Walker quietly repeals equal pay law

[Peach]

Huh. So this is what it feels like to be an Obamacare supporter. Meh.

I'll take a merit based system like the free market offers over any other kind (gender/race/crony) any day of the week. And I say that working in an industry (bartending) where women typically make more than men. (plus I do all the heavy lifting, lol)

Because of tips or base pay?

Tips for sure. Males drink more and pick up more checks. Being the pigs we are they tip more for boobs and prettiness. I have to face the facts, my boobs are too flat and hairy.

Serve women then. I tip well, I hope other women do also. My tips are equal for both genders.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The gender pay gap is a myth of the past.

Young, single, childless women out-earn male counterparts - USATODAY.com

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Because of tips or base pay?

Tips for sure. Males drink more and pick up more checks. Being the pigs we are they tip more for boobs and prettiness. I have to face the facts, my boobs are too flat and hairy.

Serve women then. I tip well, I hope other women do also. My tips are equal for both genders.

Apparently you have never waited tables or tended bar before. You don't get to choose who walks through the door.

 

[Dragon]

This is how you know you're wrong, you can't even state your opponents views correctly. Our position is that wages are for the market.

That's your justification for not wanting laws requiring equal pay for equal work. To most people. who don't share your ideology, not wanting laws requiring equal pay for equal work is the MAIN thing -- everything else is just window dressing.

Your position is wildly radical, wildly unpopular, absolutely out there and weird. And you don't seem to have any idea that that's the case. And that's even weirder.

 

[Ragnar]

Because of tips or base pay?

Tips for sure. Males drink more and pick up more checks. Being the pigs we are they tip more for boobs and prettiness. I have to face the facts, my boobs are too flat and hairy.

Serve women then. I tip well, I hope other women do also. My tips are equal for both genders.

Meh, not complaining, just a handy example from my small corner of the world. I do OK and I'll do better as a manager and one day owner of my own place.

But the principle is the same. It makes no more sense for the government to micro-manage my workplace than any other. There are discrimination laws here and in Wisconsin to address real issues. Walker is just trimming some unneeded fat IMHO.

 

[J.E.D]

Your business is your property. You have the the right to pay employees whatever you like. If the employee doesn't like it, they are free to get another job. We are not communists.

No, you don't. There's such a thing as minimum wage. I don't even want to know how you feel about women in the state of WI earning 75 cents for every dollar earned by men.

In addition, the state law was redundant as any claims of illegal discrimination can be presented in federal courts. Wisconsin, as with most states, has no extra cash lying around to support unnecessary laws and the bureaucracy required to enforce them. Repealing such laws makes economic sense and harms no one.

I'm not a Republican but I have to support Walker on this one.

The law gave people the right to sue in less expensive state courts. Now their only recourse is to file suit in much more costly federal courts. How would allowing people to file suit in state courts cost the state of WI extra money?

 

[eflatminor]

Your business is your property. You have the the right to pay employees whatever you like. If the employee doesn't like it, they are free to get another job. We are not communists.

No, you don't. There's such a thing as minimum wage. I don't even want to know how you feel about women in the state of WI earning 75 cents for every dollar earned by men

Minimum wage is a completely different topic. For what it's worth, minimum wage laws are about the worst rule I could imagine if you have any sympathy whatsoever for uneducated workers, the elderly looking for part time employment and our youngest, inexperienced citizens looking to get a start. But hey, fuck them, right? They should be on the dole anyway.

Back to this equal pay bullshit. Show me two workers that perform EXACTLY the same in their job, produce EXACTLY the same results, whose reliability is EXACTLY the same and who produce a return for the business that is EXACTLY equal...and I'll listen to your argument for requiring exactly the same pay. Until then, it's up to the business to determine which employees are most valuable to the business and who therefore should get the higher raise.

We're all born equal under the law. After that, it's up to you to perform or not.

Lastly, I'll state again, if women in Wisconsin are willing to work at 75% the wage of men and they produce EXACTLY the same results due to their efforts, why has any business in Wisconsin hired a man? Can someone please answer that question?

 

[eflatminor]

How would allowing people to file suit in state courts cost the state of WI extra money?

You think providing a court system doesn't cost taxpayer money?

Wow.

 

[Dragon]

For what it's worth, minimum wage laws are about the worst rule I could imagine

Jeez, there you go again! It's all right to hold radical positions, but really, you ought to be aware of just how radical, how outside the mainstream, you are. And I get the distinct impression that you do not.

 

[buckeye45_73]

HAHA the OP is using the Huff Post as a source, wow, now I know why objective Fox News looks so right wing to these people. Funny how theese people claim that people need more access to the courts, but dont like loser pays. Since if you are TRUELY wronged and have a good case a good lawyer should take it up, because he knows the oppresor will have to pay him. But that would limit settlements and make lawyers work to prove a case once in a while.

 

[eflatminor]

For what it's worth, minimum wage laws are about the worst rule I could imagine

Jeez, there you go again! It's all right to hold radical positions, but really, you ought to be aware of just how radical, how outside the mainstream, you are. And I get the distinct impression that you do not.

