Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Today's OB threadFollow

#1 Jan 29 2009 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Barry makes law.
Quote:
President Barack Obama signed an equal-pay bill into law Thursday before cheering labor and women leaders who fought hard for it and the woman whose history-making lawsuit gave impetus to the cause.

Obama, choosing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act as the first bill to sign as president, called it a "wonderful day" and declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman an issue not just for women, but for all workers.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#2 Jan 29 2009 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Elinda wrote:
declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman an issue not just for women, but for all workers.

[/quote]

So long as women's pay goes up and men's pay doesn't go down, I'm cool with it.
#3 Jan 29 2009 at 10:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In the Senate, all four female Republican senators voted for it plus Arlen Specter. In the House, only three Republicans voted for it. Zero Democratic nays in the Senate, five in the House.

The era of bipartisan cooperation is upon us! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#4 Jan 29 2009 at 11:01 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I've just been reading up on this as I thought there were already laws in place to address pay inequality.

Apparently, after a jury found Goodyear Tires guilty of pay discrimination against Lilly, the SCOTUS, on appeal, reversed the decision. The reversal was based on Lilly's claim being filed late. But, they based those dates on the first time Lilly was denied a raise. The clock didn't restart when she was again, at a later time, denied equal pay.

I'm rather miffed that the SCOTUS would reverse decisions based on loopholes in the language of the civil rights act.

Some more stuff:
Quote:
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will restore the law to where it was before the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Justice Ginsberg's dissent summarizes the facts of Ledbetter's complaint:

Lilly Ledbetter was a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber’s plant in Gadsden, Alabama, from 1979 until her retirement in 1998. For most of those years, she worked as an area manager, a position largely occupied by men. Initially, Ledbetter’s salary was in line with the salaries of men performing substantially similar work. Over time, however, her pay slipped in comparison to the pay of male area managers with equal or less seniority. By the end of 1997, Ledbetter was the only woman working as an area manager and the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark: Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month; the lowest paid male area manager received $4,286 per month, the highest paid, $5,236.

The Court ruled that employees subject to pay discrimination like Lilly Ledbetter must file a claim within 180 days of the employer's original decision to pay them less -- even if the employee continued to receive reduced paychecks and even if the employee did not discover the discriminatory reduction in pay until much later (check out Justice Alito's arguments in the Court's opinion). Restoring these rules means that complaints can be filed 180 days after any discriminatory paycheck.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#5 Jan 29 2009 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I'm rather miffed that the SCOTUS would reverse decisions based on loopholes in the language of the civil rights act.
I understand you but part of law is making sure your i's are dotted and your t's crossed. If (I'm assuming for sake of argument) the filing was done improperly according to the original law, then the SCotUS would be right to rule based on that technicality.

I say this as someone all for the legislation in question.

Edited, Jan 29th 2009 1:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Jan 29 2009 at 11:17 AM Rating: Excellent
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
So long as women's pay goes up and men's pay doesn't go down, I'm cool with it.


This was my first thought, as well.
#7 Jan 29 2009 at 11:19 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I'm rather miffed that the SCOTUS would reverse decisions based on loopholes in the language of the civil rights act.
I understand you but part of law is making sure your i's are dotted and your t's crossed. If (I'm assuming for sake of argument) the filing was done improperly according to the original law, then the SCotUS would be right to rule based on that technicality.

I say this as someone all for the legislation in question.

Yeah, I can buy that. But apparently it was open to interpretation, which Goodyears lawyers scooped on. Title VII states simply that the claim had to be filed within 180 days after the act of discrimination. It was up to the court to decide 'when' the discrimination took place, when in actuality it took place over a long period of time. I dunno, just seems cheesy. The intent was pretty clear. SCOTUS's reversal of this decision only delayed the inevitable and forced additional work on the law-makers.

It's nice, fairly non-controversial, feel good first Law for the new Prez.

Edited, Jan 29th 2009 8:25pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#8 Jan 29 2009 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
forced additional work on the law-makers.
This may be the first time US history that someone ******* about Congress being forced to do something productive Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Jan 29 2009 at 11:22 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
deja vu






Edited, Jan 29th 2009 8:25pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#10 Jan 29 2009 at 1:29 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
declared that ending pay disparities between men and woman an issue not just for women, but for all workers.


