T1B

B. Hussein Obama signed his first bill into law today. One that is a complete waste. The new law extends the time employees have to sue their employer if they are paid unfairly, the so called "Equal Pay Bill." USAToday writes "The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act makes it easier for workers to sue companies for pay discrimination and effectively reverses a 2007 Supreme Court decision that had given workers 180 days to file a lawsuit after they discovered the alleged discrimination."

This law is an attempt to protect stupid people from themselves. If someone like Lilly Ledbetter is dumb enough to work for 19 years at a salary below what others made that is her own fault. If she didn't like her salary then she can always talk to her manager or supervisor about a raise. Clearly she had no issue with her pay if she hung around for so long. Hell, if it was so bad, why not go across the street to a better paying job?

As a business owner myself I try to negotiate each and every salary when the person takes the job. I don't set a pay scale and then try to find someone to fill the spot. Instead, set a base level of skill set and then hire someone who is above that base level. Once I find the person it is then up to us to agree on a salary that works for both of us. I of course would love to pay them $1 a year, while they would love to get $50,000,000 a year. We negotiate it out to a number we both find acceptable. So if one employee doing the same job accepts a salary less than that of another employee I could be sued.

Another quote from the article, " "So this is what changes looks like," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, R-Md.

Great. A bunch of change like this and bring on the depression.

Left Seater wrote:So if one employee doing the same job accepts a salary less than that of another employee I could be sued.

Epic fail. The employee has to be able to demonstrate that the reason for her reduced pay was her gender. This law wouldn't be necessary if salary information within a company were transparent. But it is not.

Thanks for making another point of mine. This law only protects women and minorities. If I chose to pay a white male 50% less because he is a white male, he has no recourse.

BSmack wrote:The employee has to be able to demonstrate that the reason for her reduced pay was her gender.

You and I both know this is crap. The minority needs only show that the employer was paying someone else more for the same job and the suit is on. No way in hell any competent company is going to have something in writing that says pay a woman or minority less.

BSmack wrote: This law wouldn't be necessary if salary information within a company were transparent. But it is not.

Damn right salary information isn't transparent. If it were all merit raises and incentive pay go right out the window. Those who didn't get the same raise because of their performance will bitch and moan and then you loose even more productivity. Transparent salary info makes everyone into a union type shop. Years of service is rewarded instead of merit, and the company and individuals both suffer.

So hypothetical situation:

Person A (white male) gets 20k/year.
Person B (black male) gets 19k/year.
Same position. Same tenure.

Both employees negotiated their salaries upon hire. Apparently Person B accepted less than Person A.

So, under this situation, Person B can sue the company?

Now, let's reverse the situation.

Person A (white male) gets 19k/year.
Person B (black male) gets 20k/year.
Same position. Same tenure.

Both employees negotiated their salaries upon hire. Apparently Person A accepted less than Person B.

Under this situation, Person A can not sue under the same law?

As you post it, no the second example can't sue. White males can't be discriminated against under the eyes of the law. No if same said white male was gay or post op transgender or something else then sue away.

Indy,

A good friend of mine when I worked for the Fed was an EEO Rep. They dealt with any discriminatory grievance, regardless of sex, race, creed or shoe size. Each case was assessed on it's own merits. Hell, he told me I might have wanted to pursue one against my boss - black. Fortunately his discrimination against me - got me a better job somewhere else in the organization, so I let it slide.

I'm inclined to believe this law would do the same. That being said, proving discrimination based on some characteristic is probably easier when the "descision" makers don't have the same characteristics.

So if "Person A" was working for a majority "white" hierarchy, proving discrimination based on race might be more difficult. Now if it was "white women", he might be able to prove it based on sex, but who knows.

Further, it's "up to six months" from the receipt of a paycheck vs. "up to six months after the first paycheck" - the way the old method worked I believe.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/sam-dealey/ ... worse.html

Under the bill, workers may bring a lawsuit for up to six months after they receive any paycheck that they allege is discriminatory. The high court had held that such cases could be brought only within six months of the discrimination's beginning, rejecting a long-held interpretation by lower courts and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that each paycheck represented a fresh act of discrimination.

Left Seater wrote:White males can't be discriminated against under the eyes of the law.

Link ?

Tom that was in a general sense. I will flip that around on you. Show me examples of white males "winning" a discrimination suit against someone.


There are examples daily of government discriminating against white males, but they haven't won any suits that I am aware of. Here are only a few that I have first hand knowledge of.

1) Texas HS sports. Years ago women were granted the ability to play football in Texas public schools because the sport or comparable sport was not offered for women. So women couldn't play on the baseball team if the school offered a softball team, but could play on the football team since there was no woman's team. Under the same rule a white male attempted to play on the women's volleyball team but was denied. (Side note, dude went on to the US olympic team.)

2) Federal contracts. I flew for a government contractor for a few years. Many of the flights were in support of Naval Base telecommunications upgrades. One flight I flew regularly was during a trial. A contractor was suing our company because he had the lowest bid for a portion of the work on the west coast. He had done prior work for us and was our highest rated contractor in the region. His bid wasn't accepted though because a certain portion of the work was required to go to historically minority owned companies. Since the other contractor was a large white owned company we had to hire a minority owned contractor. We did and the white contractor sued as he should have. He lost.

3) Entrance to college. Many schools have race based admission policies. They have sliding scales for minorities and women. If you are in a minority your scores don't have to be as high as that of a white male for admission. Or to put it another way, white males have to score better than minorities to secure spots.

