Ahhh, yes. "Oppression is preferable to dealing with complaints about it," coming from someone at the top of the heap.

Fuck you, John McCain.

The government really has no business telling companies what they should pay anybody. If a person feels they aren't getting paid the same as someone of a different race or gender, why would they want to work there to begin with? Not all companies pay like this either. I would even bet that this is the exception rather than the rule. The company I work for has set pay for all positions when you start out and after a year you negotiate your own pay raises. Don't think you're getting what your worth? Go somewhere else.

hahaha DanG. Yeah, why don't discriminated people just respect themselves and be a little choosier about where they work! That's a tasty logic pretzel there.

I'm with Kyra. If companies make a practice of discriminating, then they have to deal with the hassle of lawsuits. Boo hoo.

Indeed. If you don't like working at this Wal*Mart, you can always go to the one across town. Surely they'll have a more transparent wage structure.

I don't have a problem with a person suing the company on their own for discrimination. I just don't think the government in it's legislative arm should be telling corporations that they have to pay anybody anything. If the judicial decides that someone got less pay because of their race, then fine pay out, but keep the pay out reasonable, not millions of dollars to someone who earns minimum wage.

As much as I really don't personally like Hillary, THIS is why she should get the job. I don't think that these men running for office know what it's like to be paid less for the same job that someone else of a different sex does, and I don't think they'll do anything about it.

This is my first time posting on here so bear with me. I agree with DanG that government should not be telling businesses what to pay their employees as they have no interest in the matter. However, government does have an interest in eradicating discrimination and eliminating the wage gap, as the US Constitution strongly stresses equality for all. We could be doing better in this area. Sometimes the government is needed to tell businesses that they are doing wrong. (ex- Civil Rights Act)

I really registered to post about McCain’s comments about the Fair Pay Act. I think him being conveniently absent from the vote says far more about his position than anything he said to the media while he was on the campaign trail. I think it was safe for McCain to say he did not support the bill, though for an unbelievably lame reason, when he was not even present for the vote. Because, as a presidential candidate I think he would have had no other option but to vote for the bill if he was in DC at the time. The first step to holding office is to get elected and you do not get elected to the White House by alienating half the population. He missed having to take a true stance on this issue by not being there for the vote while maintaining a good showing with his supporters by making his wee speech to the media. Politics at its best. (or worst?)

DanG, employers don't come right out and tell employees, "By the way, the man down the hall who's doing the same job as you with 5 fewer years of experience makes $10,000/year more than you."

At point McCain says he favours other alternatives, like, oh, getting women more training and education. Which left me smacking my head with a great big "He REALLY doesn't get this."

See, McCain, more training will just mean that we are even more qualified for the jobs we won't get paid enough for. Wage discrimination means that people get paid less for the SAME job. We don't need better jobs*. We need to get paid for the jobs we already do.

*Although really, nobody's turning up their nose at better jobs. But my point remains.

Yeah, we HAVE the training and education, you twit. That's the point. Even with all our training and education (even more than men, these days), we're STILL not taken seriously or compensated fairly.

That's a nice dose of hypocrisy on McCain's part, as he refuses to support equality on his tour to America's "forgotten places", like New orleans.

I think the feminist community needs to mobilize in force to get this act passed. While some orgs out their are really pushing for it, there is no coalition that I know of. That is ridiculous, considering that it is practically guaranteed that every woman in America will face some sort of pay discrimination in her lifetime, whether she knows it or not. If there is a coalition out there, or if you know of more orgs than just Momsrising, the ACLU, and the National Women's Law Center who are taking on this issue, please let me know.

"The government really has no business telling companies what they should pay anybody. If a person feels they aren't getting paid the same as someone of a different race or gender, why would they want to work there to begin with?"

"I don't have a problem with a person suing the company on their own for discrimination. I just don't think the government in it's legislative arm should be telling corporations that they have to pay anybody anything. If the judicial decides that someone got less pay because of their race, then fine pay out..."

