Senate Republicans blocked a bill Wednesday that would make it easier for people to sue over pay discrimination, an effort to roll back a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that limited such cases. The bill would have reset the clock with every paycheck, with supporters arguing that each paycheck was a discriminatory act. The bill, dubbed the Fair Pay Restoration Act, is a response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision that ruled a person who claims pay discrimination must file a complaint within 180 days of that discrimination taking place. The case was brought by an Alabama woman, Lilly Ledbetter, who claimed that her employer, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., paid men doing similar work 15 to 40 percent more. Ledbetter said she discovered the discrepancy late in her career -- too late, the court ruled, to go to court. Sen. Johnny Isakson, a Republican, said the bill would allow retirees drawing pensions to sue their old companies over allegations of discrimination that happened decades ago. I can see where suing to just get more money out of an old employer can become an issue, however; you still have to have very good claims and documentation to back up your case. I think this would have been a good bill and it would have protected the many people like Lilly who were unaware of the discrimination until it is too late. I think that if someone is being discriminated against by there company and they can prove it, time shouldn't be a factor. Unfortunately the bill was only 4 votes short, in order to pass the bill it needed 60 votes and it only had 56 votes.
"I'm hoping this chamber will stand up for fundamental fairness for women in the workplace," said Clinton, of New York. "I'm hoping you will stand up and vote to make it clear that women who get up every single day and go to work deserve to be paid equally to their male counterparts." And Obama, of Illinois, added, "If you work hard and do a good job, you should be rewarded no matter what you look like, where you come from or what gender you are." I thought it was kind of ironic that Clinton referred to this case as a womens issue and Obama brought up that it was a minority issue. I think this shows that everyone has different perspectives and sometimes they are biased to their specific race or gender. I think it is like that because it is easier to see and relate to your own gender or race.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/23/senate.discrimination/index.html
2 comments:
I have an issue with Congress that they can find ways that it is still all right to discriminate and that they are more worried about protecting the employers who are discriminating and not the employees. If they are afraid that someone, such as a retiree will go back, then set the statue of limitations at a different time period, say 5 years. I can imagine it might be hard to know exactly what your employer is paying everyone who does the same job. 180 days deosn't seem like it is a very long time to see or find out what is happening around you.
While I am not surprised that it was the Republicans that always seem to protect the business owner over the employee.
As soon as you disrupt the status quo (women getting paid less), you then have to deal with social reform (women getting paid more, and then threatening the status of the politician).
Since most politicians are white males and are more concerned about their pocketbooks instead of the people, passing this legislation does not benefit them greatly. In fact, it probably threatens their existence more than it will benefit them. I don't think this legislation failed because of womens' rights, gender roles, or lack of equality (I'm sure it addressed many of these issues). I think it failed because you are trying to pass a piece of legislation through a governing people whose pocketbooks are going to suffer.
Many people don't get into politics to serve, many people get into politics to change the rules so their companies or the companies that support them get richer quicker.
Post a Comment