So long as women's pay goes up and men's pay doesn't go down, I'm cool with it.[/quote]
So long as hard-working women's pay goes up. Or are they going to hand out free money solely on the basis of not having a coq, regardless if they may be slack-asses?

Oh, crap, I'm starting to sound like a Republican!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#11 Jan 29 2009 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Is anyone arguing that she did substandard work? Were there employee reviews documenting that?

I'm guessing not. I think you're building a straw woman there.

The ruling was discriminatory in that many people have no idea how much they're paid relative to other employees in the same job; in many companies employees are expressly forbidden to discuss salaries.

How could she possibly have known in a timely manner when she "first" received a paycheck that was substantially less than those received by her male coworkers?

Good change to a poorly written law, sounds like.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#12 Jan 29 2009 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Samira wrote:
Is anyone arguing that she did substandard work? Were there employee reviews documenting that?

I'm guessing not. I think you're building a straw woman there.

The ruling was discriminatory in that many people have no idea how much they're paid relative to other employees in the same job; in many companies employees are expressly forbidden to discuss salaries.

How could she possibly have known in a timely manner when she "first" received a paycheck that was substantially less than those received by her male coworkers?

Good change to a poorly written law, sounds like.

If you're responding to me, then no, I'm not talking about her case specifically, just about the workforce in general. I mean, hell, I guess I wouldn't complain if someone decided to rule that red-headed stoners were being discriminated against and forced my company to give me a raise.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#13 Jan 29 2009 at 2:15 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
525 posts
Samira wrote:


I'm guessing not. I think you're building a straw woman there.



I see what you did there.
____________________________
I used to care about my sig. Then I got mocked and butt-hurt. I shall commence with the self-pity now.
#14 Jan 29 2009 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Buffylvr wrote:
Samira wrote:


I'm guessing not. I think you're building a straw woman there.



I see what you did there.
I'm pretty sure everyone did.
#15 Jan 29 2009 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
525 posts
sweetumssama wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
Samira wrote:


I'm guessing not. I think you're building a straw woman there.



I see what you did there.
I'm pretty sure everyone did.


Only if they've taken a logic class though. Otherwise the term "Straw Man" or the play on it would make no sense.
____________________________
I used to care about my sig. Then I got mocked and butt-hurt. I shall commence with the self-pity now.
#16 Jan 29 2009 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
**
383 posts
Buffylvr wrote:
sweetumssama wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
Samira wrote:


I'm guessing not. I think you're building a straw woman there.



I see what you did there.
I'm pretty sure everyone did.


Only if they've taken a logic class though. Otherwise the term "Straw Man" or the play on it would make no sense.


Er, it's not exactly some obscure concept. I'm sure most of the people here, even if they've never taken a course specifically on logical reasoning, got that.
#17 Jan 29 2009 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
Buffylvr wrote:
sweetumssama wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
Samira wrote:


I'm guessing not. I think you're building a straw woman there.



I see what you did there.
I'm pretty sure everyone did.


Only if they've taken a logic class though. Otherwise the term "Straw Man" or the play on it would make no sense.
Dude, "straw man" is thrown out on the internet every 10 seconds.

You're not special for knowing this.
#18 Jan 29 2009 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
sweetumssama wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
sweetumssama wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
Samira wrote:


I'm guessing not. I think you're building a straw woman there.



I see what you did there.
I'm pretty sure everyone did.


Only if they've taken a logic class though. Otherwise the term "Straw Man" or the play on it would make no sense.
Dude, "straw man" is thrown out on the internet every 10 seconds.

You're not special for knowing this.


You don't understand, I took a class in college that dealt with Logic, and it specifically defined "Straw Man" in the text book! You couldn't learn that information anywhere else.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#19 Jan 29 2009 at 7:53 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
TirithRR wrote:
sweetumssama wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
sweetumssama wrote:
Buffylvr wrote:
Samira wrote:


I'm guessing not. I think you're building a straw woman there.



I see what you did there.
I'm pretty sure everyone did.


