His First Bill signed

[Mr. P]

The equal pay bill, is his first F'up IMO..equal pay without regard to age? Please!

[LiberalNation]

W00t, I'm completly happy with this bill finally being passed.

[Mr. P]

W00t, I'm completly happy with this bill finally being passed.

Of course any young one just starting a job would be happy to make the same money that someone who has worked that same job for say, 20 yrs does. That's why it's a F'd up bill. It will result in more unemployment.

[darin]

Yay! Let's screw the economy WORSE to enable GREATER dependence upon the GOVT to provide! YAY MARXISM!

[Yurt]

what is the bill actually about?

from what i have read, it is about equal pay and taking away the statute of limitations on when you can raise that claim. previously six months.

did obama do anything other than alter the six months?

[LiberalNation]

a lot of people are letting their paranoia run rampant and seeing things in this bill that prolly wont happen.

[Yurt]

a lot of people are letting their paranoia run rampant and seeing things in this bill that prolly wont happen.

explain

[Mr. P]

what is the bill actually about?

from what i have read, it is about equal pay and taking away the statute of limitations on when you can raise that claim. previously six months.

did obama do anything other than alter the six months?

Haven't seen the bill, yurt. Just heard Obamas statement about the "equal" regardless of age, race, gender part.

Now that I think about it don't we already have those laws? Sure we do, so what's this all about?

[LiberalNation]

explain

omg the lawsuits, omg women are gona make more than men, omg this bill is going to destroy the economy, omg.

[Yurt]

omg the lawsuits, omg women are gona make more than men, omg this bill is going to destroy the economy, omg.

and you accuse others of paranoia?


a lot of people are letting their paranoia run rampant and seeing things in this bill that prolly wont happen.

i ask only:


explain

think about it....i asked a simple question and you responded with passive attacks.

[LiberalNation]

i responded with what I'd been hearing that made me think a lot of it was paranoid hype.

[Yurt]

Haven't seen the bill, yurt. Just heard Obamas statement about the "equal" regardless of age, race, gender part.

Now that I think about it don't we already have those laws? Sure we do, so what's this all about?

this extends the statute of limitations for those claims, at least that is how i read it so far.

we may have the laws, but one of the most important factors in lawsuits is - statute of limitations (SOL). in this instance, the SOL has been extended by the president and the legislature. that allows more damages. i am not going to argue that more damages should not be allowed if the parent bill is correct, in that, you have a right to sue for inequality of wages for only six months after notice. as i understand it, the bill is prospective, fine, now all employers are on notice or should be on notice.

what this bill does is, is allow a greater window or timeframe of damages.

[Yurt]

i responded with what I'd been hearing that made me think a lot of it was paranoid hype.

fair enough....but what does this board make you think a lot about and respond to? you're on a board that is politically oriented and what you "hear" or "read" is not what you hear or read in the MSM. that is why i like it here, this board filters the news and if someone disputes that news, debate....

i think we learn more from our neighbors than we think

[5stringJeff]

The statute of limitations is one part of it. The other part is that each "unfair" paycheck counts as a violation of the law. So, if someone sues who's been working there for, say, 2 years at the same "unfair" pay, they could file one suit for every paycheck - up to 52 suits!

[Immanuel]

Haven't seen the bill, yurt. Just heard Obamas statement about the "equal" regardless of age, race, gender part.

Now that I think about it don't we already have those laws? Sure we do, so what's this all about?

By the way that I read your statements about this, I don't think "age" necessarily refers to time on the job. For instance, I can be a 35 year old who has worked for a company for my entire working life (say 15 years) and if they higher a 50 year old today without any experience in the job, the employer would still be able to pay me more than the new comer Age in this case does not seem to mean tenor in this case.

Of course, then you will find some moron that attempts to claim that time on the job is irrelevant.


omg the lawsuits, omg women are gona make more than men, omg this bill is going to destroy the economy, omg.

Actually, it could work in reverse. I think that if a woman has worked at a job for 30 years she should be paid more than the young buck who was just hired and doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground. In this case she should be compensated for her dedication to the employer and her knowledge of the job. Under the plan being described, it might end up where she is penalized for staying with the employer.

Immie

[Classact]

what is the bill actually about?

from what i have read, it is about equal pay and taking away the statute of limitations on when you can raise that claim. previously six months.

did obama do anything other than alter the six months?I watched a lot of the debate in the senate and the bill was supposedly based on this woman that went to the Supreme Court on a work discrimination claim and was rejected because she didn't report the infraction in a timely manner.

Now all time limits are off, it’s a trial lawyers dream, and it isn't limited to women's pay but rather pay disputes for equity of any type. Sounds like a good lawyer could sue your great, great, great grandfather for the poor wages he paid slaves in comparison to those white folks he paid to watch them. There are no time limits so the complaint could be for me, as a part time high school employee pumping gas at an airport against the pay a full time worker made doing the same job back in 1967. So many companies have been bought by other companies and no companies have any records of what happened in 1967 or 1867 that a lawyer could just do a class action case like the one on asbestos.