pubs voted down paycheck fairness

more women than men have lost their jobs under obummer,, and he just gave 800,000 of those jobs away to illegals.. go team

actual those people are no longer illegals.. so go rightwing stupidity

No dummy, they are still illegals, obama gave the temporary amnesty from deportation, go back and do your homework before spouting incoherent mush :)

.

so you are such a retard that you do not know what illegal and amnesty means
 
actual those people are no longer illegals.. so go rightwing stupidity

No dummy, they are still illegals, obama gave the temporary amnesty from deportation, go back and do your homework before spouting incoherent mush :)

.


As soon as Obama loses his job, their amnesty will disappear.

so according to you voting for Romney will increase the deficit, ruin 800,000 lives and lower gdp... sounds like you are an obama paid opperative
 
Paycheck Fairness Act Fails Senate Vote

The law was passed - what ? - fifty years ago but the pubs still won't vote for equal pay for women.

But, they will LIE when they say there is no War On Women.

What they voted against was a ridiculous bill that would make it open season on employers for layers.

Women with equal experience and credentials already make the same as men, if not more. This bill would require employers to prove they are innocent. Only a Nazi liberal asshole would believe that has anything to do with justice.

nope they dont

GAO Report: Why Women Still Make Less than Men
^Women earn 80 cents to every dollar that comparable men earn.


Inconsistent evaluations may affect promotion of women in law firms | ScienceBlog.com
^When judging written evaluations men and women at law firms were equally rated, but when the judges knew the sex they rated women lower
so you are a brainwashed tool
 
Last edited:
Paycheck Fairness Act Fails Senate Vote

The law was passed - what ? - fifty years ago but the pubs still won't vote for equal pay for women.

But, they will LIE when they say there is no War On Women.
That's not so.

The thinking is that there are already laws in place for equality.

Women have to earn their way just like men do, and passing a law to sidestep competence makes for a very bad law that will not pass muster before the Supreme Court.

To make a long story short, I hear there's a sale on crow and you'll be eating some if you keep passing laws the Supreme Court shows are unconstitutional.

Get a life, Mr. Luddly. :rolleyes:

Yep, oftentimes it's enforcement, not legislative:

Paycheck Fairness Act Fails Senate Vote

...Collins told reporters that "we already have on the books the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which I did support. I believe that they provide adequate protections. I think this bill would result in excessive litigation that would impose a real burden, particularly on small businesses. So I think existing laws are adequate."

"In other cases, it may be due to personal decisions that women make to leave the workforce to raise children for a number of years and then return to the workforce, for example," Collins continued. "I don't think you can assume discrimination."

...
 
It's almost astounding what apocrypha you libs will believe.

Women with the same job and resume get the same pay.It is the Liberal agenda to divide groups which push this nonsense.

And...anyone with a brain...that leaves you out...would see the flaw in your tale of woe:

If women got 76% of what men make for the same job....or whatever number you make up, ...then an employer would be nuts not to hire all women and save 24% of his overhead.


Get it?


Go on to your next 'the sky is falling' story....

:eusa_hand: Ok, I guess I will take the lead then.... B )

Well sadly they don't in many cases, where as right now there is a situation where I know of a woman who is doing a job at a corporate grocery store chain as a (book keeper), yet she is being under paid badly at this position in which she holds right now to this day, and she has been at this job for over ten years now altogether. She started as a part time cashier just helping out at night, while she did her full time job as book keeper for a large company prior to the failed economy back in 08 (held down both jobs). She then had to turn to this part time job, in order for it to then become her full time employer after being laid off from the old full time job in 08. Sadly what has also since been realized, is that this chain never hires a woman to be a manager of any of it's stores (only men). There is definitely discrimination present at this chain against women, but no one has reported it yet or even thinks that they could report it, in that it would even mean anything if they did. I really feel bad for situations like this, but it's out there people, and don't ever think that it isn't when it is. :eusa_silenced:

IF she's being discriminated against - and that's a big IF - and she's not taking advantage of the anti-discrimination laws already in place, what makes you think she'd take advantage of a new law if one was passed? Seems to me if she just lies down and accepts it, it becomes HER fault that she's being treated badly.
I agree...
 
Paycheck Fairness Act Fails Senate Vote

The law was passed - what ? - fifty years ago but the pubs still won't vote for equal pay for women.

But, they will LIE when they say there is no War On Women.
That's not so.

The thinking is that there are already laws in place for equality.

Women have to earn their way just like men do, and passing a law to sidestep competence makes for a very bad law that will not pass muster before the Supreme Court.

To make a long story short, I hear there's a sale on crow and you'll be eating some if you keep passing laws the Supreme Court shows are unconstitutional.

Get a life, Mr. Luddly. :rolleyes:

Yep, oftentimes it's enforcement, not legislative:

Paycheck Fairness Act Fails Senate Vote

...Collins told reporters that "we already have on the books the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which I did support. I believe that they provide adequate protections. I think this bill would result in excessive litigation that would impose a real burden, particularly on small businesses. So I think existing laws are adequate."

