« | »

Democrat Bills Pay Back Lawyers, Unions

From those champions of open and honest government at the Associated Press:

[AP caption:] Pay Equity pioneer Lily Ledbetter addresses the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Tuesday, Aug. 26, 2008 file photo.

Democrats begin new session with labor bills

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Democratic-led House took up two wage discrimination bills Friday, moving quickly to affirm its worker rights credentials as labor ally Barack Obama prepares to move into the White House.

Both bills, aimed at assuring that women’s rights to equal pay are adhered to, passed the House in the last session of Congress but couldn’t clear the Senate and veto threats from the White House. Now, with Democrats enjoying larger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat becoming president, the bills’ prospects are brighter.

"Equal pay is an issue of fundamental fairness," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "But as families grapple with difficult economic times, equal pay for equal work is often about daily survival for millions of families."

Republican opponents saw the measures, introduced in the first week of the new Congress, as an incentive for people to file lawsuits that will benefit trial lawyers. It’s "little more than an earmark for the trial bar," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.

The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a response to a 2007 Supreme Court decision that made it more difficult to sue over past pay discrimination. The other bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, would strengthen the 1963 Equal Pay Act that requires equal pay for equal work…

The Senate plans to take up the Ledbetter legislation next week. Clinton is introducing a companion to the paycheck fairness bill in the Senate, but no time has been set for floor debate.

The early foray into labor rights issues is a prelude to what could be the most controversial bill that Congress tackles in the first year of the Obama administration — legislation to take away the right of employers to demand secret-ballot elections by workers before unions could be recognized.

Both labor groups and the business groups who vehemently oppose it say the Employee Free Choice Act could tip the balance of power in labor efforts to organize workplaces.

Business groups say it is an affront to democratic principles. Unions say companies have used secret ballots to intimidate pro-union workers and that the bill could help reverse the downward trend in union membership…

Thus begins the endless stream of payoffs from the Democrats to those who worked so long and hard to steal the election for them.

"Equal pay is an issue of fundamental fairness," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "But as families grapple with difficult economic times, equal pay for equal work is often about daily survival for millions of families."

And no claim will be too preposterous.

Countless studies have shown that whatever pay disparities that still exist are due to other circumstances besides the gender of the worker. (Such as time in grade, etc.)

But what does the Democrat machine care about truth?

(Thanks to BillK for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, January 9th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Democrat Bills Pay Back Lawyers, Unions”

  1. BillK says:

    Just because we want to “drive’ the economy doesn’t mean that typical liberal agendas aren’t just as important.

    From the Los Angeles Times:

    Democrats focus on workplace bias

    New legislation seeks to undo a Supreme Court decision that threw out a discrimination lawsuit brought by a woman who was paid less than male employees for years.

    By Jim Oliphant

    The first bill that lands on Barack Obama’s desk after he becomes president could provide him with an opportunity to make an immediate mark on civil rights.

    Democrats in Congress are pushing legislation that would undo a controversial 2007 decision by the Supreme Court that tossed out a workplace discrimination suit brought by a female supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The woman, who alleged she was paid less than comparable male employees for years, won at trial, but the justices ruled she had sued too late.

    The House is expected to vote on the bill today, and the Senate will probably take up the measure next week.

    The plaintiff in the case, Lilly Ledbetter, worked at a Goodyear plant in Alabama for nearly 20 years and learned of the pay discrimination late in her career.

    In a 5-4 vote, the court held that she should have filed suit within six months of the company making a pay decision based on her gender — saying, in essence, that she should have sued before she discovered she was being discriminated against.

    The case inflamed workplace advocates and others, who said the outcome would exacerbate what they saw as a substantial pay gap between men and women. Her cause was adopted by Democratic candidates; Ledbetter spoke at the party’s national convention and was cited by Obama on national television.

    This ruling just doesn’t make sense in the real world,” Ledbetter said this week.

    If the legislation becomes law, it will probably affect more than the time limit for filing pay claims. Since the high court ruled in the Ledbetter case, federal judges have employed the stricter standard in a variety of lawsuits, including those alleging discrimination in housing and college athletics.

    “We now see pay claims being thrown out of court or not being filed at all,” said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center.

    The House passed a similar bill last session, but President Bush threatened a veto. The measure never made it out of the Senate.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said Thursday that she wanted the new Congress to take up the matter as quickly as possible. “It is of the highest priority to us,” she said.


    Yes, nothing is more important that giving employees the right to sue companies into insolvency over perceived pay inequities.

    That’s the Democratic party we know so well.

    (Let’s not forget the U.S. Government has blanket immunity against such lawsuits.)

  2. Colonel1961 says:

    More disincentive to hire anyone or to grow a company. Segues nicely from what LD said the other day: how are you going to get rich (i.e., founding a company and making it grow) when the Gubmint is daring you to even try without endless lawsuits?

    For the record: I have daughters, and if I thought pay bias was real, I’d be the first to raise holy hell…

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Colonel, this is just another one of their ploys at seperating the masses. White vs.Black, Middle Class vs. Poor vs. Rich, Men vs. Women, Cars vs motorcycles…..the list is endless as long as you create a victim. If we aren’t careful we will all be victims; if we aren’t already!

    • Colonel1961 says:

      I guess one day I’ll figure it out and achieve victim status, but I still have a shred of dignity left…


  3. GuppyNblue says:

    I wouldn’t hold it against any company today that decided to get the hell out and do their business in another country. Our government is quickly becoming nothing more than lowlife extortionist.

  4. bill says:

    Gee, couldn’t I make the case for fundamental fairness of House rules for Republicans during debate? Or is fundamental fairness only apply to Democrats and their issues? Weird how these socialist loons think about things.

    Fundamental fairness yeah right.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »