Read about the Lilly Ledbetter case here:
Here's my question- did any of the men making less than the highest-paid male in this case get compensation as well? If not, why not? That guy making only 15% more than the woman should have sued because he wasn't making as much as the guy making 40% more than the woman.
Now- if you want the real story about Ms. Ledbetter- an under-performing employee- (of course the media wants you to only see the "Alabama grandmother" angle) this article by Phyllis Schafly is a MUST READ:
So basically you'll be able to wake up after twenty years with a company and say "gee, I wonder if I was making the same amount as Bob was in 1989?" and sue.
Look- I was in the corporate world for a mere 7 years. In that time, I worked for a major software manufacturer with about 70 outside sales reps- 6 of us were women. I had a team of all men and had a boss who told me I wouldn't get a choice sales territory because "I had less ability to travel" (even though I was the only one without kids). I had a guy interview me and ask me when I planned on having children. I was called sweetheart and dear more times than I can count. I also made very good money and had a lot of success before the age of 30, hint: you don't make a lot of money without a lot of stress. I ended up happily taking a severance package at the job where I felt that I wasn't getting a fair shake. It was their loss. But, I wouldn't imagine- in a million years- suing a company for "discrimination". Life isn't fair- get over it.
And why should one person make the exact same amount as another? I want the best workers to make the most money and if I were running a company I'd be dammed if the federal government was going to dictate to me what I was going to pay people. If there are annual reviews and one person consistently makes their review and receives raises every year while the other person doesn't, there's going to be a gap in pay. I don't care if you're a man, woman or dog. Talk about legislation that puts the rubber stamp on mediocrity. You can now be a woman and not work as hard as a man, but if you have the same job title you'll be guaranteed the same pay? Does anybody wonder if this is going to make companies more gun-shy in hiring women? OF COURSE IT WILL! It's bull! I don't want it, I don't want it for my daughters. I don't want that kind of help as a woman, thank you very much.
So, who will benefit the most from this new legislation?
Lawyers- and Obama being one of them loves the trial attorneys. They were some of the biggest donors to his campaign.
Here's what the law does (according to the liberal Law Memo Blog who celebrates it)
- Increase available remedies in Equal Pay Act cases by adding compensatory damages and punitive damages
- Allow class action lawsuits
- Require the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs to "provide training to [EEOC] employees and affected individuals and entities on matters involving discrimination in the payment of wages."
Just what we need right now- more lawsuits on business. More lawyers making money for manufacturing NOTHING, selling NOTHING, fixing NOTHING. John Edwards is putting together his list of new clients as I type this.
Mantra: Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcomes. Head now banging against wall.