Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Call your Senator re. 'Paycheck Fairness Act'
Eagle Forum (email) ^ | 11/16/10 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 11/16/2010 3:32:42 PM PST by Ron C.

Keep the Calls Coming!

Tell your Senators to vote NO on the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act!
 

November 16, 2010

Vote is expected tomorrow, please
call your Senators today and tomorrow!

On Election Day, Americans spoke out against the radical liberal agenda in Washington, D.C. Voters demanded a Congress that will strengthen the economy and create more jobs. 

But, the liberal left is still pandering to feminists and trial attorneys at the expense of American jobs by bringing the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act” to a vote during the Lame Duck Session that begins Monday, November 15th.

The “Paycheck Fairness Act” would stifle job creation, send existing American jobs overseas, and burden employers with expensive paperwork and frivolous lawsuits.   

Your calls are urgently needed to stop the feminists from causing unemployment rates to rise even higher!

Originally introduced by Hillary Clinton during her time in the Senate, and reintroduced by Sen. Harry Reid, the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 3772) (PFA) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) in the following ways:

  • Allows for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages to be granted, even without proof of intent to discriminate.  Currently, an employer must be found to have intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices in order for an employee to receive monetary compensation, and even then, the employee is entitled only to back pay.  The provision in the PFA is unacceptable and unnecessary, as damages are already available under Title VII for pay discrimination.
  • Changes the “establishment” requirement.  The EPA currently requires that employees whose pay is being compared must work in the same physical place of business.  The PFA would amend the word “establishment” to mean workplaces in the same county or political district.  It would also invite the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to develop “rules or guidance” to define the term more broadly. 

    This leaves the door open for the EEOC to compare a woman’s job in a rural area to a man’s job in an urban area that has a much higher cost of living, which would drive up the cost of employing the woman in the rural lower cost area.  Such increase in employment costs would result in fewer people being employed, and would also result in employers shipping jobs overseas.

  • Replaces a successful pay discrimination-determining system with a proven failed system.  The PFA would invalidate the successful, Supreme Court-endorsed system for determining whether pay discrimination has occurred (known as the Interpretative Standards for Systemic Compensation Discrimination), and would replace it with the highly inaccurate Equal Opportunity Survey, which has found true discriminators to be non-discriminators 93 percent of the time.
  • Increases the numbers in class-action suits.  Under EPA, if an employee wants to participate in a class-action suit against his employer, he must affirmatively decide to participate in the suit.  The PFA would automatically include employees in class-action suits, unless they affirmatively opt out.  This change would result in booming business for trial attorneys, and huge costs to employers, who may decide to ship jobs overseas to avoid such costs altogether.

In addition to these changes, the PFA would institute a system of  “comparable worth” effectively allowing judges, juries and unelected bureaucrats to set employees’ wages, instead of employers.  Thus, an employee’s compensation level would be based on some vague notion of his “worth,” instead of on concrete factors like education, experience, time in the labor force, and hours worked per week.  The PFA would also cause employers to avoid hiring women in low-paying positions, since the employers may then become targets for burdensome lawsuits.  This trend would result in even higher unemployment for low-skilled women, potentially increasing the number of families dependent on government assistance. 

President Obama has called the PFA a “common-sense bill.” The truth is, this bill makes no sense during good economic times, and would only add insult to injury now, when unemployment is near double-digits nationwide. 

Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush, called the PFA a “job killing, trial attorney bonanza,” and said employers potentially would see female applicants as instigators of lawsuits, instead of contributors to productivity. 


Take Action

The House of Representatives has already passed the Paycheck Fairness Act, and President Obama has said that he will sign the bill into law if the Senate passes it.  The Senate vote is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, November 17, so call your Senator and tell him or her to vote NO on S. 3772 the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act!”

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121



TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: chat; legislation; missinglink
This email was sent this morning by the Eagle Forum - wish I could have gotten it here then... we need to act on those phone calls ASAP - today, and tomorrow morning!

Call the buggars in the Senate and tell them NO WAY!

1 posted on 11/16/2010 3:32:46 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Comparable Worth is one of the worst ideas the Left has ever attempted to push on this nation. It is just insane, yet like Health Care, if passed, it will likely survive the GOP’s recent resurgence.


2 posted on 11/16/2010 3:35:19 PM PST by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
NO to anything with "fairness" in the title!

In fact, NO to everything these scumbags want to do.

ML/NJ

3 posted on 11/16/2010 3:35:48 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

I might be wrong on this, but I thought I heard somewhere that the Dept. of Labor has already made a rule similar to what’s in this bill. It may not make a difference if this bill fails because Emperor Obummis doesn’t believe he needs congress at all.


4 posted on 11/16/2010 3:37:49 PM PST by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj
NO to anything with "fairness" in the title!

And "Justice"; that word is simply abused these days.

5 posted on 11/16/2010 3:46:59 PM PST by Michael Barnes (Guilty of being White.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dajeeps
This will 'make a difference' - a very bad difference indeed, if this passes into law tomorrow.

The Dims are spooked right now, and a call to your Senator just may help keep this from becoming a major additional job killer.

6 posted on 11/16/2010 3:54:11 PM PST by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

I will provide them with a “fair shovel” and show them “fair ground”....been there, but when you get a good one, keep ‘em!


7 posted on 11/16/2010 5:02:02 PM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

I’ve spent 25 years building my little company. If this bill is passed my next plan will be to lay everyone off and close the doors. It’s just not worth doing business with this hanging over one’s head.


8 posted on 11/16/2010 5:08:17 PM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.; All
Good idea Ron, thanks for this thread!

Here is the other thread on this subject:

The Paycheck Unfairness Act (FReepers - CALL!)

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:12:16 AM · by FreeManDC · 32 replies
Townhall ^ | November 16, 2010 | Phyllis Schlafly


Women didn't vote for Democratic candidates in the November election in the numbers expected, so President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid want to woo them back into the fold by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) in the lame duck session.

We don't need this: It's a job killer, not a job creator. The Paycheck Fairness Act (S.3772) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Those laws have produced fair results for many years.
Under current law, Title VII entitles an employee to win back pay if the...

Here is The Link to senators phone numbers
9 posted on 11/16/2010 6:54:58 PM PST by Syncro (The Paycheck (UN) Fairness Act Must Be Stopped!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
[Article]
In addition to these changes, the PFA would institute a system of “comparable worth” effectively allowing judges, juries and unelected bureaucrats to set employees’ wages, instead of employers. Thus, an employee’s compensation level would be based on some vague notion of his “worth,” instead of on concrete factors like education, experience, time in the labor force, and hours worked per week.

Isn't this schoolhouse Marxism? They had a value theory concerning wages. Someone who knows, please advise here.

Harry Reid buttering up Her Thighness by introducing her pet identity-politics bill ..... who knew? </snort>

10 posted on 11/17/2010 9:57:30 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aetius

IF I owned my own company & had employees- I would tell each of them that they better fight such a bill.

IF something like this passes- I will run my company with ONLY myself. Less Gross- Less net income—MUCH less hassle.


11 posted on 11/17/2010 5:24:35 PM PST by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Aetius
It seems to me when you accept a job or promotion, you accept the pay offered to do it. Wherever or whoever you are, you decide whether the compensation for what you will be doing, where you will be doing it is adequate.

I really have trouble with this. It is just one more reason I will only use subcontractors and no employees.

12 posted on 11/21/2010 1:34:29 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
It seems to me when you accept a job or promotion, you accept the pay offered to do it. Wherever or whoever you are, you decide whether the compensation for what you will be doing, where you will be doing it is adequate.

If women were really offering to do the same work as men for 10% less, wouldn't that imply that any company that had 50% men on the payroll could save 5% on payroll by replacing all the men with women? Most companies would gladly jump at a chance to save 5% on payroll. So why are companies willing to pay more for men?

13 posted on 11/22/2010 10:10:48 PM PST by supercat (Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: supercat
They need someone to do the heavy lifting while the women are on maternity leave? (8^D)

Well put, supercat, and a hard point for the feminazis to argue.

14 posted on 11/22/2010 10:50:01 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
From your post: The Senate vote is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, November 17,

Sounds like we are too late? Can clarify?

15 posted on 12/05/2010 10:03:58 AM PST by Michael.SF. (Current count of friends/family who have abandoned Obama: 11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson