Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, January 31, 2009

The first piece of real legislation Barack Obama signed as the 44th President of the United States helps ensure that workers discriminated on the basis of gender have a fair chance to sue their employers.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Corky

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

In related news, club President Ozark Mikey has new underground bunker installed for He-Man Woman Haters Club headquarters.

"Spanky: It is time to say the pledge. Everyone please rise.

(Stymie comes to the front of the room and begins the pledge)

Stymie: Everyone raise your right hand . . (rolls eyes and sighs) No, yourother right hand. . .

I, Stymie (all repeat)Member in good standing of theHe-man Woman Haters Club (all repeat)do solemnly swear to be a he-man and hate women and not play with them or talk to them unless I haveto. And especially: never fall in love. And if I do, may I die slowly and painfully and suffer for hours or until I scream bloody murder. (all try to repeat)

Spanky: Thank you Stymie. Now I have called this emergency meeting onbehalf of the upcoming go-cart race. But first, does anyone have any goodwomen-hating stories from this past week?

Froggy: I have one! Yesterday, the girl who lives next door to me asked if I could out and play!

(Everybody cringes)

Stymie: What did you do, Frogman?

Froggy: I showed her my lizard and she ran away screaming! (Shows lizard)"

74.125.47.132

Funny post Corky.

Hooray for Lilly Ledbetter!!!

Hooray for equality!!!

My Dad and brother owned a small retail business a few years ago. True conversation:

Brother: I don't want to hire a woman. I can't stand listening to them talk. Too much dumb shit.

Dad: Not a smart business move, son. They work harder, and you don't have to pay them as much.

Any guesses why this didn't get passed while the manchild was in office?

"Any guesses why this didn't get passed while the manchild was in office?"

Didn't Bush actually veto it??

Any guesses why this didn't get passed while the manchild was in office?
#4 | Posted by axe

Two reasons come to mind... first, the law extends the amount of time you have to file suit and second, that this gets in the way of the freedom to enter into contract with someone. Sounds like the Employer is forced to pay a woman more than she'd be willing to take the job for because someone else got hired at a higher salary.

Does this mean that everyone's salaries need to be public information? That would create an interesting shitstorm I think.

"Sounds like the Employer is forced to pay a woman more than she'd be willing to take the job for because someone else got hired at a higher salary."

If they both do the same job why shouldn't they get the same pay???
There can be other factors which effect pay but in a case where all factors are basicly equal why shouldn't they both get the same pay??
And if they pay "her" less why shouldn't she be allowed to say that is discrimination???

My smartass answer, Danni, is if you want to be sure you're being paid the same as a man, unionize.

Otherwise, unless we're going to make everyone's salries public info, what you're asking for is to hamstring an employers right to negotiate terms of employment.

Does this Act have control over how raises are worked out as well?

For Texas and for Miss Lilly!

Name the movie for 10 Kanrei points

The Westerner

Nope, it was not The Westerner.

Clue #1- Came out in 1972

What?!

OK, Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean

But the Westerner was a better movie!

You win 10 Kanrei points.

Never seen the Westerner to be honest, so maybe you are right. Better movie I will have to see to believe. Paul Newman is awesome in that and Bad Bob steals the show.

You may have been right before as well after looking up the Westerner and reading the plot, so you get 20 Kanrei Points. Congrats!

Any guesses why this didn't get passed while the manchild was in office? -- #4 | Posted by axe

Can't tell whether you're kidding or not; apologies if I missed the humor.

In 2007 the Supreme Court passed made a ruling the OPPOSITE way:

Ledbetter had worked for Goodyear for nearly 20 years, and a court majority, led by Alito, ruled that she couldn't sue for back pay because she didn't file charges within 180 days of her HIRE -- the time the pay discrimination started.

She had no idea there was a pay discrepancy, though, until someone sent her an anonymous letter -- when she was 60 years old, and after she had been working for them all those years. She filed within 180 days of receiving the letter, and within 180 days of receiving a discriminatory paycheck.

While Ledbetter filed her charge within 180 days of receiving discriminatory pay, the court ruled that, since Ledbetter did not raise a claim within 180 days of the employer's decision to pay her less, she could not receive any relief. Under this Supreme Court decision, employees in Ledbetter's position would be forced to live with discriminatory paychecks for the rest of their careers. The Ledbetter decision has already been cited in hundreds of discrimination cases.www.newspapertree.com

It's nice to see Obama actually keeping his word about something he promised to do.