DanG, a couple of points about your rather faulty logic:

1) The Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act isn't about the govt. telling companies how much to pay their employees, it's the govt. telling companies they cannot pay somebody less based purely on gender, race, etc.
2)Why should somebody be expected to go through the hassle of changing jobs because their basic rights were being violated at their current one? Changing jobs wouldn't solve the problem, since there's no guarantee that you'd be paid fairly at your new one. That is, of course, unless there were federal laws in place to protect you.

Your simple "scratch-and-get-over-it" logic would deny millions of people the basic right of defending themselves from sexism and racism in the workplace, and your points are so shallow and poorly argued that you convince no one of their validity.

"Why should somebody be expected to go through the hassle of changing jobs because their basic rights were being violated at their current one?" Because it's not the governments job to make our life easier and nobody has a "right" to earn any amount of money. We have the rights to life, liberty and property and that's about it. The salary you negotiate with your employer is between you and your employer. Again, if you suspect unfair treatment, go elsewhere.

"Again, if you suspect unfair treatment, go elsewhere."

If all people that suspected unfair pay DID do what you recommend, then there would be very few para-professionals getting all the work done that "professionals" don't do, which is pretty much most of it. There would be a huge economic decline in this country and the government would be forced to respond then. I heard on NPR this morning some commentary that said the US Congress likes to be reactionary rather than pre-emptive (i know i know, irony here), they would rather clean up a mess than prevent it from occurring. If this is the case, then they should see the need for this bill. There are not a lot of women in the Senate and the only women that voted against it were Republican. Any woman voting against this Act is the height of irony.

@DanG -- All of your arguments put forth frustrate me beyond words, so I'll deal with one right now:

Why isn't it the government's job to make our lives "easier?"

We have a government because on some level, anarchy takes up too much time. Having a third party take care of public infrastructure, legislation and the like means we don't have to spend all our time building roads, running people off of our land with a shotgun, getting customers to pay their bills and persecuting them when they don't.

This law would take a step towards making life easier (and more fair, etc.) for millions of people. Seriously, why is that a bad thing? It is an application of government at its best.

I was just about to make the point that kirjava made. It is indeed the government's job to make our lives easier, considering that protecting us from oppression and discrimination certainly makes life a lot less strenuous (to put it lightly). In fact, the whole principle of having a structured government is to make our lives easier, i.e keeping us safe, secure, and insuring opportunity.

"It is an application of government at its best. "

Well said.

"Because it's not the governments job to make our life easier and nobody has a "right" to earn any amount of money. We have the rights to life, liberty and property and that's about it."

Wow, really? So why did we outlaw slavery then? I mean, nobody has a right to earn any amount of money, according to you, and slaves were property... In fact, women were basically property at one time as well, so I guess it's back to early 1800s for us all, right?

The issue here is not whether or not a plaintiff can use the CRA to bring action against an employer for pay discrimination. A plaintiff can already do that. The reason this proposed bill existed was because the Supreme Court found last year that an employee cannot use the issuance of a (lesser paying) paycheck to show an act of purposeful discrimination. Instead, an employee must use the FIRST paycheck that was discriminatory as the "discriminatory act." The action must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act.

This is problematic because an employee does not necessarily know from the first paycheck that she is being discriminated against. It would likely take a few (to say the least) paychecks before someone realizes they are being screwed. It would also take some pay disclosure, or needling other employees with the same job and experience to figure this out.

So, just to be clear, an employee can theoretically bring an action against an employer for pay discrimination, but, under the new Ledbetter rule, this is not reasonably likely to happen without a considerable amount of distrust and vigilance on behalf of an employee (not to mention the stigma attached to suing your boss after your first paycheck was issued . . . it would appear to the John McCain types that this indicates some sort of feminist covert operation).

And, as a shout out for all employment discrimination lawyers . . . did you catch all the mistakes in precedent Alito made? It is as if he mis-heard a briefing on the law . . . how do you confuse Libyan with Librarian? Please.

