0
   

Working People: Aren't you (Goodyear) tired?

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 10:09 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Ok, I haven't read the bill, but I don't see how extending the amount of time during which someone can file suit is impossible to administer. After all, the woman in this case lost because she didn't file within 180 days of her first pay check. THAT is impossible for the person being discriminated against, because it's likely that they wouldn't know within that time. Over time folks earn seniority, get reviews and raises, and have some sense of how they compare to other workers. That is what's needed to determine fairness.

I don't see how allowing them to file within 180 days of each pay check requires that anyone do anything. The burden is still on the employee to find out about the discrimination and to file suit.


Nobody has answered my question.
I just found out that a girl hired at McDonalds at the same time I was got paid more then I did, for the exact same job.
Granted, that was 30 years ago.
Should I still be able to sue?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 10:23 am
DrewDad wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Is is EXCACTLY what is going on. This bill that the democrats brought forward was too broad and McCain was correct when he said it would lead to more lawsuits.

Nobody is arguing about whether it would cause more lawsuits; the point of the legislation would be to allow lawsuits that the Supreme Court wants to squelch.

It's called checks and balances....


Bull. It's called "I MADE A BAD DECISION AND I WANT THE COURT TO BAIL ME OUT".

Address these questions.

Would it be fair to argue that I as the employer WANT to overpay to get FREEDUCK to work for my Company. Do I have that right as the employer?

Even though I hired McGentrix 2 months earlier at lower pay, I wanted Freeduck to work for me.

Does that mean I discriminated against McGentrix?
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 10:29 am
mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Ok, I haven't read the bill, but I don't see how extending the amount of time during which someone can file suit is impossible to administer. After all, the woman in this case lost because she didn't file within 180 days of her first pay check. THAT is impossible for the person being discriminated against, because it's likely that they wouldn't know within that time. Over time folks earn seniority, get reviews and raises, and have some sense of how they compare to other workers. That is what's needed to determine fairness.

I don't see how allowing them to file within 180 days of each pay check requires that anyone do anything. The burden is still on the employee to find out about the discrimination and to file suit.


Nobody has answered my question.
I just found out that a girl hired at McDonalds at the same time I was got paid more then I did, for the exact same job.
Granted, that was 30 years ago.
Should I still be able to sue?


No. You agreed to accept the terms of the offer.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 10:40 am
Wow. And you've stuck it out all those 30 years saying "You want fries with that?"! Good for you, Mysteryman!

No, we are talking about current employees where there is pattern of discrimination and, as there is in this case, a violation of the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act of 1963. No individual would have to disclose their own salary, those figures would part of the discovery process that would be provided by the company.(remember, it's the neocons amongst us who insist that there is no right to privacy, ask those guys listening to your phone calls.)

What's being asked for here is application of the law, what the SCOTUS did was (horrors, are they activist judges??) change the law by moving the goal posts by enacting a 180 day time to file.

Joe(just another gotcha)Nation
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 10:56 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Wow. And you've stuck it out all those 30 years saying "You want fries with that?"! Good for you, Mysteryman!

No, thats not what I said.
I just found out about it, even though I got the job 30 years ago when I was 16.
I have had several jobs since then, including the military.

As I read the bill and the SCOTUS decision,I have to support them.
If you remove the time limits on when you can file, then I could file a discrimination claim based on what happened 30 years ago.
Do we really want the courts clogged up like that?



No, we are talking about current employees where there is pattern of discrimination and, as there is in this case, a violation of the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act of 1963. No individual would have to disclose their own salary, those figures would part of the discovery process that would be provided by the company.(remember, it's the neocons amongst us who insist that there is no right to privacy, ask those guys listening to your phone calls.)

But as an employer, dont I have the right to pay you whatever I think your worth?

What's being asked for here is application of the law, what the SCOTUS did was (horrors, are they activist judges??) change the law by moving the goal posts by enacting a 180 day time to file.

Thats 6 months.
If you are being discriminated against like that, you would know within 6 months.
Otherwise, you could file a wage discrimination case 5,10,or 30 years after the fact, and that would be an extremely frivolous lawsuit.



Joe(just another gotcha)Nation
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:05 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Wow. And you've stuck it out all those 30 years saying "You want fries with that?"! Good for you, Mysteryman!

