Please take some time to call your Representative and Senators today on this. Really appreciate it, gang!

Oh, and while I’m thinking about it — if you get information from your Rep or Senators on how they plan to vote, please leave that in this thread. Thanks much!

We also need to address the dual discrimination of working while female and working while older. The combination is deadly.

My representative is Dan Lungren. I will contact him anyway.
And my senators are both women and I assume they will vote for equal pay. I will contact them.

I loved seeing that Lilly Ledbetter is one of the Americans chosen to ride on the Obama Inauguration train.

Sends a strong message on so many fronts.

Thanks, Mary — let me know what you hear from them, if anything, please. Am trying to track where the vote is in the Senate especially — so any info would be much appreciated.

Lilly’s really wonderful. I got to meet her in Denver for a panel that I did — she spoke briefly at the start of it, and she’s just as nice in person as you’d expect.

Meant to also say that I’m sorry you have to deal with Dan Lungren. Ugh.

We have been under the thumb of those who perceived it as desireable to participate in a race to the bottom. Part of this endeaver has involved keeping those who have been relegated to a lower rung in their place. It is time to share the proceeds equitably and fairly.
282 hrs & 41 min

I think “putting people in their place” sums up how this decision made me feel — at least what they were trying to do. Although with me, it just pissed me off and made me want to fight harder. As it did a LOT of women I know. Ooopsie…

If you want to email Congress and press them to pass the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, as well as grab a cool wage gap calculator, visit http://www.OutoftheWayofFairPay.org.

Huddie Ledbetter and some others raise their voice to Lilly-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYnAJ0Xph10

You all here take heed (Huddie’s intro many times)

I know Candidate Obama made a huge deal of the Fair Pay Act (Lilly Ledbetter Law). Suffice it to say that this statute had nothing to do with ensuring equal pay or prohibiting gender discrimination. This would be unnecessary because there are already volumes of statutes intended to address gender discrimination or other forms of illicit discrimination. This statute did nothing but protect the revenue of trial lawyers by extending statutes of limitations. Statutes of limitations exist for good reason, to ensure that justice can be delivered within a reasonable time, thereby ensuring a workable judiciary.

Actually, lets be precise. This statute is to start the statute of limitation clock from when the victim becomes aware of the discrimination I believe.

Lily Ledbetter had been discriminated against for I believe it was nearly 20 years. The SCOTUS ruling was that she had to have learned about the discrimination and complained within the first 6 months. Kind of makes it difficult to do when the company keeps the secret for decades.

True — there were volumes of statutes. Which SCOTUS summarily dismissed, along with years of precedent, in one fell swoop by making the statute of limitations so narrow that only a tiny number of people being discriminated against would ever find out in time to file a claim. The window was narrowed to a few months — meanwhile, Lilly Ledbetter didn’t find out she’d been paid 40% less than her male counterparts until close to 20 years later.

If you think that’s fair, then this likely doesn’t bother you. But if you think discrimination is wrong, and that the statute of limitations should be a period of months after the person finds out about the discrimination as the timeframe to file — which is only fair, since someone who is discriminating against you because you have boobs isn’t usually stupid enough to brag about it — then you should support this legislation.

That should have read “the window was narrowed by SCOTUS to a few months after the claimant was hired by the allegedly discriminating employer” — preview is my friend. *g*

Hi, Dakine01 - you may not want to feed the trolls–that’s just a recycling of the defeated candidate’s ill-informed debate response. Sigh. Falsehoods never die.

Christy - I’m putting down the laptop to go call my Rep - but I can tell you in advance how he’ll vote. I’m [not] represented by the [non]estimable Lamar Smith, (R-TX). Sigh.
But they always say they’ll note my position for the Congressman.

Thanks mucho for making the call, anyway. While you are at it, could you call your Senators, too? I know Cornyn is likely hopeless as well, but Kay might be persuaded given that she’s contemplating a run at governor, eh?

I know I shouldn’t feed. But when someone is presenting something so obviously lacking in facts and context, I have to say something, even when I know better.