"In other cases, it may be due to personal decisions that women make to leave the workforce to raise children for a number of years and then return to the workforce, for example," Collins continued. "I don't think you can assume discrimination."

...

Indeed. This bill was political payback to the Trial Lawyer's Association.
 
Paycheck Fairness Act Fails Senate Vote

The law was passed - what ? - fifty years ago but the pubs still won't vote for equal pay for women.

But, they will LIE when they say there is no War On Women.

No big surprise.

It's a way to strangle the Lilly Ledbetter law.

How the heck can you even know you aren't getting equal pay if there's absolutely no way to discover what people in your pay grade are making?

the whole ledbetter affair was bullshit, 19 years? getdafugouttahere...... whats more important is, she could have sued under Equal Pay Act of 1963, instead of using Title VII, has no intent requirement. But you knew that :rolleyes:

there was never any proof presented that she was victim of sexual discrimination, but that she was a poor employee and conveniently her manager was dead....but, the dems and her lawyer discovered they could game a political advantage. Its dreck.
And this is just one more example of why the ABA sleeps with the dem. party.
 
:eusa_hand: Ok, I guess I will take the lead then.... B )

Well sadly they don't in many cases, where as right now there is a situation where I know of a woman who is doing a job at a corporate grocery store chain as a (book keeper), yet she is being under paid badly at this position in which she holds right now to this day, and she has been at this job for over ten years now altogether. She started as a part time cashier just helping out at night, while she did her full time job as book keeper for a large company prior to the failed economy back in 08 (held down both jobs). She then had to turn to this part time job, in order for it to then become her full time employer after being laid off from the old full time job in 08. Sadly what has also since been realized, is that this chain never hires a woman to be a manager of any of it's stores (only men). There is definitely discrimination present at this chain against women, but no one has reported it yet or even thinks that they could report it, in that it would even mean anything if they did. I really feel bad for situations like this, but it's out there people, and don't ever think that it isn't when it is. :eusa_silenced:

Well that, as you well know, is against the law. Passing another law won't help that woman if the company isn't obeying the current laws and no one is reporting it.
Hmmmm, so all one has to do is report this to the right people eh, and something could be done about it pronto is what yop are saying, and this would be in reagards to all women who are being abused in this respect, or is it that the current law is weak and doesn't go far enough on this issue ? Undoubtedly the current law is not effective enough (abuse still running rampant in the nation under such laws), or why would people be pushing for a stronger law that to suceed the current one ?

Hmmmm or is it that it just depends on which administration is elected in or who is in charge, that determins the extensiveness or application of enforcement of the laws, and which one will not enforce the laws when in power as they should be enforced always as law that to be enforced when abuse is known or present under such laws ? Now this is the million dollar question in my honest opinion to be answered next, and answered correctly when answered.

Who enforces law better when in office, the democrats or the republicans ?

The GOP by far enforces laws better.
 
Well that, as you well know, is against the law. Passing another law won't help that woman if the company isn't obeying the current laws and no one is reporting it.
Hmmmm, so all one has to do is report this to the right people eh, and something could be done about it pronto is what yop are saying, and this would be in reagards to all women who are being abused in this respect, or is it that the current law is weak and doesn't go far enough on this issue ? Undoubtedly the current law is not effective enough (abuse still running rampant in the nation under such laws), or why would people be pushing for a stronger law that to suceed the current one ?

Hmmmm or is it that it just depends on which administration is elected in or who is in charge, that determins the extensiveness or application of enforcement of the laws, and which one will not enforce the laws when in power as they should be enforced always as law that to be enforced when abuse is known or present under such laws ? Now this is the million dollar question in my honest opinion to be answered next, and answered correctly when answered.

Who enforces law better when in office, the democrats or the republicans ?

The GOP by far enforces laws better.
A history of this should be generated and published, in order to show the stark differences wouldn't you think ?

I bet a pattern would be notable if a history was to be published for all to review.
 
actual those people are no longer illegals.. so go rightwing stupidity

No dummy, they are still illegals, obama gave the temporary amnesty from deportation, go back and do your homework before spouting incoherent mush :)

.

so you are such a retard that you do not know what illegal and amnesty means

So a convicted felon that has served his time and completed his parole is no longer a convicted felon?


cool
 
It's almost astounding what apocrypha you libs will believe.

Women with the same job and resume get the same pay.

It is the Liberal agenda to divide groups which push this nonsense.

And...anyone with a brain...that leaves you out...would see the flaw in your tale of woe:

If women got 76% of what men make for the same job....or whatever number you make up, ...then an employer would be nuts not to hire all women and save 24% of his overhead.


Get it?


Go on to your next 'the sky is falling' story....

The flaw? Lol, really? Because a business that exclusivly employs underpaided white, American women would never be noticed by the news or society or anything.

Sure, maybe women are equal in the workplace in the higher income brackets, but the ones with low income....whole different story, and thats based on life expereience.
I mean I'm not a woman or anything, but I do know of a few bosses that are in need of a severe ass-kicking.





*Had to remove url from orginal quote.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top