So in those examples it is ok in the eyes of the law to discriminate against white males.

Solid anecdotes.

Specifically 2 and 3. I can't muster an argument that affirmative action and the 8A "set aside" programs are somehow not legal forms of discrimination.

When, in fact, it is just that.

Dude, I yield.

Left Seater wrote:1) Texas HS sports. Years ago women were granted the ability to play football in Texas public schools because the sport or comparable sport was not offered for women. So women couldn't play on the baseball team if the school offered a softball team, but could play on the football team since there was no woman's team. Under the same rule a white male attempted to play on the women's volleyball team but was denied. (Side note, dude went on to the US olympic team.)

I'm sure he made All Douchebag as well.

I would tend to agree having never met the guy.

However, doesn't change the fact that it is still discrimination supported by courts.

Left Seater wrote:I would tend to agree having never met the guy.

However, doesn't change the fact that it is still discrimination supported by courts.

So is private property ownership. Sounds like someone needs daddy to tell them "life just ain't fair for a poor white honkey."

BSmack wrote:So is private property ownership.

[Can't wait to hear this one]Please let us know how private property ownership is court supported discrimination.[/Can't wait to hear this one]

BSmack wrote:Sounds like someone needs daddy to tell them "life just ain't fair for a poor white honkey."

Hey I am all for that being the answer. Just as long as that is the answer for everyone and not just white honkies.

More fodder ($$$) for some law firms that specialize in stuff like that. I can just see the next ad on TV--"so you have been paid unfairly because you are a woman ? Call us at ...."

Left Seater wrote:Tom that was in a general sense. I will flip that around on you. Show me examples of white males "winning" a discrimination suit against someone.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294243,00.html

BUFFALO, N.Y. — A federal jury awarded a white man $150,000 in a racial discrimination lawsuit Wednesday.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 0U39J2.DTL

Allen Harmon won $30,300 in damages in a 2004 verdict by a San Mateo County jury that concluded he was rejected for a supervisor's job in 1998 at least in part because of his race. A minority candidate got the promotion, and Harmon's lawyer said he had to wait 16 months to get the same job through a race-neutral civil service promotion.

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/04/white-p ... ation-suit

White police officer, fired by ODU, wins $200,000 discrimination suit

Brett Birkmeyer of Hampton was hired in 2001 and fired in March 2005, according to the lawsuit, after he repeatedly complained of bias and harassment in the majority-black campus police department. University officials denied his claims, saying he was dismissed for poor job performance.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sided with Birkmeyer and urged both sides to informally resolve the matter. The discussions failed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_54668694

SAN FRANCISCO -- A lecturer denied tenure has been awarded $2.75 million for reverse discrimination after a college dean allegedly said a White man would be hired "over my dead body."

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=white+man+wins+discrimination+suit

Thanks for the google links. Problem with that list is that all but one of the links included harrassment. Only the SF airport really attacks discrimination.

Of course when someone says something stupid, they usually get the short end, ie, "A White man will be hired over my dead body."

Further none of them discuss the changing of policies that allow discrimination to continue.

Left Seater wrote:Thanks for the google links. Problem with that list is that all but one of the links included harrassment. Only the SF airport really attacks discrimination.

Of course when someone says something stupid, they usually get the short end, ie, "A White man will be hired over my dead body."

Further none of them discuss the changing of policies that allow discrimination to continue.

Sounds more like a problem with your statement, "Show me examples of white males "winning" a discrimination suit against someone." than a problem with the links.

again that is more of harrassment than discrimination.

Is it too much to ask to let President Obama do his job for a while before criticizing him for failure? He's only been in office for a couple of weeks. We had George Bush for eight years. "Change" can't happen overnight and especially when people start off with negative comments before a man has even really done anything. Give him some elbow room.

Change COULD hapen overnight, Dan...

These days you could take a blue pill and give me what I need - what I've been asking for for years from you, and can not have.

How can you blame me for letting the beaner give it to me? Dan, it's not wise to underestimate the physical. Did this all start in 1979 when you found the vibrator? Dan, it's NATURAL....

:( :( :(

Dan, the fbi guys are still laughing at you...

:(

Cut Obama some slack. This socialism thing might just work.

Sirfindafold wrote:Cut Obama some slack. This socialism thing might just work.

What a handwringing pantload. Go fuck yourself.

Goober McTuber wrote:

Sirfindafold wrote:Cut Obama some slack. This socialism thing might just work.

What a handwringing pantload. Go fuck yourself.

typical response from an angry liberal.

Sirfindafold wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:

Sirfindafold wrote:Cut Obama some slack. This socialism thing might just work.

What a handwringing pantload. Go fuck yourself.

typical response from an angry liberal.

I borrowed it from mvscal, you shiteating dumbfuck.

I can just see the next ad on TV--"so you have been paid unfairly because you are a woman ? Call us at ...."

What do you have against the open marketplace? If ambulance chasers want to make a buck in that way, you really want to prevent them?

As for "socialism"...pardon, but what administration was it that pushed a 1 trillion+ bailout on America without asking for specifics on how that money would be spent?

PSUFAN wrote:As for "socialism"...pardon, but what administration was it that pushed a 1 trillion+ bailout on America without asking for specifics on how that money would be spent?

Who voted yes on it?

Obama, Biden and McCain.

Change you can believe in....

You voted for another rich cocksucker that doesnt give two shits about you or this country. The only change is that he is only 50% instead of the 100% cotton we are use to. Damn polyester.