Yeah, well, I did it, too. We’ll go sit in the corner together. *g*

Wow-excellent summary, delivered w/ your usual passion.

I am 59 yrs old - first gen of the 60’s-70’s Third Wave feminists - and I just can’t believe we’re fighting this issue again. Some of us thought we had already won -

given those there were volumes of statutes

covering the issue.

20 years ago I was a law clerk for a Fed Magistrate, to whom employment discrimination cases were routinely referred for a recommendation to the District Judge, so I saw quite a few of these types of cases. Proof was always difficult, the more so if the company was sophisticated enough to hang their action on “documented” performance issues, but the current Supremes’ action was just…just…despair-inducing.

Oh, but I should mention - Stephen Colbert did a nice piece on the issue last night, which I hope informed some folks who might not otherwise have been following it. Ok, off to the phone.

Kay might be persuaded

—weeeell, you never know with her. You may be right. Sometimes she does remember she’s a woman - and she’s somewhere around my age, so we can hope it’s an issue she’s had experience with.

Gotta take the optimistic view, right?

S’all right, Christy - you did a bang-up job. (no offense to dakine01-*g*)

I tried to sum up a lot of that history in my post way back when the decision went down about Justice Ginsburg’s monumental work as an attorney for the ACLU when she worked on behalf of gender discrimination and other women’s law issues.

“You’ve come a long way, baby — a long way down the road back toward the 1950s, all over again, it seems. When former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor graduated near the top of her law school class at Stanford, she was offered jobs at law firms as a legal secretary. At least Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who similarly graduated at the top of her Columbia class, was able to secure a position as a lawyer — but only after being turned down by Justice Frankfurter who had no interest in hiring a woman. That’s some progress.

Justice Ginsburg went on to found the Women’s Rights Project for the ACLU, which has done groundbreaking work on women’s issues for years ever since. She is a pioneer in opening the doors that a whole lot of us now take for granted as having been there all the time — she not only opened those doors, in some cases, she helped to build them from the ground up….”

I think women actually need a little better pay than men for equal work. That is because of the FACT that it costs women more to live because of extra steps and expenses they have to take to provide for their personal security. They must take acab or have a car to get to work where men would safely be able to walk or bicyle or drive a less reliable car. They also must have more secure housing. And they have safety considerations about the extra pay they don’t get for nighttime workings hours. Extra female expenses add up in all sorts of way.

Ideally women should get a tax break to compensate for the fact that society does not make living as safe for them as for men.

Yes, Christy - I remember reading that. You are a wonderful resource on any legal issue.
(I’ve been away for awhile, some technical issues - dead hard drive! — and personal ones, but I’ve been lurking whenever possible.)

Glad your heard drive seems to be breathing again. It’s good to see you! :)

When you consider that a lot of single women are also head-of-household and raising kids without child support being regularly paid or other support coming in for their kids, their adult parents who have to move back in as they age and everything else? Equal pay is only fair. Period. You do the same job, you shouldn’t get paid less just because you have boobies. That’s just crap…

Even if a woman chooses not to have kids or take care of family she has to spend more of her income on her personal security, just because she is a female. Single male vs single female living alone. It costs her more to provide the security the state does not provide equally with men. Her freedoms are restricted in many ways that simply do not apply to men. In a sense it is an extra tax on women that men do not have to pay, — hence a tax refund is due.

Christy - just skimmed your link, description of the bill. Now, admittedly, my statute-interpreting skills are rusty, but do you think the language in para (B) is sufficient? And am I right in reading it to mean that it will only allow 2 yrs of damages out of, say, 20 yrs of unequal pay?
(I’ve got the phone right here, but wanted to read the lang before dialing)

Any thoughts?

Reporting in on Congresscritter calls - called L Smith’s and Kay Baily Hutchison’s local offices — both very polite, took my info and, of course, zip code (since I discovered FDL, I’ve got this down to a science); both staffers said they did not know yet how their bosses plan to vote.
But, we’re on record!