No, we are talking about current employees where there is pattern of discrimination and, as there is in this case, a violation of the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act of 1963. No individual would have to disclose their own salary, those figures would part of the discovery process that would be provided by the company.(remember, it's the neocons amongst us who insist that there is no right to privacy, ask those guys listening to your phone calls.)

What's being asked for here is application of the law, what the SCOTUS did was (horrors, are they activist judges??) change the law by moving the goal posts by enacting a 180 day time to file.

Joe(just another gotcha)Nation


One person does not represent a pattern of discrimination. So do not "blame" the USSC for "moving the goal posts" when the statute gave a 2 year Statute of limitations.

PART IV - MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 255 [Section 6] Statute of Limitations.

Any action commenced on or after May 14, 1947 [the date of the
enactment of this Act], to enforce any cause of action for unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, or liquidated damages, under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, [29 U.S.C. 201 et
seq.], the Walsh-Healey Act [41 U.S.C. 35 et seq.], or the
Bacon-Davis Act [40 U.S.C. 276a et seq.]-


(a) if the cause of action accrues on or after May 14, 1947 [the date
of the enactment of this Act]-may be commenced within two years after
the cause of action accrued, and every such action shall be forever barred
unless commenced within two years after the cause of action accrued,
except that a cause of action arising out a willful violation may be
commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued;

These cases are almost impossible to prove based upon the Statute.

MINIMUM WAGE

SEC. 206. [Section 6]

(d) (1) No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this
section shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such
employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying
wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at
which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment
for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill,
effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working
conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority
system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by
quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any
other factor other than sex: Provided, That an employer who is
paying a wage rate differential in violation of this subsection shall not,
in order to comply with the provisions of this subsection, reduce the wage
rate of any employee.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/epa.html
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:08 am
mysteryman wrote:
Joe Nation wrote:
Wow. And you've stuck it out all those 30 years saying "You want fries with that?"! Good for you, Mysteryman!


No, thats not what I said.
I just found out about it, even though I got the job 30 years ago when I was 16.
I have had several jobs since then, including the military.

As I read the bill and the SCOTUS decision,I have to support them.
If you remove the time limits on when you can file, then I could file a discrimination claim based on what happened 30 years ago.


I don't think anyone here is claiming that you should be able to sue 30 years after you leave a job. Rolling Eyes

Within six months of active discrimination, then yes.


mysteryman wrote:
But as an employer, dont I have the right to pay you whatever I think your worth?

No, actually. What part of "equal pay for equal work" is difficult to understand?

Let me reiterate, here: The case was not dismissed because she was not discriminated against. The case was dismissed because, despite having proven discrimination, the court found that she did not file her case within an arbitrary time limit.

mysteryman wrote:
Thats 6 months.
If you are being discriminated against like that, you would know within 6 months.
Otherwise, you could file a wage discrimination case 5,10,or 30 years after the fact, and that would be an extremely frivolous lawsuit.

All people who are being discriminated against will know within six months? Really.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:09 am
woiyo wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
Ok, I haven't read the bill, but I don't see how extending the amount of time during which someone can file suit is impossible to administer. After all, the woman in this case lost because she didn't file within 180 days of her first pay check. THAT is impossible for the person being discriminated against, because it's likely that they wouldn't know within that time. Over time folks earn seniority, get reviews and raises, and have some sense of how they compare to other workers. That is what's needed to determine fairness.

I don't see how allowing them to file within 180 days of each pay check requires that anyone do anything. The burden is still on the employee to find out about the discrimination and to file suit.


Nobody has answered my question.
I just found out that a girl hired at McDonalds at the same time I was got paid more then I did, for the exact same job.
Granted, that was 30 years ago.
Should I still be able to sue?


No. You agreed to accept the terms of the offer.


Then why should the woman at Goodyear be allowed to sue?
After all, she ACCEPTED the terms of the offer when she was hired.
If they had hired her at one salary and then paid her a lower salary, she might have a reason to sue.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:13 am
mysteryman wrote:
Nobody has answered my question.
I just found out that a girl hired at McDonalds at the same time I was got paid more then I did, for the exact same job.
Granted, that was 30 years ago.
Should I still be able to sue?

Certainly not. You were a slacker and you needed a haircut. She was a much better employee than you.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:15 am
joefromchicago wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Nobody has answered my question.
I just found out that a girl hired at McDonalds at the same time I was got paid more then I did, for the exact same job.
Granted, that was 30 years ago.
Should I still be able to sue?

Certainly not. You were a slacker and you needed a haircut. She was a much better employee than you.


How do you know the "other men" were not better employees?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:21 am
woiyo wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Nobody has answered my question.
I just found out that a girl hired at McDonalds at the same time I was got paid more then I did, for the exact same job.
Granted, that was 30 years ago.
Should I still be able to sue?

Certainly not. You were a slacker and you needed a haircut. She was a much better employee than you.


How do you know the "other men" were not better employees?


Or other women....I'm still shocked that there was only 1 female employee at Goodyear.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:41 am
mysteryman wrote:
As I read the bill and the SCOTUS decision,I have to support them.
If you remove the time limits on when you can file, then I could file a discrimination claim based on what happened 30 years ago.
Do we really want the courts clogged up like that?

If that's how you read the act, then your reading comprehension is about as flawed as McCain's.

The bill passed by the House of Representatives merely changed the Supreme Court's definition of when the act of discrimination occurs. According to the bill, an act of discrimination occurs "when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice." It didn't change the time limits (employees still must file a complaint or charge within 180 days). In addition, the bill further provides that "an aggrieved person may obtain relief ... including recovery of back pay for up to two years preceding the filing of the charge."

In other words, the 180-day clock starts ticking every time the employee receives a paycheck, but s/he can only recover back pay for a period of two years preceding the last act of discrimination.

So, can you sue for discrimination that happened over thirty years ago? No, not under the Ledbetter bill and not under the law as it currently stands. Furthermore, you can only get two years worth of back pay even if you've been discriminated against for 19 years, as was the case with Ledbetter. That, by the way, is not a change in the current law either.

Frankly, it's absurd to think that 30-year-old claims of discrimination will be clogging the courts if this bill is passed. The hurdles for plaintiffs to prove discrimination remain dauntingly high, and their relief is still limited to two years worth of back wages. Claims by McCain and others, therefore, that this bill will "open the floodgates to lawsuits" is simply another instance of conservatives frightening the working class into voting against its own interests.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:43 am
woiyo wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Nobody has answered my question.
I just found out that a girl hired at McDonalds at the same time I was got paid more then I did, for the exact same job.
Granted, that was 30 years ago.
Should I still be able to sue?

Certainly not. You were a slacker and you needed a haircut. She was a much better employee than you.


How do you know the "other men" were not better employees?

I'm sure they were, but mysteryman didn't complain about them. He's a real mensch like that.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 06:03 pm
Can this be any clearer? If you happen to already be in a place of power., Republicans will bend over backwards to make sure you stay there, if not, you haven't got a snowball's chance in hell of getting any help or compassion from those sonsabitchs.

Quote:
May 1, 2008
Editorial
Six Votes, Then and Now
When the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only six Republicans voted with obstructionist Southern Democrats against the historic measure, which outlawed discrimination across a broad swath of American life.

Americans saw the mirror opposite last week when Senate Republicans rejected a far more modest piece of civil rights legislation, the Fair Pay Act. Just six Republicans broke with their party to join Democrats in supporting the new bill, which is needed to counter a noxious 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it largely impossible to enforce the guarantee of equal pay for equal work contained in Title VII of the 1964 law.

The short list of Republicans voting in support of the Fair Pay Act included Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Gordon Smith of Oregon.


Joe(I am so going to enjoy meeting them in hell)Nation
0 Replies
 
dadpad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 May, 2008 06:48 pm
I like my BFG's I get 100,000 km or more from a set.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2008 04:51 am
Who gains from salary information being kept secret?
The employee?
Only if he thinks he is being paid too much.
The employer?
Yeah. Remember, it was the employer's idea in the first place.
The benefits of secrecy only accrue to those who hold all the secrets.

Who loses anything if there is a list published once a year showing who makes what? Investment firms do it all the time. Seeing the figures in black and white might make people make some business decisions of their own and that should be good for business, not bad.

Of course, management will have lost a bit of it's mystic powers, it's ivory tower will be given a few windows, but that's all.

Joe(and people will finally know how much the boss's nephew, Louie, earns for being a prick.)Nation
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 07:29:23