Posted on 05/13/2015 1:19:53 PM PDT by justlittleoleme
Louisiana's state senators chose anti-discrimination arguments over concerns about frivolous lawsuits Tuesday, narrowly backing an equal pay proposal in what has become an annual fight in the Legislature.
With a 21-16 vote, senators sent the measure by Sen. Ed Murray, D-New Orleans, to the House for consideration. But it is expected to run into problems there. The House labor committee killed two similar equal pay bills last month.
Murray's bill describes the state's policy as "all employees shall be compensated equally for work that is the same in kind and quality," with no distinction made because of a person's gender. It outlines a course for legal action if a worker claims to be underpaid.
The provisions would only apply to any employer with 50 full-time equivalent workers or more. It allows for different wage rates to be paid based on seniority, merit, production quality, experience, education and training level.
(Excerpt) Read more at therepublic.com ...
Somebody needs to amend this by adding the following as well:
You have to understand; this is actually the "Trial-Lawyer Income Security Act".
And that consequence is certainly not "unintended".
Of course, it is also the "Pandering to Feminazis for Democrat Votes Act".
Also intended.
Murray’s bill describes the state’s policy as “all employees shall be compensated equally for work that is the same in kind and quality,” with no distinction made because of a person’s gender. It outlines a course for legal action if a worker claims to be underpaid.
It’s against federal law to pay a woman less for the same job as a man. But this proposed law takes us in an entirely different direction.
Who is going to determine what work is the same kind and quality??? Liberals??? Lawyers??? This bill has lawsuit heaven written all over it. Full employment act for lawyers.
You can bet that men uniting to fight the discriminatory policies that will be put in place to correct the "pay gap" at the expense of them and their sons won't be one of them.
Women already get paid more than men when you account for the time they take off to have children or to just not be in the work force.
Women are in general paid more if they stay in the work force the same length of time as men.
Pay for merit is gone. That means the slacker gets paid the same amount as the hard-worker.
One of two scenarios will play out.
(1) Working on a contingent basis, with all these caveats, lawyers won't take cases unless there is absolutely outrageous abuses. It simply won't be worth their time/effort for a small return, even if successful.
or
(2) Employees won't want to pay lawyers their hourly rate and case costs to carry through trial (document discovery, depositions, etc.) unless they have a slam dunk case.
Remember, companies (especially those over 50 employees) have attorneys on staff or retainer, and the cost to the company should be negligible in relation to revenues - especially when the first such case will be used as a hammer to any subsequent wannabee litigants.
However, the Devil (as they say) is in the details. And Trial Lawyers get rich with details.
It allows for different wage rates to be paid based on seniority, merit, production quality, experience, education and training level.
While most of those seem objective on the surface; a lot of subjectivity can be applied to most of them. I have no doubt that some sharp trial lawyer will figure out a way to sway a jury by saying, "My client is just as productive, experienced and educated as the person who received the promotion." Even if it isn't really true.
Time will tell.
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.