To all the right-wingers: quit overreacting. This doesn't change the definition of what IS an unfair wage; it doesn't "hamstring" anyone's chance to negotiate anything. If you believe it does, you don't have an understanding of what comprises a discrminatory pay scale.

There's no "discrimination" in someone agreeing to a certain salary for a job. If several people occupy a position and receive variable pay rates for it, nobody can actually win a discrimination suit unless there's a HUGE, insane salary difference that's ONLY on a certain group of persons. Heck, the Santa Fe railyard in Chicago actually got slapped around because they were, for a brief period of time, playing white people less then black people.

The ONLY thing this does is closes a corporate loophole that allows them to weasel out of it and, effectively, made discriminatory pay differences LEGAL if they weren't noticed within the first 180 days of employment. Common fucking sense should tell you that it could easily take a year or more to notice this, and the loophole was just allowing right bastards to get away with being evil.

Golly gee, a SCOTUS decision that allows a corporation to weasel out of the an illegal act.

I am shocked!

I agree with Hag - it'll be fucking nuts when everyone knows what everyone else is getting paid.

oh, and men are better negotiators than women. I guess that won't matter anymore though.

I'll take the contrarian stance, as usual. If everyone knows what everyone else is getting paid, payrolls will go DOWN, not up. Management could more easily say, look, "Mr. Brown, your pay has to come in line with the guys on working the floor. They're not going to sit still for this big income imbalance."

And so on. The Law of Unintended Consequences. And if it's already occurred to me, sitting at home on a Saturday morning, eventually even the dumbasses running union shop auto plants will figure it out.

"Any guesses why this didn't get passed while the manchild was in office?" #4 | Posted by axe

"The Ledbetter Act may actually harm those it is intended to protect."

"In making employment decisions, businesses would consider the potential legal risks of hiring women, minorities, and others who might later bring lawsuits against them and, as a result, hire fewer of these individuals."

"Other employers might simply fire employees protected by Title VII--and especially those who are vocal about their rights under the law--to put a cap on their legal liabilities."

"The Ledbetter Act would hand a major victory to trial lawyers seeking big damage payoffs in stale suits that cannot be defended."

"Employers can be expected to change their hiring, firing, and wage practices to reduce the risk of lawsuits."

"The Ledbetter Act would allow cases asserting extremely tenuous links between alleged discrimination and differences in pay, which may result from any number of non-discriminatory factors, such as experience."

www.heritage.org

It appears the law should have been written better to avoid these possibilities. They don't think of the consequences of their actions.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2009-01-30 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny post Corky.

Hooray for Lilly Ledbetter!!!

Hooray for equality!!!

#2 | Posted by danni

Here's some news for our resident lesbo and most prolific fag:

I have a daughter and I have always supported EQUAL rights for women and people of color. Even the ill fated Amendment to the Constitution.

That's also why I protest any favoritism, or discrimination, and there's plenty to complain about the treatment that men suffer in our "liberated" society.

If that makes me a "woman hater" or a misogynist it is more a reflection of the accuser's bias than my position on interpersonal relations. As for the legislation, I think placing a statute of limitations of six months is probably too short given the difficulty of discovering wage inequity, and I think that the problem is more in the past than it is prevalent today.

On the whole, women and minorities enjoy advantages in today's employment market. There is much pay disparity in this country and plenty of other places.

Can a man claim bias if paid less than a co-worker?

As bad as the Ledbetter Supreme Court Decision was, the larger political reality is that there is a raging war against men in the Western World. This trend is an extension of Women organizing politically to gain property and voting rights. Much of the pay imbalance between the sexes in the marketplace is a consequence of men taking riskier, more difficult jobs. The marketplace is full of injustices and if you don't like your circumstances you should leave when you can better yourself. Roberts on the other and twisted logic to get around the law as it was written.

"oh, and men are better negotiators than women. I guess that won't matter anymore though."

And wetbacks work cheaper, but if you really want to race to the lowest rung, sweatshop workers are almost free.

