"Lilly Ledbetter did not set out to be a trailblazer or a household name. She was just a good hard worker who did her job -- and she did it well -- for nearly two decades before discovering that for years, she was paid less than her male colleagues for doing the very same work. Over the course of her career, she lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits -- losses that she still feels today.
"Now, Lilly could have accepted her lot and moved on. She could have decided that it wasn't worth the hassle and the harassment that would inevitably come with speaking up for what she deserved. But instead, she decided that there was a principle at stake, something worth fighting for. So she set out on a journey that would take more than 10 years, take her all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and lead to this day and this bill which will help others get the justice she was denied. ...
"I intend to send a clear message: That making our economy work means making sure it works for everyone. That there are no second class citizens in our workplaces, and that it's not just unfair and illegal -- it's bad for business -- to pay someone less because of their gender, or their age, race, ethnicity, religion or disability."
-President Obama
In the beginning I discounted Obama as a another Clinton, as a republican in democrat clothing. Seems that I was wrong. He's pushed through some good legislation in his first month, even though the big issues, like the Free Choice Act and the Employee Free Choice Act, have yet to be tackled. He is indeed instilling hope in people.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Obamawesome Signs the Lilly Ledbetter Act into Law
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
I don't understand how she lost money if she worked for the wages she accepted. Did she gamble it away?
No, she was deceived into believing she was making the same amount of money for the same skill and effort as her male counterparts, asshole.
But she agreed to work for the wage that was given to her. . .was she not given her promised wage?
Nope, she was deceived into believing she made the same wages for the same effort as her male counterparts.
She wasn't given her promised wage? Couldn't she just use the current justice system to sue for breach of contract?
"She wasn't given her promised wage?"
Sure, she was given her promised wage and it was less than what her male counterparts were paid. She was deceived.
"Couldn't she just use the current justice system to sue for breach of contract?"
Contract? I don't think they sign contracts, Josh.
The law states that discrimation based on sex is illegal. Her company broke the law.
"Sure, she was given her promised wage and it was less than what her male counterparts were paid. She was deceived."
I'm confused. She was given her promised wage, so she wasn't deceived there. . .what her counterparts make isn't her business, so. . .how was she deceived?
"I'm confused. She was given her promised wage, so she wasn't deceived there. . ."
"what her counterparts make isn't her business, so. . .how was she deceived?"
It is her business. Discrimination based on sex meant she lost a lot of money. She should have been paid as much as her male counterparts for the same work. Since it is the law, the company broke the law.
"It is her business. Discrimination based on sex meant she lost a lot of money. She should have been paid as much as her male counterparts for the same work."
That's weird. It's not my business how much my co-workers are paid. If company's could get away with paying women workers who provide the same value as male workers less, than really, wouldn't there have been a lot more jobs for cheap female labour and large percentage of males unemployed because their cost of labour is too high?
LOL
http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2008/09/barrack_obama_under_pays.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=35972
"That's weird. It's not my business how much my co-workers are paid."
It is when your employer is breaking the law.
"If company's could get away with paying women workers who provide the same value as male workers less, than really, wouldn't there have been a lot more jobs for cheap female labour and large percentage of males unemployed because their cost of labour is too high?"
You think far too isolatedly and linearly. All the labor is need, it's just that sometimes women are paid less.
"http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2008/09/barrack_obama_under_pays.html"
"http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=35972"
No, not LOL. STUPID. I am not arguing about "averages". I am arguing about equal pay for equal work and experience. This article is retarded, and you are retarded for posting it as a result, because it only deals in averages, not equal pay for equal work and experience, and ignores the fact that Republicans have more money to work with. Thanks for illustrating the fact that you don't think about what we are arguing or don't think twice about posting knee-jerk Republican propaganda.
"It is when your employer is breaking the law."
We're not arguing about what "is" and "isn't" the law. We are arguing right and wrong.
"You think far too isolatedly and linearly. All the labor is need, it's just that sometimes women are paid less."
And sometimes men are paid less. This shouldn't even be a discussion of sex, it should be a discussion of the individual.
"We're not arguing about what "is" and "isn't" the law. We are arguing right and wrong."
Yes, and it is wrong for it not to be their business.
"And sometimes men are paid less. This shouldn't even be a discussion of sex, it should be a discussion of the individual."
Garbage, ignores unequal historical starting points that continue to this day.
"Yes, and it is wrong for it not to be their business."
So individuals have no right to privacy?
"Garbage, ignores unequal historical starting points that continue to this day."
Garbage, ignores individual rights.
"So individuals have no right to privacy?"
Not when they are discriminating a profiting based on sex or race or sexual orientation.
"Garbage, ignores individual rights."
Historical starting points precede individual rights.
"Not when they are discriminating a profiting based on sex or race or sexual orientation."
Which means no. . .o-k.
"Which means no. . .o-k."
They have a right to privacy in their private homes, not in their place of business.
Hey, Josh, you do realize your "privacy" argument allows for racial discrimination, right? Racist.
Post a Comment