On Jan 26, the Senate passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the internet was immediately abuzz with the fact that the only people who voted against it were, yes, those horrible Odin worshipping male Republicans (they also kill kittens). My first inclination was to think that this obviously doesn’t reflect on Republican’s (who go baby seal clubbing in their time off) very well. Yet, instead of freaking out like a rabid Chris Matthews in heat, I wanted to take a closer look to try and understand the other side of the issue, for there are two sides to everything; just in case the duality of the world has escaped anyone’s attention out there.
Within a society where everyone loves to play the victim and is overly sue happy, an employer needs to be protected against people who wish to take advantage of the law and contort it around their desires in an effort to extort money. I find this legal extortion to be despicable and we see it happen time and time again. One way to protect against this is to have strict terms upon which someone can sue. A most effective deterrent is the statute of limitations (I wonder what museum this statute is located in, for I have never seen it) and I feel it is a necessity. Yes, the burden does lie with the plaintiff supposedly, but this can be argued, for the accused are still expected to defend themselves from accusation and without a statute of limitations this becomes increasingly difficult. Though they say otherwise, the burden of proof is now essentially upon the defendant.
This is one of the terms within the amendment that I and the Republicans (“the man”) raise issue with. Not equality. As I read it, it occurred to me that media and bloggers are freaking out over the Republican’s (who really killed JFK) voting “no” because the title of the bill doesn’t demand any more in depth investigation. That is, people who see the headlines and the title of the Act are inclined to judge only from those relatively minute details. For instance, The Huffington Post, known far and wide for its objectivity, ran with the headline last April, “McCain Opposes Equal Pay Bill in Senate”. The key phrase there is “Equal Pay Bill.” Just think about what images that evokes, then add in the fact someone is actually opposing it and you come to the reasonable conclusion those who oppose it are uncaring chauvinists. Some cut right to the chase and apply it as an absolute, such as, “Republicans Believe Women Should Receive Less Pay.” We currently see similar headlines by bloggers and media about the Republicans (the same group owns a huge machine in Antarctica that eats away at the ozone and increases the global temperature) who voted it down, again evoking the same feeling every time we hear or see it. How could someone say “no?”
I will not say absolutely there are not any misogynistic Republican’s (they think Dakota Fanning is terrible) who voted no, for I don’t have the required omniscience to draw such a conclusion, but I will say some of the Senators legitimately opposed the Act due to it’s disregard for the statute of limitations. They considered this dangerous and so do I, but one wouldn’t know about this particular issue unless one were to take the time to look at what the Republican’s (GOP is now slipping mind control substances to your children in school lunches) who said “nay” had to say and read the Act itself. In fact, you’re probably better off just reading the act yourself, for who can trust the word of politicians nowadays anyway? At any rate, the title of these Bills and Acts are often used as a form of propaganda to bring about an emotional response towards an opposing party. Why didn’t they just title this one the “Female Genital Mutilation* Discouragement Act of 2009?” Then, anyone who voted “no” based on their feelings on the statute of limitations would be completely buried and burned in effigy by pop opinion.
Lilly Ledbetter, (how much you want to bet her friends call her “Silly Bedwetter” behind her back?) who worked for Goodyear Tires for 19 years, filed a claim after her retirement stating that there was a long history of discrimination within her checks and in her retirement benefits. It stated men who were working the same job were being paid more, both at work and in their retirement packages. This could be discrimination, but then again I can’t find any information on the other side of the story and there is ALWAYS another side. There are several things one needs to take in account with such a suit. What title each juxtaposed employee has, how long they have worked at the company, a list of their duties, if they relocate or travel and so on. All these things need to be compared and if two employees line up exactly then one can judge based upon the pay if it is discriminatory. Unless the difference is so extensive, absurd and without adequate explanation and then, in that case, one may be warranted in calling it “discrimination.”
The lawsuit was eventually turned down by the Supreme Court citing she was outside the 180 day statute of limitations. Now, I completely agree that this statute should be extended. Pay matters are a pretty private and discovery of discrimination could take a long time, but not two decades. Not to mention, that by her own admission she had known about it for a long time, since she stated Goodyear had a long history of discriminatory behavior. Furthermore, to essentially get rid of them altogether is frightening prospect for employers, especially the small business owner. We shouldn’t be too shocked if our court system gets overcrowded with people deciding to sue over long past incidents of discrimination. In this tough economy I am actually thinking about filing a Norwegian discrimination suit. Damn prejudiced Macaroni Grill! Anyway, I would have voted nay for the bill too until this limitation was expounded upon. Then, if a revised bill came before me with reasonable limitations, I would raise my vote in earnest, for as I have said before, I find equality to be a universal good and this should, not only extend into households across America, but also into justice and business as well.
The question remains though, why did so many Republican’s (they eat babies!) jump on the nay bandwagon? I have been watching TV for a long time now, for I have no life to speak of, and even I realize this is just part of the normal politics as usual for Washington DC. You show me any Bill and I will show you partisanship. For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the Fair Pay bill amends was ironically spearheaded by Republicans (just looking for any excuse to push the button and by “push the button” I mean take advantage of your sister), which the Democrats (love kittens, baby seals, Dakota Fanning, babies and completely respect your sister) voted against, but not all of them. Then again, we may come to the exact same argument, perhaps they didn’t like something in that bill, but the title of the Act makes it look really bad. Whatever the case, I feel the Republicans (who bathe in baby deer blood) were justified and the Democrats (saviors of the wilderness and our very souls), while their intentions towards equality are commendable, it seriously deteriorates a businesses right to protect itself. Soon it won’t matter though, Government will be running all business anyway and it’s REALLY hard to sue them!
*(On a quick rather serious side note, FGM is a horrible practice that is conducted in Africa and the Middle East with just over 90% of all women having it forcefully done to them in some countries. Vast amounts of information can be found online if you want more and I encourage everyone to sign as many petitions as they can against this practice. This sort of thing should not be going on in a “civilized” world and I really bring it up again here because I have run into many, many people who haven’t even heard of this practice, which is shocking due to its commonality.)
No comments:
Post a Comment