"Much of the pay imbalance between the sexes in the marketplace is a consequence of men taking riskier, more difficult jobs."

Yet shouldn't women be paid the same amount for doing the same job? Is a female cop or firefighter worth less than a male comparitor, which is what this is about?

There was a recent article in Business Weekly which said that women in executive positions are paid more than their male contemporaries.

In my own business, the girls outnumber the boys nearly 2 to 1 in the management positions.

I believe that we are seeing the tale end of the disparity between the sexes in business.

Hahaha, comparing US workers to 'wetbacks' and 'sweatshop workers'. How dumb is that?

Men are better negotiators. That is the cause of the pay imbalance for the same job. But why take my word for it, check out this link from this woman hating monster, a dude named Suze Orman:

....No doubt those are all important ingredients in the wage-gap recipe, but I think there's another very important ingredient that no one really wants to talk about: Women aren't as good as men when it comes to standing up for what they're worth.
Suze Orman on wage gap

Gosh, there is an unproven premise that the distribution of skills for performance of a job is equal among all "sectors" of the population. So, "proof" of discrimination is unequal distribution of reward. Got it. What farcical crap.

I suppose that males should be employed as waiters at Hooter's and be guaranteed the same amount in tips since as we all know, heterosexual males do not respond to an arousal factor in compensating the, er, waitperson Not tipping equally is discriminatory, and the employer needs to take action to guarantee equality of compensation.

dude

you said hooters

The fairest equality of all would be.... Eliminate the Race and Gender Question from ALL applications and college, school, work applications and force the employer to base their hiring practices on achievements and ability and aptitude, track record, etc..

politifact.com

apparently by keeping one promise, he has broken another.

To all the right-wingers: quit overreacting. This doesn't change the definition of what IS an unfair wage; it doesn't "hamstring" anyone's chance to negotiate anything. If you believe it does, you don't have an understanding of what comprises a discrminatory pay scale.#16 | Posted by soheifox at 2009-01-30 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I am trying to figure out what is discriminatory about a person agreeing to do a job for an agreed upon salary and then being mad becuase they find out later they could have asked for more.

You agreed to work for that salary...then that is what you get paid. Don't like it? ask for a raise.

I guess there is something I am missing? Please enlighten me.

-wage inequity, and I think that the problem is more in the past than it is prevalent today.

That's one of your main problems, denying current reality.

You are not to discuss the wages you earn,that is cause for termination right there.you negotiate your deal when hired and get your three percent raise in the few good years and eat it in the rest.
We can't all be rich.

Its good to be self employed

That's one of your main problems, denying current reality.

#31 | Posted by Corky at 2009-01-31 11:34 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

What current reality? You get paid what you negotiate and ask for when hired. That has nothing to do with dsicrimination and everything to do with not understanding what the job is worth to an employer or your value as an employee.

So if you ask for a salary and find out later you could have asked for more, how is that the companies fault?

Obama better sign some FEMA stuff and get them rolling on the Ice Storm Victims. 1,000,000 people without power in the winter...

apnews.myway.com

The leftists here would be screaming bloody murder if Bush was pres... Where is FEMA?

Local officials grew angrier at what they said was a lack of help from the state and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Oh the hypocracy......

Dozens of deaths have been reported and many people are pleading for a faster response to the power outages. About 536,000 homes and businesses across Kentucky were without power,

Our government at work?

Smith said FEMA was still a no-show days after the storm.


FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak said some agency workers had begun working Friday in Kentucky and more help was on the way. Hudak said FEMA also has shipped 50 to 100 generators to the state to supply electricity to such facilities as hospitals, nursing homes and water treatment plants.

50 to 100 Generators?????

We have plenty of folks ready to go, but there are some limitations with roads closed and icy conditions," she noted.

What about all the Helicoptors they have... Can't use them?

I guess Oboma will get a pass on this one... Brown would have been all over this one... I'M Sure...

I complete agree with Obama's signature on this legislation. It's way past time, and this is about all Americans having the right to secure justice.

So if you ask for a salary...

Actually pay parity depends on factors that are not inherently sexist.

books.google.com

Career choices have a greater effect, and the greatest disparity involves a woman's choice to have children or not.

The point made in the book excerpt is that women choose to become librarians and teachers because it is easier to re-enter the workforce after having children.

