Republicans block equal pay measure

[Ravi]

Nice alliteration.

I understand what you are saying about this case in particular but I'm not sure I agree with the notion that companies should be required to pay certain salaries as long as they are at least meeting minimum wage laws.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, I get it. Shogie's all pissed off that he can't control women's bodies so we're not supposed to get equal pay.

What were you saying about rationalizing?

Yep. He's pretty transparent, really.

 

[jillian]

Although that decision screwed the female plaintiffs in the particular case, the principles adopted will screw all workers, male and female, if applied to other areas of worker rights and discrimination law.

It wasn't a matter of men v. women, as the misguided myopic misogynistic morons above seem to think, it's a matter of business v. worker, and any worker's boss being able to deliberately break federal law, and getting away with it forever if they can hide their misconduct for six short months.

It's not penis envy, boys. It puts your pecker on the chopping block as well.

Thank you. For some reason Shogie thinks it's ok for employers to break the law when it comes to women.

My bigger problem with the decision is that the Court agreed with them. Now THAT was sickening.

 

[Shogun]

getting away with nothing.


when you accepted employment for whatever you do now you made a contract with your employer REGARDLESS of their other employees. Businesses are not more required to pay their employees along an even scale than employees are forced to work for a company they feel is, uh, SHAFTING them. Padding her retirement with more blue haired gambling money may sound like empathy all day long but it's no more than gender based extortion.


and, given how skilled markets have been watered down with the addition of a female workforce while MEN are the excuse that women use to avoid standard qualification on their own MERIT, it is between the sexes.


Not that this crowd of 'giners has a problem with unequal treatment between the sexes as long as they are the ones telling a man "tough shit".

 

[jillian]

Yep. He's pretty transparent, really.

I was thinking he's more retarded....

 

[Shogun]

Thank you. For some reason Shogie thinks it's ok for employers to break the law when it comes to women.

My bigger problem with the decision is that the Court agreed with them. Now THAT was sickening.

BREAK the law? kinda dramatic, dont you think? Show me the law that states companies MUST pay every employee according to the same rate of their gender counterpart.

and, since the COURT sided with me in the first fucking place...

 

[Ravi]

I was thinking he's more retarded....

Well, skilled job markets have been watered down with the addition of women, according to him.

So, I have to agree with your statement.

 

[Shogun]

Oh, I get it. Shogie's all pissed off that he can't control women's bodies so we're not supposed to get equal pay.

What were you saying about rationalizing?

pissed off? Not at all. Im not the one crying giant croc tears over the ironic LAUGHABLE topic of gender inequality!


Control, indeed. Tell it to your oven, Jillian. If you can stomach inequality then so can men.

 

[jillian]

getting away with nothing.


when you accepted employment for whatever you do now you made a contract with your employer REGARDLESS of their other employees. Businesses are not more required to pay their employees along an even scale than employees are forced to work for a company they feel is, uh, SHAFTING them. Padding her retirement with more blue haired gambling money may sound like empathy all day long but it's no more than gender based extortion.


and, given how skilled markets have been watered down with the addition of a female workforce while MEN are the excuse that women use to avoid standard qualification on their own MERIT, it is between the sexes.


Not that this crowd of 'giners has a problem with unequal treatment between the sexes as long as they are the ones telling a man "tough shit".

Speak when you know what the law says. OK?

You can pay people what you want, so long as the disparity isn't based on something illegal like race or gender or age.

Try again....and do try to get it right next time. Because right now, you sound like a child stamping his feet.

 

[Shogun]

Yep. He's pretty transparent, really.

or, he's CLEARLY feeding you suckers a bit of your own medicine. How's it taste?

 

[manifold]

Just to back it up some ... that isn't what happened. And who's crying? Is conversation crying? Or do you just think your debate skills are so stellar that they'll reduce me to tears? Yah...that's the ticket...

In the case that the bill would have remedied, the Court stupidly found that a woman couldn't sue for pay disparity that she learned about after many years on the job... and that she could only sue for pay disparity for 180 days prior to the filing of her claim and onward. This was a perversion of the law as it existed prior to Bush's court. This bill tried to remedy the abberation.

But in any event, your rant has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws which still exist in this country. So either address the actual issue or not, but you sound silly and uninformed.

This one has two distinct and separate issues as far as I can see. The first has to do with legislation limiting what one is allowed to sue over. I'm 100% opposed. In a free society, you should be allowed to bring suit against anyone for any reason. Tort reform is anti-freedom (Again, gotta accept the bad with the good if you value freedom). It's up to the justice system to not reward frivolous lawsuits, and even allow counter-suits for expenses. The second issue is discrimination. I'm also 100% opposed to anti-discrimination legislation. Freedom works both ways. So while I think this woman should have been allowed to sue, if I was on the jury, she wouldn't get a dime.

 

[Ravi]

or, he's CLEARLY feeding you suckers a bit of your own medicine. How's it taste?

Hey, if you want to go around looking like a bitter idiot that clings to his misogyny it doesn't bother me in the least.

What scares Shogun? So far we've discovered it is women and Mexicans. I'm sure we'll turn up a few more frights.

 

[jillian]

This one has two distinct and separate issues as far as I can see. The first has to do with legislation limiting what one is allowed to sue over. I'm 100% opposed. In a free society, you should be allowed to bring suit against anyone for any reason. Tort reform is anti-freedom (Again, gotta accept the bad with the good if you value freedom). It's up to the justice system to not reward frivolous lawsuits, and even allow counter-suits for expenses. The second issue is discrimination. I'm also 100% opposed to anti-discrimination legislation. Freedom works both ways. So while I think this woman should have been allowed to sue, if I was on the jury, she wouldn't get a dime.

No. That's not correct. What happened was that the law as it exists now provides that one can sue for discriminatory pay practices within 180 days. The Plaintiff in the Supreme Court case (Ledbetter) sued within 180 days of learning of the pay disparity between her and her male co-workers, including males who were hired long after she was. Her job performance was stellar. There were no issues about that.

When they got the case, the justices determined that because the discrimination had gone on for years, she couldn't sue for disciminatory practices that had gone on throughout her employment because they started more than 180 days before the suit was commenced. So, what this perversion of a Supreme Court actually said was that if an employer can hide that it's breaking Federal law for more than the six months, they get a freebie.

That is neither how the law was previously construed, nor how it was intended to be applied.

So, no, it had nothing to do with limiting the right to sue. Congress was just trying to fix the pathetic decision made by Bush's Court.

And good to know you think it's ok for employers to break the law. Don't worry, though, you wouldn't make it onto my jury.

 

[Shogun]

Speak when you know what the law says. OK?

You can pay people what you want, so long as the disparity isn't based on something illegal like race or gender or age.

Try again....and do try to get it right next time. Because right now, you sound like a child stamping his feet.

oh I know what the law it. I work in HR for a living, remember? And proving that alleged discrimination was based on gender instead of skill, REGARDLESS of what other men were making around her, is one reason why the COURT, and subsequently CONGRESS, failed to support your eternal vaginal vigilance.


indeed, tell me all about what a child stomping their foot looks like, Jillian.

 

[manifold]

No. That's not correct. What happened was that the law as it exists now provides that one can sue for discriminatory pay practices within 180 days. The Plaintiff in the Supreme Court case (Ledbetter) sued within 180 days of learning of the pay disparity between her and her male co-workers, including males who were hired long after she was. Her job performance was stellar. There were no issues about that.

When they got the case, the justices determined that because the discrimination had gone on for years, she couldn't sue for disciminatory practices that had gone on throughout her employment because they started more than 180 days before the suit was commenced. So, what this perversion of a Supreme Court actually said was that if an employer can hide that it's breaking Federal law for more than the six months, they get a freebie.

That is neither how the law was previously construed, nor how it was intended to be applied.

So, no, it had nothing to do with limiting the right to sue. Congress was just trying to fix the pathetic decision made by Bush's Court.

And good to know you think it's ok for employers to break the law. Don't worry, though, you wouldn't make it onto my jury.

With all due respect, I didn't bother reading beyond "No. That's not correct."

Was it really not obvious that I was offering an opinion?

 

[jillian]

oh I know what the law it. I work in HR for a living, remember? And proving that alleged discrimination was based on gender instead of skill, REGARDLESS of what other men were making around her, is one reason why the COURT, and subsequently CONGRESS, failed to support your eternal vaginal vigilance.


indeed, tell me all about what a child stomping their foot looks like, Jillian.

If you know the law, stop saying stupid things just for effect.

Good to know someone in HR doesn't believe in enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Be sure to tell me where you work so I can let the EEOC know what's going on.

 

[manifold]

I work in HR for a living, remember?

No kidding? Do you sit down to go pee too?

 

[jillian]

With all due respect, I didn't bother reading beyond "No. That's not correct."

Was it really not obvious that I was offering an opinion?

No.

But don't bother reading further.

 

[Shogun]

Hey, if you want to go around looking like a bitter idiot that clings to his misogyny it doesn't bother me in the least.

What scares Shogun? So far we've discovered it is women and Mexicans. I'm sure we'll turn up a few more frights.

Apparently, equality scares you, Ravi.. if we were able to maintain as much without your one sided vaginal rationalizations then there would be no reason for either side to yearn for an even scale. BUT, since you can justify gender bias welcome to a world where men can too. You call it misogyny as if the word forgives your own sexism. It doesn't even if you are clutching to your version of the race card for dear life.


Now, if you wanna open this up for rampant shit talking feel free to continue along the track you've CHOSEN. Im sure you can blame some testicles somehow.

 

[Shogun]

No. That's not correct. What happened was that the law as it exists now provides that one can sue for discriminatory pay practices within 180 days. The Plaintiff in the Supreme Court case (Ledbetter) sued within 180 days of learning of the pay disparity between her and her male co-workers, including males who were hired long after she was. Her job performance was stellar. There were no issues about that.

When they got the case, the justices determined that because the discrimination had gone on for years, she couldn't sue for disciminatory practices that had gone on throughout her employment because they started more than 180 days before the suit was commenced. So, what this perversion of a Supreme Court actually said was that if an employer can hide that it's breaking Federal law for more than the six months, they get a freebie.

That is neither how the law was previously construed, nor how it was intended to be applied.

So, no, it had nothing to do with limiting the right to sue. Congress was just trying to fix the pathetic decision made by Bush's Court.

And good to know you think it's ok for employers to break the law. Don't worry, though, you wouldn't make it onto my jury.

Hey, Looks like the COURT and CONGRESS think it's ok "for employers to break the law" too!