« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: primitives discuss job bias  (Read 1479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline franksolich

  • Scourge of the Primitives
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58722
  • Reputation: +3102/-173
primitives discuss job bias
« on: January 13, 2009, 02:14:37 PM »
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x10822

Oh my.

Quote
groovedaddy  (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-12-09 11:57 AM
Original message
 
House Passes 2 Measures on Job Bias 

WASHINGTON — The House voted on Friday to give women powerful new tools to challenge sex discrimination by employers who pay women less than men for the same or substantially similar work.

The action shows how Congress, working with President-elect Barack Obama, intends to make a swift, sharp break with civil rights policies of the Bush administration.

“In the first week of the new Congress, this is the legislation we are putting forward: pay equity, fairness to women in the workplace,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California. “These are our priorities. This Congress has heard the message of change in the election.”

The House passed two related bills on Friday. One, approved 247 to 171, would give workers more time to file lawsuits claiming job discrimination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/10/us/10rights.html?th&e...

Quote
lonestarnot  (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-12-09 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
 
1. Great!

ANNOUNCEMENT FROM franksolich

LONESTARNUT/HUNGER WATCH TO BEGIN JANUARY 20, 2009

END OF ANNOUNCEMENT

Quote
napi21  (1000+ posts)        Mon Jan-12-09 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
 
2. That's a good step, BUT there's a big problem that I can't think of a solution to. One of the main reasons these bills were proposed is because of the SCOTUS ruling that a woman filed her discrimination case too late. Well, it was filed TOO LATE because she didn't find out about it for YEARS! Since most employers keep wage rates private, and some even threated to fire anyone who discloses their pay rate, how is anyone going to find out they are being discriminated against?

Quote
pinqy (90 posts)      Mon Jan-12-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. Not quite

"Well, it was filed TOO LATE because she didn't find out about it for YEARS!" The Goodyear policy was raises based on performance evaluations. No one really disputes that she was discriminated against in her early evaluations. But she didn't file at that time. When she did file, her claim was that because of the past discrimination, her current pay was itself discrimination. The Court rejected that argument because there was clearly no intent to discriminate in the current period, and even Ledbetter didn't claim any active discrimination. So the Court ruled that Congress set the time limits, and for good reason, and that she could have but did not comply with the time limits. She does say she knew at the time that discrimination occurred.

Quote
napi21  (1000+ posts)        Mon Jan-12-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
 
4. Sorry, I guess I misunderstood. I know I heard some of the TV reporters say that she filed the suit as soon as she found out. That's really not completely relative though. I've worked for companies who actually told you "If you disclose your wage rate to another employee you will be fired!" Somehow I doubt the co. I worked for was the only one who has that practice...even if they don't come right out and say it. How is an employee to find out if they ARE being paid equally if nobody is allowed to talk?

Quote
DU AdBot (1000+ posts)      Tue Jan 13th 2009, 03:07 PM
Response to Original message

Fight Pregnancy Discrim
Resources for women and lawyers fighting
pregnancy discrimination
Logged
apres moi, le deluge

Milo Yiannopoulos "It has been obvious since 2016 that Trump carries an anointing of some kind. My American friends, are you so blind to reason, and deaf to Heaven? Can he do all this, and cannot get a crown? This man is your King. Coronate him, and watch every devil shriek, and every demon howl."

Offline Chris

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Reputation: +522/-16
Re: primitives discuss job bias
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2009, 08:53:50 PM »
Quote
groovedaddy  (1000+ posts)      Mon Jan-12-09 11:57 AM
Original message
 
House Passes 2 Measures on Job Bias 

WASHINGTON — The House voted on Friday to give women powerful new tools to challenge sex discrimination by employers who pay women less than men for the same or substantially similar work.

Fine.  They can start with their President Elect who pays his female office workers $5,000 less than the men.
Logged
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

Offline jukin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16226
  • Reputation: +2110/-170
Re: primitives discuss job bias
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2009, 10:20:32 PM »
Quote from: Chris on January 13, 2009, 08:53:50 PM
Fine.  They can start with their President Elect who pays his female office workers $5,000 less than the men.

You mean like all the feminists got on billy jeff when he was forcing and raping women?

Never happen.
Logged
When you are the beneficiary of someone’s kindness and generosity, it produces a sense of gratitude and community.

When you are the beneficiary of a policy that steals from someone and gives it to you in return for your vote, it produces a sense of entitlement and dependency.

Offline Chris

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1476
  • Reputation: +522/-16
Re: primitives discuss job bias
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2009, 10:26:46 PM »
Quote from: jukin on January 13, 2009, 10:20:32 PM
You mean like all the feminists got on billy jeff when he was forcing and raping women?

Never happen.

Billy Jeff was a-okay with the feminazis, as long as he supported their agenda.  How many of them still have their Presidential KneepadsTM?  Who was the ditz that offered her 'services' to President Bush?
Logged
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »