chose not to challenge it in court, what makes it wrong for Ledbetter to do so, other than your screed about damaging the viability of the employer you just described as "Aholes"?

You're not making any sense.

You should be happy someone was interested in challenging an unfair, unjust legal interpretation which on it's face is wrong, and unAmerican. Instead, you cheerlead for, or apologize for the acts of billion dollar corporations, which, unless you're the owner of, really don't have any skin in the game.

If anything was accomplished with the Ledbetter Act, enforcement of existing laws on employment discrimination will be the result, and the Supreme Court's partisan decision to allow for descrimination in interpreting the existing laws was ruled ignorant and unjust.

[gazhekwe]

SSTashmoo, Lily Ledbetter performed her job, the same job as the others, equally or better than they did. She did the same work. She was not handicapped by her gender except possibly in your mind.

I have investigated cases where women were automatically excluded because of the gender bias, thinking it was not women's work, or that a woman could not do the work. The standard is, all other things being equal or better in the case of the woman applicant, the employer must specifically examine her capabilities to handle the aspects of the job they think she is incapable of.

In one case I worked on, a 20 year woman employee was denied a promotion to a specific job, in favor of a new hire, an 18-year old man. The stated reason, she could never do one aspect of the job, applying 200 pounds of torque to one piece, something that would come up once or twice a week. The woman insisted she could do it because they had a special torque wrench and used it with a breaker bar, requiring much less effort. On request, the company allowed her to try it and she did it easily.

PS, the men used the same tools.

[Lorax]

The bottom line is, anyone who would deny equal pay for equal work is doing so due to some "ism". Racism, sexism, corporatism, fill in the blank.

[Pam]

She was not handicapped by her gender except possibly in your mind.

The bottom line is, anyone who would deny equal pay for equal work is doing so due to some "ism". Racism, sexism, corporatism, fill in the blank.

Moo's sexism has been on display here countless times.

[Sstashmoo]

Pam, I prefer "Misogynist", it sounds much more exotic.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "SSTashmoo, Lily Ledbetter performed her job, the same job as the others, equally or better than they did. She did the same work."

So.. When an employer sets pay for an employee many factors other than their specific job come into play. What if Lily is a habitual complainer? What if Lily shows up half the time? What if Lily comes in late often? Is it fair then that Lily get paid as much as the others? How will you explain to the others that they aren't worth any more to the company than she is? Think they won't start coming in late and missing time as well? I stand on and reiterate what I said to begin with, if Lily is worth it, she'll receive it.

Lorax, as owner of several businesses, again you should understand this.

[Lorax]

In your own words:

So.. When an employer sets pay for an employee many factors other than their specific job come into play. What if Lily is a habitual complainer? What if Lily shows up half the time? What if Lily comes in late often? Is it fair then that Lily get paid as much as the others? How will you explain to the others that they aren't worth any more to the company than she is? Think they won't start coming in late and missing time as well? I stand on and reiterate what I said to begin with, if Lily is worth it, she'll receive it. Sounds like a little more misygony to me. What do you plan on giving Lily?

Lorax, as owner of several businesses, again you should understand this. You seem preoccupied with my "several businesses", what's the matter, jealous?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Sounds like a little more misygony to me."

How so? I just gave an excellent example for pay differences, and your rebuttal is some silly sophomoric quip? Whatever
"misygony" is...

Quote: "Jealous?"

LOL.. no

[Lorax]

Quote: "Sounds like a little more misygony to me."

How so? I just gave an excellent example for pay differences, and your rebuttal is some silly sophomoric quip? Whatever
"misygony" is...

Quote: "Jealous?"

LOL.. no

Misygonistic is what you told Pam sounds more "exotic" as a descriptive device to be used on you. Unless of course you meant to say "erotic" which sounds more like it to me.

[ccbatson]

At will employment...a money making endeavor needs employees TO MAKE MONEY, not for the sake of the employee. It is the job and incentive for the employee to be productive and therefore valuable.

[firstandten]

How so? I just gave an excellent example for pay differences, and your rebuttal is some silly sophomoric quip?

You did, but there are no indications that those examples applied in the Ledbetter case.

It seems difficult for you to admit that the woman got flat out screwed by her employer. Your last few posts seen to indicate corporations can do no wrong and there is a blame the victim mentality much like when I was debating another poster who feels the police can do no wrong and if they shoot you or arrest you then you must have done something to warrant it.

Corporations exist to make a profit, period. If it happens to do good in the process then thats a plus. If you want corporations to do good then they have to be nudged in that direction by sensible regulation. Thats all the Lilly Ledbetter act is doing.

[ccbatson]

Doing good is a bonus, not the reason for a business venture. By itself, any business that doesn't recognize this reality will be doomed to fail.

[gazhekwe]

Right, Pam, he is clearly demonstrating the need for such legislation as Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Lily Ledbetter Act.

Well, if employers are going to decide a good job is worth XXX, then they have to pay XXX for everyone meeting that standard. There was evidence that Ledbetter met that standard.Any assumption that she must have been doing something others were not is incorrect. Of course everyone has personality traits, including the men. You assume all the men were perfect, and Lily was not, when all court finding disagree. The SCt did not overrule the earlier findings, they ruled on the timeliness of her filing.

[Papasito]

Socialism is a great idea!
Look how well it went for the USSR


They had a nice principle -
if the government could not take care of everyone, they just eliminated a few million people to take care of!

http://markhumphrys.com/soviet.html#soviet

[ccbatson]

Well said Papasito, please stay and participate more here, we need more common sense.