Oh for Christsake would you stop with the group think please? Throughout history we see the majority supporting slavery and later segregation. Did that make such policies acceptable? The majority today support rules for same sex marriage, yet I suspect you'd argue the reverse. 70% of Americans support the idea of keeping Guantanamo open. Will you attempt to silence the lefties that want it closed?

We are a Republic, not a democracy. Just because the majority likes an idea doesn't make it legal or right...as we know from the two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Perhaps you can tell us why keeping our most vulnerable citizens from obtaining employment is a good thing...using logic and reason please!

 

[squinch]

Thank you, Scott Walker.
Obama 2012

 

[Amelia]

Walker did not repeal any equal pay act.

In spite of all the people giving Obama credit for signing a law requiring equal pay for women, that's not what Obama did.

And Walker didn't repeal any law requiring equal pay for women.



If you want to praise Obama for what he did sign, fine. But please be honest about what he did.

And if you want to bash Walker for what he did sign, again fine. But again please be honest about what he did.

 

[Conservative]

Scott Walker Quietly Repeals Wisconsin Equal Pay Law

Contrasts this with President Obama signing the Lilly Ledbetter law.

Apparently, Walker is trying to hurt as many people as he can before he is recalled. Has Mittens considered Scott Walker for his running mate? They'd make such a great pair.

interesting, but not surprising, how the OP lied. SB 202 does not repeal the entire law. It repeals a portion, and amends others. Here's the text link...
http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/related/proposals/sb202.pdf

Feel free to look up the following...

111.39 (5) (d), 111.397 and 893.995; and to amend 111.39 (4) (d) and 814.04 (intro.) of the statutes; relating to: elimination of compensatory and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing.

It's not nearly as horrid as the OP and the left would have you believe. Fair pay is not eliminated.


repealed sections...
111.39 (5) (d):

If the commission affirms a finding that the respondent has engaged in discrimination, unfair honesty testing, or unfair genetic testing as alleged in the complaint, the commission shall serve a certified copy of the commission's decision on the complainant, together with a notice advising the complainant that after the completion of all administrative proceedings under this section he or she may bring an action as provided in s. 111.397 (1) (a) to recover compensatory and punitive damages as provided in s. 111.397 (2) (a) and advising the complainant of the time under s. 111.397 (1) (b) within which the action must be commenced or be barred.

Doesn't prevent the person from bringing action... just eliminates the need to notify them they can bring action.


111.397:

111.397  Civil action.
(1) 
(a) Except as provided in this paragraph, after the completion of all administrative proceedings under s. 111.39 concerning a violation of s. 111.321, 111.37, or 111.372, the department or a person discriminated against or subjected to unfair honesty testing or unfair genetic testing may bring an action in circuit court against any employer, labor organization, or employment agency that engaged in that discrimination, unfair honesty testing, or unfair genetic testing to recover compensatory and punitive damages caused by the violation, plus reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred in the action. Those damages are in addition to any back pay or other amounts awarded under s. 111.39. The department or a person discriminated against or subjected to unfair honesty testing or unfair genetic testing may not bring an action under this paragraph against any local governmental unit, as defined in s. 19.42 (7u), or against any employer, labor organization, or employment agency employing fewer than 15 individuals for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year.
(b) An action under par. (a) shall be commenced within 60 days after the date on which a copy of the final decision under s. 111.39 (4) (d) is mailed to the last-known address of the complainant or, if that decision is reviewed by the commission, within 60 days after the date on which a copy of the final decision under s. 111.39 (5) (d) is mailed to the last-known address of the complainant, or be barred.
(c) If a petition for judicial review of the findings and order of the commission concerning the same violation as the violation giving rise to the action under par. (a) is filed, the court shall consolidate the proceeding for judicial review and the action under par. (a).
(2) 
(a) Subject to pars. (c) and (d), in an action under sub. (1) (a), the circuit court shall order the defendant to pay to the person discriminated against or subjected to unfair honesty testing or unfair genetic testing compensatory damages, and punitive damages under s. 895.043, in an amount that the circuit court or jury finds appropriate, plus reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred in the action. Those damages are in addition to any back pay or other amounts awarded under s. 111.39. The sum of the amount of compensatory damages for future economic losses and for pain and suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other noneconomic losses and the amount of punitive damages that a circuit court may order may not exceed the following:
1. In the case of a defendant that employs 100 or fewer employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year, $50,000.
2. In the case of a defendant that employs more than 100 but fewer than 201 employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year, $100,000.
3. In the case of a defendant that employs more than 200 but fewer than 501 employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year, $200,000.
4. In the case of a defendant that employs more than 500 employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year, $300,000.
(c) If the circuit court orders any payment under par. (a) because of a violation of s. 111.321, 111.37, or 111.372 by an individual employed by an employer, the employer of that individual is liable for the payment.
(d)
1. In this paragraph, "consumer price index" means the average of the consumer price index for all urban consumers, U.S. city average, as determined by the bureau of labor statistics of the U.S. department of labor.
2. Except as provided in this subdivision, beginning on July 1, 2010, and on each July 1 after that, the department shall adjust the amounts specified in par. (a) 1., 2., 3., and 4. by calculating the percentage difference between the consumer price index for the 12-month period ending on December 31 of the preceding year and the consumer price index for the 12-month period ending on December 31 of the year before the preceding year and adjusting those amounts by that percentage difference. The department shall publish the adjusted amounts calculated under this subdivision in the Wisconsin Administrative Register, and the adjusted amounts shall apply to actions commenced under sub. (1) (a) beginning on July 1 of the year of publication. This subdivision does not apply if the consumer price index for the 12-month period ending on December 31 of the preceding year did not increase over the consumer price index for the 12-month period ending on December 31 of the year before the preceding year.