I think our local MoveOn council has a visit to Smith’s office planned soon; I’ll have to check on that and see if I can make it. Will definitely bring this up again.

Thanks for the response.

Of course I think discrimination is wrong. In fact it is immoral. I have daughters, and if they were treated like Lilly was, it would break my heart and make me furious all at the same time.

I will admit that it has been a bit of time since I read the Court’s Opinion, but I did not recall the statue being limited as you described. I’d sure appreciate it if you could point me to it. And I am not sure that I understand your statement “the window was narrowed by SCOTUS to a few months after the claimant was hired by the allegedly discriminating employer”. The Court opinion may answer that though. Finally, I don’t understand how the end of your last paragraph relates to the beginning.

Finally, shouldn’t your last statement be more gender neutral? The law applies both ways, unless you think it shouldn’t.

In the first instance, allow me to quickly agree with Hytholday above - the Fair Pay Act is little more than a Full Employment Act for Trial Lawyers. Statutes of Limitations exist for two reasons: (1) justice mandates swift remedy - if a claim is allowed to run stale, its remedy is of decreased utility; and (2) strictly for policy reasons, we need to be able to control the flow of cases in the judiciary, and the cases premised on the oldest claims are the easiest and best to preclude.

That said, I disagree with premise of the Act. Of course prejudice in this country (and everywhere else, for that matter) exists. To deny it, in its many forms, is riduculous. However, since when should a person have a right to file suit on the basis that his/her employment conditions are unfair, despite the fact that he/she agreed to them at the outset, merely because someone else has better conditions?

Employers have every incentive to pay as little as they can for the labor they receive, and employees have every incentive to demand as much as they can for the services they provide. If an employer and an employee can agree on a suitable wage for the services to be provided, then, by definition, the wage determined is a fair one. Comparison with other wages paid by the same employer is irrelevant to the calculus. I think they have a word for that, and I believe that word is Capitalism.

Stated differently, if a person works for 20 years on a job, unaware that someone else is receiving more pay for the same job, but happy with his/her compensation nonetheless, I find it extremely difficult to come to the conclusion that that person’s compensation suddenly became unfair upon discovering the truth. If this person feels that he/she is undercompensated, then he/she should be able to negotiate for an increase or find alternative employment. If alternatives are not available, then perhaps the wages were fair after all.

Not “every incentive” Selkirk. There are other significant considerations. Some are being discussed in this thread. But there are many others. Capitalism as we know it is not and should not be merely the simple calculus you would have.

It’s not but it should to achieve the most economic efficiency in the market.

I assume you are talking about economic efficiency in a “perfect” economic model.

Which of course, does not and cannot exist in an imperfect world due to all the variables that affect economics.

Like the individual humans and the need for SOME folks to be capable of purchasing the product.

If all wages are kept down, who is around to be the consumer?

Why? Are the economic forces that relate to consumer goods and services subject to different rules of elasticity than the market for labor?

Ayyiyi- more trollishness?

Yes, hythloday, check the opinion. It does indeed say that she had to file within 6mos of the beginning of the discrimination. Never mind that her company (as most companiesdo) went to some lengths to keep her from finding out that she was being paid less. Do you know that in some companies it is a firing offense to discuss your pay with another employee?

You also make a helluvan assumption - well, more than one.
One, that company and employee have equal bargaining power. This assumption is almost always false. The employee never has all the information necessary to make a rational decision,therefore the power in the bargaining for pay is inherently unequal.
Two - you assume that Ledbetter (or other employees) are “happy with their compensation.” You have no basis for that assumption of fact at all.

Last comment- we are all discovering, are we not, that pure “capitalism” doesn’t work so well in the real world, for real people. Have you not been paying attention?
Inequality of bargaining power between empoyer and employee is a big reason for the failure of so-called capitalism. Just because we can now see the problems of that ‘ism doesn’t mean we’ve become socialists. But fairness and the market don’t have to be incompatible - it just requires some regulation and enforcement. Enforcement includes the ability of individuals and groups to bring suit against employers for unfair, illegal practices. Laws are only as good as the enforcement of them.