An interesting reference is that while males at the time of the study comprised 54% of the workforce but comprised 92% of employment related deaths.

Despite the movement into nontraditional occupations, men and women still showed differences in the types of jobs they held in 2000.
For example, 36.7 percent of women but only 17.9 percent of men worked in sales and office occupations. The proportions of men and women were also substantially different in construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations where 17.1 percent of men and only 0.7 percent of women were employed; production, transportation, and material moving occupations where 20.5 percent of men and 8.0 percent of women worked; and service occupations where 12.1 percent of men were employed compared with 18.0 percent of women. www.census.gov

Realistically the only way to eliminate the difference in pay for men and women is socialism. Librarians are paid the same amount as iron workers. A retail sales clerk gets the same wage as a mechanic. A waitress is compensated at the same rate as a physician.

The Dems believe in social engineering. Usually they create more problems than they solve, and in the process they expand or create a bureaucracy.

Expect more of the same.

Exactly Ozark.

My wife has decided to continue working after having children becuase she loves to work and likes havng something of her own outside the home.... Just like me.

However, if she did decide to leave the workforce and go back after several years, she would not be so full of herself to think she deserved the same pay as someone who had more experience. It is a ridiculous idea.

All actions have consequences. You have to accept them. Planning properly and getting an advanced education has the consequence of better jobs availabel and more income. Choosing to take 8 or 10 years off to raise children has the consequence of not having as much experience as you would have if you stayed employed for those 8-10 years. Not to mention the lack of current knowledge and understanding of the job.

-Realistically the only way to eliminate the difference in pay for men and women is socialism

Red fearmongering, eh? It fits you.

How about just requiring equal pay for equal work without discriminating by sex?

Or does it hurt your ego so much to admit that a woman should be paid the same as a man for the same job?

come on corky quit obfuscating the issue.

The issue is: You get paid what you ask for. If you didn't ask for enough, why is that the fault of the company.

If the company offers you less because you have an 8 year gap in your work history becuase you took time off from working to be a stay at home mom...again...how is that the companies fault.

I have never seen any stastics to show that women that have the exact same work experience and education as men get paid less for the same job.

Nice try.

-I have never seen any stastics to show that women that have the exact same work experience and education as men get paid less for the same job

Then they have free eye exams at WallMart fer ya. And those well-known stats are in Braille, too, if ya need 'em.

Or does it hurt your ego so much to admit that a woman should be paid the same as a man for the same job?

#42 | Posted by Corky

I've known women who work in fields typically male, like a telephone line worker. Some can handle it, but most wouldn't even want to climb a pole and string line. I use this woman as an example because after 16 years of doing that job she put in for a disability discharge and retraining. Too many stress injuries according to her. But maybe growing up on a ranch in Wyoming didn't condition her for real life and hard work.

I had a girlfriend who worked in a foundry. She had muscles like a weight lifter because she spent most of day lifting things that were heavy. It was cool when she was in her twenties but by the time she hit 40 she was looking for anything else, even if it paid less.

Both of these women received the same wage as the men they worked with.

I also know women who hunt deer. But they don't carry a 30-06 because can't handle the weight and recoil comfortably.

It's called leverage, upper body strength, muscle mass.

Employers do take advantage of their employees, and they don't always reward their people fairly or equally. But that isn't always based in racism or sexism.

What is utterly disingenuous is to compare the aggregate income for men and women because of the differences in employment, experience, and skill.

This fallacy gains voice from actresses who complain when they only receive $10 million for a flick when the male lead gets $25 million. Or from various womens' magazines that promote this issue as one of their crusades when they know the facts don't support it. But it does sell to the naive of both sexes.

Of course Corky - being a pre-op feminist - and a salesperson - thinks he's being chivalrous by carrying the party line. My disgust for both Clintons makes me a misogynist but not a misandrist, despite the fact that I hate everyone. LOL

Then they have free eye exams at WallMart fer ya. And those well-known stats are in Braille, too, if ya need 'em.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2009-02-01 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

your lame attempt at berating me without any statistics to refute it is duly noted.

Your failure to come with a justification of how anyone (including a woman) failing to ask for more money is discrimination is also duly noted.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable