Obama approves Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act - now law

[Dredly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/us...er-web.html?em

WASHINGTON — President Obama signed his first bill into law on Thursday, approving equal-pay legislation that he said would “send a clear message that making our economy work means making sure it works for everybody.”

Mr. Obama was surrounded by a group of beaming lawmakers, most but not all of them Democrats, in the East Room of the White House as he affixed his signature to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a law named for an Alabama woman who at the end of a 19-year career as a supervisor in a tire factory complained that she had been paid less than men.

After a Supreme Court ruling against her, Congress approved the legislation that expands workers’ rights to sue in this kind of case, relaxing the statute of limitations.

“It is fitting that with the very first bill I sign — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — we are upholding one of this nation’s first principles: that we are all created equal and each deserve a chance to pursue our own version of happiness,” the president said.

He said was signing the bill not only in honor of Ms. Ledbetter — who stood behind him, shaking her head and clasping her hands in seeming disbelief — but in honor of his own grandmother, “who worked in a bank all her life, and even after she hit that glass ceiling, kept getting up again” and for his daughters, “because I want them to grow up in a nation that values their contributions, where there are no limits to their dreams.”

The ceremony, and a reception afterward in the State Dining Room of the White House, had a celebratory feel. The East Room was packed with advocates for civil rights and workers rights; the legislators, who included House and Senate leaders and two moderate Republicans — Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine — shook Mr. Obama’s hand effusively (some, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, received presidential pecks on the cheek) as he took the stage. They looked over his shoulder, practically glowing, as Mr. Obama signed his name to the bill, using one pen for each letter.

“I’ve been practicing signing my name very slowly,” Mr. Obama said wryly, looking at a bank of pens before him. He handed the first pen to the bill’s chief sponsor, Senator Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, and the last to Ms. Ledbetter.

The ceremony also marked First Lady Michelle Obama’s policy debut; she spoke afterward in a reception in the State Dining Room, where she called Ms. Ledbetter “one of my favorite people.”

Mr. Obama told Ms. Ledbetter’s story over and over again during his campaign for the White House; she spoke frequently as an advocate for him during his campaign, and made an appearance at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Now 70, Ms. Ledbetter discovered when she was nearing retirement that her male colleagues were earning much more than she was. A jury found her employer, the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Gadsden, Ala., guilty of pay discrimination. But in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court threw out the case, ruling that she should have filed her suit within 180 days of the date that Goodyear first paid her less than her peers.

Congress tried to pass a law that would have effectively overturned the decision while President George W. Bush was still in office, but the White House opposed the bill; opponents contended it would encourage lawsuits and argued that employees could delay filing their claims in the hope of reaping bigger rewards. But the new Congress passed the bill, which restarts the six-month clock every time the worker receives a paycheck .

Ms. Ledbetter will not see any money as a result of the legislation Mr. Obama signed into law. But what she has gotten, aside from celebrity, is personal satisfaction, as she said in the State Dining Room after the signing ceremony.

“Goodyear will never have to pay me what it cheated me out of,” she said. “In fact, I will never see a cent. But with the president’s signature today I have an even richer reward.”

Let it begin...

[ChamberedRound]

If I'm missing something here tell me, but on the surface I don't see anything terribly amiss with this law. It isn't like Affirmative Action, requiring businesses to give preference or hire/compensate against percentages rather than ability. Instead, this amends an existing law to give people who can prove they've been wronged by an employer in the area of career compensation a chance to receive that compensation in return for the job they've done during their tenure.

No company should discriminate against their employers because of gender, and one shouldn't have to choose between their paycheck and legal action when they feel they're being discriminated against at their job.

[NineseveN]

If I'm missing something here tell me, but on the surface I don't see anything terribly amiss with this law. It isn't like Affirmative Action, requiring businesses to give preference or hire/compensate against percentages rather than ability. Instead, this amends an existing law to give people who can prove they've been wronged by an employer in the area of career compensation a chance to receive that compensation in return for the job they've done during their tenure.

No company should discriminate against their employers because of gender, and one shouldn't have to choose between their paycheck and legal action when they feel they're being discriminated against at their job.

I'm with you, on the surface, this doesn't seem like a bad thing, unless you think equal pay is bad. The law requiring equal pay is already there, but there was a loophole that allowed a company to skirt their legal obligation to follow it by severely and unreasonably limiting a claimant's ability to invoke it.

