Posted on 04/23/2008 10:39:15 AM PDT by SmithL
Republicans complained Wednesday that Senate Democrats are scheduling votes around the plans of presidential rivals Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but predicted the ploy wouldn't save a pay equity bill.
"To have the schedule of the Senate revolve around the schedule of the presidential candidates strikes me as particularly ridiculous," said Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was delaying Senate business until late Wednesday to give Obama and Clinton time to return from the campaign trail.
Republicans bristled at the move, particularly in the face of Reid's complaints earlier this week of GOP obstructionism. Their presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, was not expected to attend the vote.
The legislation is troubled regardless. The White House reminded all involved that President Bush intended to veto it.
The debate centers on a bill named for Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., who sued for pay discrimination just before retiring after a 19-year career there. By the time she retired, Ledbetter made $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor and claimed earlier decisions by her supervisors kept her from making more.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 last May 29 to throw out her complaint, saying she had waited too long to sue. Under the justices' decision, which they said was based on congressional legislation, an employee must sue within a 180-day deadline of a decision involving pay if the employee thinks it involved race, sex, religion or national origin.
That opens the door for corporations to discriminate, Democrats said. The legislation would restart the statute of limitations for pay discrimination lawsuits each time an employee gets a paycheck affected by sexism or racism.
The ruling, said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., leaves a "gaping loophole"
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Well, "they said" it was based on legislation, but we know better, don't we. < /sarc>
It was a pretty straight forward ruling. The law says you have 180 days, the plaintiff sued long after than and it was thrown out. The fact it was 5-4 means that there were four justices in this case who wanted to ignore the law and rule based on their feelings.
So, basically, the democrats want the statute of limitations clock to be reset each time you get a paycheck. In order words, if I discriminate against you 14 years ago but didn’t do anything since then you would be able to sue me 14 years later as long as you are still getting a paycheck from the same employer.
Fortunately, virtually nobody works this long for the same company any longer. But this does noticeably effect government employees who tend to stay on the job longer (most are due to a lack of initiative or skills to profit from the private sector).
An infinitely more reasonable standard would be to simply extended the statute from “X” years to “2X” years - just double whatever the existing number is.
It is just stupid to pass Federal legislation to fix every single aggrieved person in America. But since this was a woman, who was black, I guess this is the loophole we were looking for. But then, stupid is as stupid does. And where is a whole mess of stupid in the US Senate.
Just make it so everyone, everywhere, no matter what job they have, makes the same amount of money. Then we will all be equal! Workers of the World Unite!
Do I have to /sarc tag this?
It seems that ALL employers who are subject to the law MUST be required to make all salaries public. Otherwise, how can a person know they are being discriminated against???
Seriously, I don't support ANY of this crap...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.