-Caitlin

Actually if the government had not interfered in what business owners did, Equal pay, fair policies,, none of the acts would ever have been passed. The history of the Corporation is rife with the examples. Business owners could not care much beyond their profit motive-

The government needs to take care of the people- that is what it is there for. Honestly, why need pay regulation be taken out of the hands of government? What the heck are those people doing there? Waging war on other nations. If they cannot look after citizen interests they do not need to be drawing their salaries in the name of public service".

Not to mention DanG, that the government does in fact pay out millions in welfare to the public to "make our life easier." Gee, I wonder if closing the pay gap would get lots of people off welfare? Ya think?

McCain also said this:

"They [women] need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else. And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them.

It's a vicious cycle that's affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this [Kentucky], where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least."

Tsk, tsk.

Hmmm....DanG obviously hasn't read the text of HR 2831, otherwise he'd know that the resolution has nothing to do with the government telling businesses what to do.

Instead, it has everything to do with defining when the clock starts/stops to file a pay discrimination claim.

So basically, the whole "government intervening in business" argument is irrelevant to the bill being discussed.

That training and education crack is priceless. Essentially, women should get more training and education so they can be exploited more fully in the workplace due to the lack of protections for them. Incentive, ass?

Again, I reiterate, salary would have to be a matter of public domain--as it already is for government/state workers--for any anti-discriminatory law to have any teeth. But Ledbetter should have been passed because as it stands, after the six months are up, an employer or employee could announce the difference and there would be nothing the wronged party could do about it, save quitting. Quitting is not always an option in depressed locations.

And it's six months from the time you were hired, never mind from a promotion, where a review starts all over again. SCOTUS justice=no justice at all.

"Because it's not the governments job to make our life easier and nobody has a "right" to earn any amount of money. We have the rights to life, liberty and property and that's about it. The salary you negotiate with your employer is between you and your employer."

DanG, how is discriminatory pay not a violation of a citizen's basic right to liberty and property?

Like others here have said before me, the Lily Ledbetter Act is about expanding the court's 180 day time frame a person has to file suit against their company for discriminatory pay, not about telling corporations how much to pay their employees.
Of course your pay raises are between you and your boss, but what if your boss is sexist or racist or ageist etc.? In that case, their should be recourses that would punish companies for their discriminatory practices. Otherwise, racism and sexism would go unpunished and would be allowed to flourish in our supposedly "free" society, which is what you are advocating.

Do you all still believe that there is wage discrimination? Then, I challenge you to go into male-dominated fields, such as mining, plumbing or engineering. Then, please comment on the wage discrimination. Otherwise, you will find that creating the Internet is more valuable than blogging on the Internet.

Ok, John McCain, you deserve a roundhouse-kick to the nuts just for that comment. Several consecutive kicks, actually. Ditto for anyone who thinks like you.

I'm the last person to defend John McCain, I think the guys a nut and a chauvinist, but there are plenty of other reasons why.

I mean, this is basic Republicanism, and it has nothing to do with gender. You're entitled to disagree with it, but it's an issue of the government not being involved in private enterprise which is the primary economic position of the party.

Does the party support inherently racist and sexist legislation?

Absolutely, but this isn't it.

Ledbetter was a supervisor in a tire factory, Jenn. Pretty male-dominated. So your "argument" is moot.

I've started a campaign to boycott Goodyear Tire Co until they make good on disparity in wages for Lilly Ledbetter. I'm using thepoint.com. We need 10,000 supporters by Mother's Day. Spread the word and build the momentum. Waiting for corrupt policy makers and greedy corporations to make changes is frustrating. Hitting the bottom line is a more powerful way to send a message. Join here:
https://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/goodyear-needs-to-make-good-on-unfair-pay-treatment-towards-women-starting-with-lilly-ledbetter/headquarters

We have the rights to life, liberty and property and that's about it.

But as other posters pointed out, this is immaterial. It's just a pet peeve of mine when people use Locke or Jefferson as if they mattered at all in American law.

I don't have a problem with a person suing the company on their own for discrimination. I just don't think the government in it's legislative arm should be telling corporations that they have to pay anybody anything.

They aren't, you moron. The legislation gives people the ability to sue if they've been discriminated against.