Republicans Kill Legislation Supportin Equal Pay For Women: McCain Speaks Out

[Richard Tafoya]

AP:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/23/mccain-opposes-equal-pay-_n_98342.html

Republican Sen. John McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/john-mccain), campaigning through poverty-stricken cities and towns, said Wednesday he opposes a Senate bill that seeks equal pay for women because it would lead to more lawsuits.

Senate Republicans killed the bill Wednesday night on a 56-42 vote that denied the measure the 60 votes needed to advance it to full debate and a vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had delayed the vote to give McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/john-mccain)'s Democratic rivals, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/barack-obama), time to return to Washington to support the measure, which would make it easier for women to sue their employers for pay discrimination.

McCain skipped the vote to campaign in New Orleans.
"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters.

...


The bill sought to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination.

It is named for Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., who sued for pay discrimination just before retiring after a 19-year career there. By the time she retired, Ledbetter made $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor and claimed earlier decisions by supervisors kept her from making more.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 last year to throw out her complaint, saying she had waited too long to sue.
Democrats criticized McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/john-mccain) for opposing the bill.

"Senator McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/john-mccain) has yet again fallen in line with President Bush while middle-class families are falling by the wayside," Clinton said in a statement following the vote. "Women are earning less, but Senator McCain is offering more of the same."

[Venisenvy]

I think we need to be careful how we proceed on this issue. It is important to do the right thing but not to go too far. Studies have shown than part of the reason men make more is because they are more willing to work longer hours and also because they do not leave work(maternity leave). So if we can figure out fairly how much those two factors account for the difference in womens pay then we can see what the shortfall really is. And once we truly understand the issue, which honestly i dont think many do, then we can look at ways to improve the disparity fairly.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

What would those two factors have to do with anything? First, when hiring two people, how would an employer know which one was "willing to work more hours" by thier gender? Second, maternity leave is a federally protected right. Why in the world should that play any role at all in deciding pay scales?

We're talking about basic pay, not how much someone earns over a lifetime of working, Luis.

[Annoyedlistner]

so McCain is supporting big business on this issue, thats a typical republican stance.....

[db44]

I know of at least a few situations where men took paternity leave to be at home for extended times after a child was born. It wasn't vaction time either. Therefore to talk about maternity leave as a reason to deny such legislation doesn't float as men can apparently do the same thing.

[pinky]

I had heard something on NPR about this situation the other day. The reason the Supreme Court ruled against Ms Ledbetter was because, according to current law, she had a limited time after receiving her paycheck to sue for discrimination. Unfortunately for her, her superiors at Goodyear have a policy that prevented her from gaining access to the pay information of others. (I have no problem with that.)

She received an anonymous note telling her of the pay disparity, and took action very quickly after verifying the accuracy of that note.

So, essentially, she's been discriminated against, and prevented from being able to sue for redress because the people she's sued kept information from her.

All this new bill would do is allow a person to sue after each check. And if it leads to lawsuits, so what? Why should we be protecting the ones guilty of illegally discriminating against women in pay issues?

[Whoda Thunk?]

I think we need to be careful how we proceed on this issue. It is important to do the right thing but not to go too far. Studies have shown than part of the reason men make more is because they are more willing to work longer hours and also because they do not leave work(maternity leave). So if we can figure out fairly how much those two factors account for the difference in womens pay then we can see what the shortfall really is. And once we truly understand the issue, which honestly i dont think many do, then we can look at ways to improve the disparity fairly.
How does that work for hourly employees that can only work 40 hours a week? What about the females that have no intention or desire to be a mother? Those are just excuses to try and justify this foolishness.

[phlix]

A problem exists. It's interesting that men obviously love their mothers, wives and daughters, but discriminate against female coworkers.

I am betting that if legislation is passed employers will simply thoroughly document why individual men are being paid more than individual women and the practice will continue. Wages won't change - employers will just cover their ass more. Unfortunately that's how it works in reality.

[Venisenvy]

What is the number one responsibility of a company? to make money, if women truly make that much less than men, why in the world would they ever hire men?

[db44]

If they are American companies, I should expect them to live up to American, Constistutional even, standards. How's that for why? Unless you think "All men are created equal" means men only...

We needed and still need AA and Title IX. This is just as important, probably moreso where the latter is concerned.

[SparkleHugs]

What is the number one responsibility of a company? to make money, if women truly make that much less than men, why in the world would they ever hire men?


Because men are apparently willing to work longer hours than women.

I am working in a law firm and the only women i see go home before the men is a managing partner of the firm. Whatever kind of a family a woman wants is her own private business to deal with when the time comes.

I think given equal education and experiences men and women should be making the same down to the very penny provided their jobs are the same.

[Venisenvy]

I agree they should be making the same exactly for hours worked. If a guy ends up working later hours, he deserves to get paid more, if a woman works longer hours she deserves to be paid more. If a woman goes on maternity leave the people that dont deserve to get paid more.

You should get paid equally for the work done. Now if you ask me will I promote the person that puts the longer hours or not? I would promote the person who puts in the more time. But side to side if everything is the same in comparison then they both deerve equal pay.

[SparkleHugs]

But side to side if everything is the same in comparison then they both deerve equal pay.


I think that is the only thing being requested. I certainly dont think anyone is asking for pay for not having put in the time for it.

[pinky]

What is the number one responsibility of a company? to make money, if women truly make that much less than men, why in the world would they ever hire men?
Maybe to give a break to their friends and relatives.

[pinky]

You should get paid equally for the work done. Now if you ask me will I promote the person that puts the longer hours or not? I would promote the person who puts in the more time. But side to side if everything is the same in comparison then they both deerve equal pay.
This issue isn't about who got promoted. It's about the fact that people promoted to the exact same position and who were doing the exact same work were being paid differently.

At no time was Ms Ledbetter told that her performance was inferior, or that her commitment to the job was lacking.

[Venisenvy]

The thing is that we dont really know if thats the truth or not. For all we know she was not putting the same effort as others. Thats wju I think that the research should be done really thorougly because not everyone actually puts in the same work. (sorry for any misspelling UConn spring break got me)

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I had something similar happen to me back in the mid-70s. I was hired about the same time as a male, doing the exact same job, same title, same responsibilities, same everything. He was hired in at a significantly higher hourly rate of pay. When I asked my boss about, I was told that the man had a family and needed the money and I was a single woman. I was pissed about it, but for whatever reason, I didn't pursue it. This was a prevailing attitude then. I wouldn't doubt it's still a factor with some employers.