Obama Signs Fair Pay Act

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

President Barack Obama, keeping a campaign pledge, signed a law Thursday to make it easier to sue employers for pay discrimination.

In a ceremony in the East Room of the White House flanked by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, Obama spoke as Lilly Ledbetter – a former Goodyear Tire manager from Alabama, whose case inspired the new law – stood beside him.

“While this bill bears her name, Lilly knows this story isn’t just about her,” Obama said. “It is a story of women across this country still earning just 78 cents for every $1 men earn, women of color even less, which means that today in the year 2009, countless women are still losing thousands of dollars in salary, income, and retirement savings over the course of a lifetime.”

Women who worked on Obama’s Senate staff last year, however, were themselves paid on average 78 cents for every dollar a man was paid, according to data last year from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate.

The data, analyzed by CNSNews.com, showed that in the period from Oct. 1, 2007, through March 31, 2008, Obama paid women on his Senate staff an annual average salary of $44,953.21. That was $12,472 less than the $57,425 average annual salary that then-Sen. Obama paid men. (See Previous Story)

Obama’s Senate staff was comparable to other employers, according to the Census Bureau, which reported last year, “The median annual earnings of women 16 or older who worked year-round full time in 2006: Women earned 77 cents for every $1 earned by men.”

The data from both the Census Bureau and the Secretary of the Senate are based on gender without regard to job position, experience, or education that could be factors in pay.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act applies to both the public and private sector, which would cover the executive and legislative branches of government, Aaron Albright, spokesman for the House Committee on Education and Labor, previously told CNSNews.com.

Specifically, the law moves the current statute of limitations for a discrimination suit from 180 days after the discrimination began to whenever the last paycheck was issued.

The legislation was named after Ledbetter, who was a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant in Gadsden, Ala., and sued for pay discrimination before retiring after 19 years because she had made $6,500 less per year than the lowest paid male supervisor.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out her case, saying she waited too long to file a complaint. The court said that under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an employee must sue within 180 days of a decision regarding pay, if alleged discrimination is involved. Ledbetter spoke at the Democratic National Convention in August.

Obama, before signing the bill into law, mentioned his grandmother and daughters and praised Ledbetter for continuing her fight that would help future generations. He said the legislations allowed the country to live up to its founding principles that all are created equal.

“Equal pay is by no means just a women’s issue,” Obama said. “It’s a family issue. It’s about parents who find themselves with less money for tuition and child care, couples who wind up with less to retire on, households where one breadwinner is paid less than she deserves. It’s the difference between affording the mortgage or not, between keeping the heat on or paying the doctor bills.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/arti...px?RsrcID=42747

[peejay 327]

I don't exactly think it is a Dim or Republicrat thing, but it it the culture of political hypocrisy that reeks in the sewer pit of Washington, DC. I'm glad that the Dims are finally getting a dose of the scorn all these clowns across the political spectrum richly deserve. Along with a education and reality check for some of the idealistic and clueless who worship the so called change they think has arrived.

The tax questions and/or questions about the legality of the hired help of our "betters" comes to mind. Tom Daschele's and Timothy Geithner's recent tax problems are in the news of late. No surprises for me, but to some it might be a huge let down for the naive.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The data from both the Census Bureau and the Secretary of the Senate are based on gender without regard to job position, experience, or education that could be factors in pay.

Show me the stats where Obama paid a male staffer more than a female that held an equal position and offered equal experience and qualifications. Short of that, the report is worthless. Which, considering the source, isn't all that surprising.

[HannahP 119]

Meh. Who's to say that Obama even knew what his workers were getting pay-wise? Or that he had total control over it? Kind of like the Bush-haters who blame Bush for everything wrong that has happened over the last eight years.

[dalegg 143]

Well, no reason to hire women anymore.

[Tahoma 2,291]

The data from both the Census Bureau and the Secretary of the Senate are based on gender without regard to job position, experience, or education that could be factors in pay.

Show me the stats where Obama paid a male staffer more than a female that held an equal position and offered equal experience and qualifications. Short of that, the report is worthless. Which, considering the source, isn't all that surprising.

Agreed..."where's the beef"? I don't think those statistics will be forthcoming anytime soon. In the meantime, equal pay for equal work is a good law, and the "last paycheck" rule makes perfect sense.