Check out the bolded part... it prevented the ANY actions against any employer of less than 15 people. Gone.

893.995:

893.995  Employment discrimination; civil remedies. Any civil action arising under s. 111.397 is subject to the limitations of s. 111.397 (1) (b).

They removed the limitations in 111.397 (1) (b), which makes sense, as that section (111.397) was removed entirely.


The left is making a mountain out of a molehill... as usual.

 

[Conservative]

Walker did not repeal any equal pay act.

In spite of all the people giving Obama credit for signing a law requiring equal pay for women, that's not what Obama did.

And Walker didn't repeal any law requiring equal pay for women.



If you want to praise Obama for what he did sign, fine. But please be honest about what he did.

And if you want to bash Walker for what he did sign, again fine. But again please be honest about what he did.

look at the OP.... and then look at the two words in BOLD above. Then think for a moment

 

[buckeye45_73]

For what it's worth, minimum wage laws are about the worst rule I could imagine

Jeez, there you go again! It's all right to hold radical positions, but really, you ought to be aware of just how radical, how outside the mainstream, you are. And I get the distinct impression that you do not.

Wow you like the minimum wage? I love the well intended consequences of the law, but the law is complete crap. All the minimum wage law does is increase inflation and hurt the working poor that are making a little above the min wage. T

he people making a say $10 an hour when the minimum wage is $8 and hour, what happens to those when the minimum wage goes to $10 an hour. do those people get a percentage increase or even a flat $2/hour increase, nope they are now minimum wage...wooohooooo!!!!!
And that's just one aspect of it, let alone making our products more expensive and harder to see in the global market place (hence outsourcing!!!! liberals hate it, but the make the conditions for it by artificial government solutions)

 

[Conservative]

For what it's worth, minimum wage laws are about the worst rule I could imagine

Jeez, there you go again! It's all right to hold radical positions, but really, you ought to be aware of just how radical, how outside the mainstream, you are. And I get the distinct impression that you do not.

Wow you like the minimum wage? I love the well intended consequences of the law, but the law is complete crap. All the minimum wage law does is increase inflation and hurt the working poor that are making a little above the min wage. T

he people making a say $10 an hour when the minimum wage is $8 and hour, what happens to those when the minimum wage goes to $10 an hour. do those people get a percentage increase or even a flat $2/hour increase, nope they are now minimum wage...wooohooooo!!!!!
And that's just one aspect of it, let alone making our products more expensive and harder to see in the global market place (hence outsourcing!!!! liberals hate it, but the make the conditions for it by artificial government solutions)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/nyregion/fearing-a-minimum-wage-increase-will-be-bad-for-business.html?pagewanted=all
good read on minimum wage increases, and the probable results.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Jeez, there you go again! It's all right to hold radical positions, but really, you ought to be aware of just how radical, how outside the mainstream, you are. And I get the distinct impression that you do not.

Wow you like the minimum wage? I love the well intended consequences of the law, but the law is complete crap. All the minimum wage law does is increase inflation and hurt the working poor that are making a little above the min wage. T

he people making a say $10 an hour when the minimum wage is $8 and hour, what happens to those when the minimum wage goes to $10 an hour. do those people get a percentage increase or even a flat $2/hour increase, nope they are now minimum wage...wooohooooo!!!!!
And that's just one aspect of it, let alone making our products more expensive and harder to see in the global market place (hence outsourcing!!!! liberals hate it, but the make the conditions for it by artificial government solutions)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/nyregion/fearing-a-minimum-wage-increase-will-be-bad-for-business.html?pagewanted=all
good read on minimum wage increases, and the probable results.

yeah the min wage is good for commies, bad for the people it's supposed to help.

If it's great lets make the min wage $100 an hour. Will liberals tell me why we shouldn't?

it wouldnt be due to inflation, would it? or that everyone making under $100 an hour would now be a min wage earner and hey think about those trade deals we could do. We could trade a Ford Focus for a Porche 911, isnt that an awesome deal???

 

[editec]

Look to me like Walker's days are numbered.

Then much of what he rammed though legislature is likely to be undone.

 

[California Girl]

Look to me like Walker's days are numbered.

Then much of what he rammed though legislature is likely to be undone.

Well, if Americans are as dumb as the OP, that's likely. Did you even bother to investigate if what he claims is true? No, of course not. Clue: it's not true.