"Fair" Legislation...

[Over43]

One of the words that James Taggart always uses when he's ranting in Atlas Shrugged is "fair". This isn't fair, that isn't fair...most of you know.

I was reading Forbes this afternoon when on page 13 (March 2nd issue) Forbes introduces the reader to the "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act" which can hold a company responsible for pay discrimination based on gender or race for the last 20 years. (Italics are Forbes not mine...) As Forbes states personal injury lawyers are drooling. Apparently these cases can include people who are already deceased.

It just gets nuttier and nuttier.

O43

Edited February 21, 2009 by Over43

[Selene]

Yep.

I believe that it was O'Biwan's first bill signing, when he wasn't signing Executive Orders [most in first 10 days of any President in history], or running for election as the first Emperor.

I guess the war is a good war now also since he doubled the troop levels in Afghanistan [17,000 +] deployed them yesterday.

He also sent troops into Iraq - not sure if this was part of the rotation.

Now I know he is Lincoln and FDR rolled into one supreme political being, but now he is being compared to George Washington and the comparison is that O'Biwan is the second President to "step down" to the office!!

And in case you did not know, he is not stepping down from Mt. Olympus, those dudes were soooo white, he is "stepping down" from leading a great movement!

Is there something that I missed?

Adam

Edited February 25, 2009 by Selene

[Christopher]

I didn't read the Forbes article, but a quick check on Wikipedia and history of the 2007 Fair Pay Act states only that the statute of limitations begins with the paycheck and not the agreement for pay. According to the failed 2007 Act (if it is the same in 2009): The law further states that individuals may receive back pay as compensation for discrimination that occurred up to two years preceding the filing of a charge.

That's not too bad, is it? I haven't read much of the oppositing position, so I'm not entirely clear on the complexities. What it seems to be saying to me is: if an employer has discriminated against me and I was not aware of it, from the moment I become aware of that discrimination I can seek to be reimbursed for discriminatory practice up to two years previously.

The opposition party said this might cause frivolous lawsuits. It might, and that's what we have a justice system for. I also think that the justice system can sometimes misconstrue normal behavior as discriminatory, but again this does not apply specifically to the letter of the Fair Pay Act.

So what's the problem here?

[SherryTX]

I didn't read the Forbes article, but a quick check on Wikipedia and history of the 2007 Fair Pay Act states only that the statute of limitations begins with the paycheck and not the agreement for pay. According to the failed 2007 Act (if it is the same in 2009): The law further states that individuals may receive back pay as compensation for discrimination that occurred up to two years preceding the filing of a charge.

That's not too bad, is it? I haven't read much of the oppositing position, so I'm not entirely clear on the complexities. What it seems to be saying to me is: if an employer has discriminated against me and I was not aware of it, from the moment I become aware of that discrimination I can seek to be reimbursed for discriminatory practice up to two years previously.

The opposition party said this might cause frivolous lawsuits. It might, and that's what we have a justice system for. I also think that the justice system can sometimes misconstrue normal behavior as discriminatory, but again this does not apply specifically to the letter of the Fair Pay Act.

So what's the problem here?

I belong to the Society of Human Resource Management, and as an organization it is opposed to this act.

Here are their reasons:

http://www.shrm.org/Advocacy/Issues/CivilR...orationAct.aspx

On January 29, 2009, in a White House signing ceremony, President Barack Obama signed into law the "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act." The bill, S. 181, was earlier approved in the House by a vote of 250 to 177, and in the Senate by a vote of 61 to 36.

The new law is designed to change the decades-old timeframe for filing employment discrimination claims, now awaits final action in the House which could occur by the end of January.

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act gives employees either 180 or 300 days (depending on the state of residence) of an alleged unlawful practice to file an employment discrimination charge with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission. If enacted into law, Ledbetter bill would have changed the statute of limitations on pay discrimination claims and instituted the "paycheck rule" -- affording an employee the right to bring a discrimination claim within a minimum of 180 days from the receipt of a paycheck (and even a pension check).

After receiving thousands of letters from SHRM members objecting to the Ledbetter bill, the Senate voted not to proceed with its consideration, which effectively killed the bill for the 110th Congress.

SHRM objected to the Ledbetter legislation on three main grounds:

The Ledbetter bill would do away with the uniform statute of limitations and allow individuals to bring discrimination claims potentially many years after an alleged act of discrimination. The bill would even allow the receipt of a pension payment to re-start the period for filing a claim, which could be decades after an employee left a company.

The Ledbetter bill would have allowed not only an employee, but other individuals who were "affected" by an act of pay discrimination, to file claims. The legislation also allowed family members, including spouses and children, and potentially others to become plaintiffs in discrimination suits over a worker's pay (even after the worker was deceased).

The Ledbetter bill would apply to all protected employment classes (age, disability, gender, color, race, religion and national origin).

The Ledbetter bill was originally introduced in as a legislative response to the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. on May 29, 2007.

The problem is that the employee would be able to go back extremely far - and suing over deceased workers' pays for all those years? Kinda silly.

However, I think the REAL problem is that the government should NOT be regulating how much a company pays their employees. Now, it is in a company's best interest to have reasonable pay ranges for people that are in the same job and have the same duties and level of experience. However, the government should not be involved in stating - hey you paid Joe x amount and Sally has the same job so you should be her the same, etc.

Do I think it is "fair" that the employee holding the same position, with the same duties and performs at the same level get paid much less than another? No it isn't "fair". However, this law takes away a company's ability to fairly trade with its employees.

I have recruited for a great many companies - large, medium and small. The smartest companies were ones that utilized pay scales, but they always had room within the scale for exceptional candidates they wanted to hire, or exception employees that were getting raises or promotions. I have also worked for an employer that paid me substantially less in base pay for the same work as a few male counterparts - even though I was more productive and proved it. I complained, and asked for a raise. I did not get it. After I have learned what I needed to learn, I moved on. Was that "fair"? Maybe not, but I can tell you that their policies hurt their productivity, and they would constantly get beat out by competition because they didn't know how to keep good employees.

[Selene]

And Sherry, you can look well at yourself in the mirror and sleep peacefully about it at night.

Put a price on peace of mind and pride - there is none, it is it's own reward.