Edited January 31, 2009 by pangga

[Peikko 1,575]

In conclusion, the attempt to subvert an excellent decision into some kind of huge Obama hypocrisy is an epic fail. At least have the decency to acknowledge good legislation, there will be plenty of chances to condemn the genuinely bad.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

In conclusion, the attempt to subvert an excellent decision into some kind of huge Obama hypocrisy is an epic fail. At least have the decency to acknowledge good legislation, there will be plenty of chances to condemn the genuinely bad.

I'd pay you 79%. That's more than Obama would. But I'm a sexist pig and he's the Messiah.... I get it.

Cream and 2 splendas.

[Danno 1,228]

It another case of "Do as I say... not as I do"

Wasn't it Clinton who signed that law into effect which was suppose to prevent manager types into account (in GOVT employment) from having sex with the -hiredhelp- at

about the same time he and Monica were staining the Presidential carpet?

If anyone thinks for two minutes that the Feminist types (what few are left) will bat an eye at hypocrisy among their own team.... you are dreaming.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

In conclusion, the attempt to subvert an excellent decision into some kind of huge Obama hypocrisy is an epic fail. At least have the decency to acknowledge good legislation, there will be plenty of chances to condemn the genuinely bad.

I'd pay you 79%. That's more than Obama would. But I'm a sexist pig and he's the Messiah.... I get it.

Cream and 2 splendas.

79% compared to what? There's no foundation to this useless attack, Lucky. Look here: my female employees make less than 78% of what I make. At the same time, the male employees of my female peer make less than 78% of what she makes. What does that all mean? Nothing really. Same as the hack piece you posted here. It means nothing.

[Peikko 1,575]

In conclusion, the attempt to subvert an excellent decision into some kind of huge Obama hypocrisy is an epic fail. At least have the decency to acknowledge good legislation, there will be plenty of chances to condemn the genuinely bad.

I'd pay you 79%. That's more than Obama would. But I'm a sexist pig and he's the Messiah.... I get it.

Cream and 2 splendas.

79% compared to what? There's no foundation to this useless attack, Lucky. Look here: my female employees make less than 78% of what I make. At the same time, the male employees of my female peer make less than 78% of what she makes. What does that all mean? Nothing really. Same as the hack piece you posted here. It means nothing.

No kidding. I think it simply serves to make LS feel good about himself, poor sod.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

In conclusion, the attempt to subvert an excellent decision into some kind of huge Obama hypocrisy is an epic fail. At least have the decency to acknowledge good legislation, there will be plenty of chances to condemn the genuinely bad.

I'd pay you 79%. That's more than Obama would. But I'm a sexist pig and he's the Messiah.... I get it.

Cream and 2 splendas.

79% compared to what? There's no foundation to this useless attack, Lucky. Look here: my female employees make less than 78% of what I make. At the same time, the male employees of my female peer make less than 78% of what she makes. What does that all mean? Nothing really. Same as the hack piece you posted here. It means nothing.

It looks like Obama placed male employees in more important roles than females so they were payed more.

Females make exactly what I make where I work (for the same job). They have at the 20+ jobs I've worked at since 1992.

Make all the excuses you want but your heart holds the truth.

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm2216.cfm#_ftnref3

The Ledbetter Act would hand a major victory to trial lawyers seeking big damage payoffs in stale suits that cannot be defended.

A single legal victory against an employer could provide the fodder for scores of lawsuits by similarly situated employees and former employees receiving benefits, each alleging a pattern of discrimination affecting pay, as evidenced by the previous lawsuits. In this way, each lawsuit becomes easier and cheaper to bring than the last.[6]

Trial lawyers just received their reward for supporting obama. Think tobacco settlement and asbestos claims.Just will turn into one more money grab for the lawyers. With that will be the closing of more business concerns and jobs flight out of the united states to 3rd world countries.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/wm2216.cfm#_ftnref3

The Ledbetter Act would hand a major victory to trial lawyers seeking big damage payoffs in stale suits that cannot be defended.

A single legal victory against an employer could provide the fodder for scores of lawsuits by similarly situated employees and former employees receiving benefits, each alleging a pattern of discrimination affecting pay, as evidenced by the previous lawsuits. In this way, each lawsuit becomes easier and cheaper to bring than the last.[6]

Trial lawyers just received their reward for supporting obama. Think tobacco settlement and asbestos claims.Just will turn into one more money grab for the lawyers. With that will be the closing of more business concerns and jobs flight out of the united states to 3rd world countries.

What I find odd is that on one hand, think tanks like the Heritage Foundation embrace the free market, but on the other hand, they want the government to regulate litigation.