[adymond]

I didn't read this law, but as a recruiter I have to say there are so many variables that go into pay that I am hard pressed to imagine a law that could actually ensure equal pay.

Say you have a man and a woman who have 10 year of experience in nursing.

On the surface they have the same qualifications. Until you dig into the make up of the woman's experience. Say she had her first child after a year and for 3 years worked per diem (maybe working one day per week) then she goes back to FT work and in another year has a second child. At that point she goes to PT work for the next 5 years. So in 10 years of work she has only worked FT for 2 years.

Should the man who has had 10 years of FT work doing the same thing be getting paid the same amount as a woman who has worked 2 years FT and 8 years PT?

I am not stereotyping or anything, but rather using an over simplified example.

[Morel42]

The Major issue here is the statute of limitations.. 180 days to file a suit from the first day it starts happening.

What happens if you don't find out for 5 10 or 20 years? You're screwed..

It was a gaping loophole that needed to be closed..

[ChamberedRound]

I'm with you, on the surface, this doesn't seem like a bad thing, unless you think equal pay is bad.

That depends on the definition of "equal pay". If that means everyone gets paid the same regardless of what they do or how hard they work, that's about as socialist as it gets. And on the surface the changes this law provides don't seem to facilitate that.

However, if the definition is that two people in similar or the same job classifications putting in equal or very similar time and effort should get the same pay regardless of race, age, gender, sexual preference, political beliefs, etc., then I'm all for it.

[dc dalton]

I have to chime in and agree, I see nothing wrong with this bill except the limitation of the time to take action..... if a man does a job for $20 and hour and a woman gets the EXACT same job but is only paid $15 there is discrimination going on plain and simple. To be honest I thought this was law already so call me surprised.

Equality is equality ... there should be no race, religion or sexual boundaries when it comes to doing the exact same job.

What I am really curious about is why the Supreme court struck down her case .... something just doesn't sound right there.

[adymond]

I have to chime in and agree, I see nothing wrong with this bill except the limitation of the time to take action..... if a man does a job for $20 and hour and a woman gets the EXACT same job but is only paid $15 there is discrimination going on plain and simple. To be honest I thought this was law already so call me surprised.

Equality is equality ... there should be no race, religion or sexual boundaries when it comes to doing the exact same job.

What I am really curious about is why the Supreme court struck down her case .... something just doesn't sound right there.

It was the statue of limitations. The suite had to be filed within 6 months of the first time the difference of pay occured. That definately was messed up.

I just caution that the same job minus the same amount of experience should not equal the same pay if we are talking about flat rates. If we are talking about productivity I am all for saying everyone gets the same rate per work unit.

[Dredly]

I agree, discrimination is wrong and race / sex should NOT play a part in compensation.

However I also believe that a company should be permitted to set a pay rate as they deem fit based on expeience, attitude, work ethic, work experience, dedication to the company and job, etc.

Was she passed over for higher raises due to sex? possible. Was it just as possible that she didn't work as hard? yup, as management is it possible that her teams weren't performing as well? yup absolutely. If she was discriminated against due to sex then she was wronged, yes I agree with this 100%.

My wife used to be in management, she worked her ass off and it was common for her to get much worse raises then other managers due to their teams just being stronger, more tenured employess... was it based on sex or race? nope!

Whats going to get REALLY intresting is how this will impact ALLL the immigrants that have been hired for much less then Americans... time for the lawsuits to FLOOD in.

[adymond]

I agree, discrimination is wrong and race / sex should NOT play a part in compensation.

However I also believe that a company should be permitted to set a pay rate as they deem fit based on expeience, attitude, work ethic, work experience, dedication to the company and job, etc.

Was she passed over for higher raises due to sex? possible. Was it just as possible that she didn't work as hard? yup, as management is it possible that her teams weren't performing as well? yup absolutely. If she was discriminated against due to sex then she was wronged, yes I agree with this 100%.

My wife used to be in management, she worked her ass off and it was common for her to get much worse raises then other managers due to their teams just being stronger, more tenured employess... was it based on sex or race? nope!

Whats going to get REALLY intresting is how this will impact ALLL the immigrants that have been hired for much less then Americans... time for the lawsuits to FLOOD in.

I wonder how many undocumented workers will bring suites now. I hadn't thought about that.