Republican Calls Equal Pay For Women ‘A Nuisance’ That Should Be Repealed

[AmyNation]

Tell me, if this act was so great, why didnt it fix the problem?

Because a lot of them want the same pay coming in the door as people who are already there.

Proof? Link? Anything to back up your claim that "a lot" of women want pay equal to men who have been working for the company longer than them?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Tell me, if this act was so great, why didnt it fix the problem?

Because a lot of them want the same pay coming in the door as people who are already there.

Proof? Link? Anything to back up your claim that "a lot" of women want pay equal to men who have been working for the company longer than them?

Ahh bullshit.
You demand links then make your own baseless claims.
Such chutzpa.
Here are the facts....The bill does nothing to answer the issue of pay.
What it intends to do is create an arena for massive numbers of law suits.
This is a "lawyer law"..That's all. The bill in effect turns juris prudence on it's head.
Normally, the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff( Make your case)
This Bill proposes to place the burden of proof on the defendant.
"plaintiff: "My employer did this"
Defandant: "The employer did not do that".
Judge: "Defendant must prove the accusation is false."
No wonder why this bill was ground into saw dust.

 

[AmyNation]

Because a lot of them want the same pay coming in the door as people who are already there.

Proof? Link? Anything to back up your claim that "a lot" of women want pay equal to men who have been working for the company longer than them?

Ahh bullshit.
You demand links then make your own baseless claims.
Such chutzpa.
Here are the facts....The bill does nothing to answer the issue of pay.
What it intends to do is create an arena for massive numbers of law suits.
This is a "lawyer law"..That's all. The bill in effect turns juris prudence on it's head.
Normally, the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff( Make your case)
This Bill proposes to place the burden of proof on the defendant.
"plaintiff: "My employer did this"
Defandant: "The employer did not do that".
Judge: "Defendant must prove the accusation is false."
No wonder why this bill was ground into saw dust.

What baseless claim am I making? Im asking that Politico back up his claim with facts.

 

[Lakhota]

Romney still refuses to say if he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - like Obama did. Therefore, it seems logical that he would not have signed it.

 

[CausingPAIN]

Another pathetic piece of shit post from resident liar for the liberal cause... ho hum...

You know, you might try to debate honestly about something, but I'm guessing that concept totally escapes you.

Do you have any links proving I'm lying?

The bill in question merely reimposed conditions that already existed...it just extended the period during which a suit is viable.


If you had considered the facts, the argument that you attempted to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.

Obviously not the same and talking about pay. But the California laws that require an enhanced rigid enforcement of existing laws for child predators, so these new laws about enforcing existing laws should be repealed as to enhancing enforcement of current laws, I'll see if this can fly down at the monthly parent teachers get together.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Romney still refuses to say if he would have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - like Obama did. Therefore, it seems logical that he would not have signed it.

so?.....you have refused to answer some questions thrown at you in many of YOUR threads.....maybe you and Mitt are the same type of person....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Proof? Link? Anything to back up your claim that "a lot" of women want pay equal to men who have been working for the company longer than them?

Ahh bullshit.
You demand links then make your own baseless claims.
Such chutzpa.
Here are the facts....The bill does nothing to answer the issue of pay.
What it intends to do is create an arena for massive numbers of law suits.
This is a "lawyer law"..That's all. The bill in effect turns juris prudence on it's head.
Normally, the burden of proof falls upon the plaintiff( Make your case)
This Bill proposes to place the burden of proof on the defendant.
"plaintiff: "My employer did this"
Defandant: "The employer did not do that".
Judge: "Defendant must prove the accusation is false."
No wonder why this bill was ground into saw dust.

What baseless claim am I making? Im asking that Politico back up his claim with facts.

mis read your post....I object to the Bill. My objection is spelled out in my previous post.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I don't know if you have a job. From your post it's difficult to tell.

Most companies today that have a fairly large number of people working there standardize. There are pay grades depending on the job. There are educational and experience requirements. Even the number of vacation days depends on the number of years you worked there. Companies discourage workers discussing their pay. So it's no surprise that Lilly Ledbetter could work at a tire company for years and then discover upon retiring that she was paid much less than men who had exactly the same job as her.

And by the way, there are more than 3,000,000 jobs available that are unfilled because people don't have the skills. So companies import immigrants. Republicans, by cutting education and job training programs, are making sure Americans will never get those jobs.

And don't you guys dare pretend you don't know Republicans are cutting education and jobs training. It's one if the issues this election is about. And you thought it was just race.

Cutting education and job training? Please elaborate. Explain what those terms mean. Give specifics.
How does one "cut" education? How does one "cut" job training?...
On what planet are you? What possible incentive would anyone have to insure foreign workers get jobs instead of Americans? Where do you get this shit from?
Are you implying that Americans are less skilled than the run of the mill immigrant?
You are posting like a person who is angry and simply lashing out at whomever is within reach.Are you stating that without federal subsidies, NO ONE can get an education or train for a skill to perform a job?..
Now, please answer the questions above.

How do you cut education? Simple. Reduce funding to Pell grants and student loans.

Ahh bullshit. Cutting education would be defined as reducing the number of schools.
Just because there is less financial assistance does not mean a "cut"..It simply means those wishing to go to college will have to earn more to pay for it. Or they can simply opt for an in state school where tuition costs would be lower.
Or is higher education the newest entitlement?
Should colleges and universities also toss out their application process and end screening of candidates? To satisfy the constant whining by libs that life just isn't fair, should these schools be forced to accept ANY student?