Only if they've taken a logic class though. Otherwise the term "Straw Man" or the play on it would make no sense.
Dude, "straw man" is thrown out on the internet every 10 seconds.

You're not special for knowing this.


You don't understand, I took a class in college that dealt with Logic, and it specifically defined "Straw Man" in the text book! You couldn't learn that information anywhere else.
I'm gonna go so ad hominem on your ***.

Anyway, isn't Logic the class for people who can't do math?

Edited, Jan 29th 2009 9:54pm by sweetumssama
#20 Jan 29 2009 at 7:58 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
sweetumssama wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
You don't understand, I took a class in college that dealt with Logic, and it specifically defined "Straw Man" in the text book! You couldn't learn that information anywhere else.
I'm gonna go so ad hominem on your ***.

Anyway, isn't Logic the class for people who can't do math?

Edited, Jan 29th 2009 9:54pm by sweetumssama


I don't know. I took it as a course that statisfied some of my english credit requirements. It was easy and fit into my schedule. It was all about building truth tables, but based on words instead of the digital logic courses I had already taken.

It was basically repeating my Digital Logic course my freshman year, but making it count as an english credit.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#21 Jan 29 2009 at 8:03 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,512 posts
TirithRR wrote:
sweetumssama wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
You don't understand, I took a class in college that dealt with Logic, and it specifically defined "Straw Man" in the text book! You couldn't learn that information anywhere else.
I'm gonna go so ad hominem on your ***.

Anyway, isn't Logic the class for people who can't do math?

Edited, Jan 29th 2009 9:54pm by sweetumssama


I don't know. I took it as a course that statisfied some of my english credit requirements. It was easy and fit into my schedule. It was all about building truth tables, but based on words instead of the digital logic courses I had already taken.

It was basically repeating my Digital Logic course my freshman year, but making it count as an english credit.
That's weird, a friend of mine mentioned taking some sort of logic course because he was terrible at math. I don't really know what the course entails, so there may be no rhetorical arguments where you could even classify anything as a "straw man."
#22 Jan 29 2009 at 8:15 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
sweetumssama wrote:
That's weird, a friend of mine mentioned taking some sort of logic course because he was terrible at math. I don't really know what the course entails, so there may be no rhetorical arguments where you could even classify anything as a "straw man."


Well, it defined the logical fallacies. Straw Man included. Then it broke down the english language, If... Then, And, Or, Else, etc. Defined the Truth tables for them, Then built proofs using sentences, after converting things to A's, B's, C's, 1's and 0's etc.

If it is raining outside, then it is cloudy.
It is raining outside.
Therefore, it is cloudy.

If A, then B.
A = 1.
Therefore, B = 1.

If A, then B.
A = 0
Therefore, B = ? (Doesn't matter, cause A isn't true, so anything you say for B makes the statement true.)


Lots of stupid stuff like that. An easy 2 credits of English.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#23 Jan 29 2009 at 10:01 PM Rating: Good
**
383 posts
sweetumssama wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
sweetumssama wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
You don't understand, I took a class in college that dealt with Logic, and it specifically defined "Straw Man" in the text book! You couldn't learn that information anywhere else.
I'm gonna go so ad hominem on your ***.

Anyway, isn't Logic the class for people who can't do math?

Edited, Jan 29th 2009 9:54pm by sweetumssama


I don't know. I took it as a course that statisfied some of my english credit requirements. It was easy and fit into my schedule. It was all about building truth tables, but based on words instead of the digital logic courses I had already taken.

It was basically repeating my Digital Logic course my freshman year, but making it count as an english credit.
That's weird, a friend of mine mentioned taking some sort of logic course because he was terrible at math. I don't really know what the course entails, so there may be no rhetorical arguments where you could even classify anything as a "straw man."


It can at some schools, I guess. At least, I did that since I'd forgotten all my calculus and didn't feel like retaking a course I already had credit for in order to take the next level of it.
#24 Jan 29 2009 at 11:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
So long as women's pay goes up and men's pay doesn't go down, I'm cool with it.


By necessity, it will. Zero-sum, and all that.

That doesn't make it a bad idea.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 319 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (319)