There - dakine01 - I see what you mean - now I’m doin’ it too!

If wages are kept down for labor, who is around to purchase the goods and services as a consumer?

When wages are kept down, the wage is spent on the basics of food, shelter, healthcare.

The only way there is a consumer market for goods is when wages are high enough to allow for the excess to be spent for consumer products. Depress wages, depress consumer purchases

Ah yes efficiency. Efficiency for whom? the serf system was pretty efficient in the view of the lords and ladies of the manor. Way more efficient than sharing the land. Except that is when the serfs became uppity and annoying. They needed to be fed yet kept hungry enough to keep quiet. Very important to keep them from organizing to demand a fair share of their labor. “Off with their heads, I say, before they get a chance to off ours. Heh.

Efficiency is fine as long as you are not among the “efficientated”. Ah my own skin is so sensitive, it just wouldn’t bear the lash.

Please don’t resort to calling Selkirk or me nasty names simply because we disagree. It hurts our feelings to be called trolls. In any event, I did not make the statement, thus the burden to prove the statement was not on me.

Please provide evidence for this statement: “Never mind that her company (as most companies do) in some companies it is a firing offense to discuss your pay with another employee?”

Your state “you assume that Ledbetter (or other employees) are ‘happy with their compensation.’ You have no basis for that assumption of fact at all.”

Actually, by accepting the job, there is an implicit assumption of satisfaction, or else they would not have taken the job or would have left.

Finally, you state that we have discovered “that pure ‘capitalism’ doesn’t work so well in the real world, for real people.”

I would respectfully disagree. We are discovering that being the least socialist economic system in the world detrimentally effects the country. We have never had anything close to a pure capitalist system in this country. You should not use a defined macroeconomic term such as “pure capitalism” without knowing what it means.

Why? Are the economic forces that relate to consumer goods and services subject to different rules of elasticity than the market for labor?

Are you serious? I’m amused that you seem to think they are subject to the same rules. I will switch peanut butter brands if there is a few cents difference in the price. But there is a lot of friction with the job market. You may not be able to easily switch jobs, even if you know you are being underpaid. You may not know you are being underpaid because of your employer’s “privacy” policies. You might know, but still want to stay with the employer because you are used to the work, or you like your co-workers, etc. A lot more goes into the average job-switch calculation than goes into the average peanut butter-switch calculation. So yes, there are different rules of elasticity. Labor doesn’t work with the Econ 101 supply and demand model.

More importantly, it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of gender. Just because someone may have some small degree of choice in accepting a salary does not make it right for a business to make their salary decisions based on gender. The law agrees that this is wrong! Right now, it offers redress if you find out within a few months of the start of the discrimination. But discrimination is discrimination even if you find out much later, and that is why Congress needs to extend the time period.

I could not have said it better myself. Fairness is has nothing to do with how another person is compensated. Maybe the issue is that men by nature are more competitive and fight for raises and women tend to be more timid. That statement is just as true and ridiculous of a generalization as this Fairness act. If people of all races and sexes did more to educate themselves on how to handle money then most of the United State’s, well the world’s economic crisis’ would not be so dramatic and most likely we would not be here at all. Any person living within their means and investing wisely can do great things and enjoy life but it takes understanding, hard work, and discipline. This is why their are many people, couples making less than $50,000 a year with children living way better than people making many times more than them and they have minimal debt. Americans are overly spoiled, hard work is what this country needs to regain its standing, not complaining about what is and isn’t fair.

Also by logic previously stated. I would have to say that all women deserve a tax refund because they have a menstrual cycle which requires products that cost money that men don’t have to buy. They also have to wear an extra undergarment(bra) not required by most men. Also the government lets the fashion world run amok forcing women to spend money on make-up and many times more then average cost for haircuts than men, not to mention manicures and pedicures. Of course this is ridiculous. The governments job should be to allow everyone the same opportunities and chances to succeed. Yes it might be easier for some people to get their but then again life is not fair and the government doesn’t need to make it that way!!!