Texas GOP struggles with equal pay for equal work
03/19/14 09:31 AM

By Steve Benen

Over the weekend, Cari Christman, the executive director of a political
action committee for Texas Republican women, struggled a bit when
explaining her party’s opposition to pay-equity laws. As Christman
argued in a televised interview, women don’t need measures like the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, largely because “women are extremely busy.”

As reports of the comments spread, the executive director of the Texas
Republican Party decided to weigh in to help put out the fire. As Laura
Bassett reported, this didn’t go well, either.

The day after the head of a Texas GOP women’s PAC flubbed her
answer on equal pay, the executive director of the Texas Republican
Party stepped in to explain the GOP’s alternative to fair pay legislation.

“Men are better negotiators,” Beth Cubriel said on YNN’s “Capital
Tonight.” “I would encourage women, instead of pursuing the courts for
action, to become better negotiators.”

Got that? As the new GOP argument goes, if women in the workplace
receive less pay for equal work, the blame rests with … the women
themselves, not their employers.

In case there are any lingering doubts about the merits of Cubriel’s
suggestion, it’s important to note that the problem is not with women’s
negotiating skills. Often, women don’t even know their employers are
subjecting them to wage discrimination.

Indeed, conservatives may want to re-familiarize themselves with the
basics of Lilly Ledbetter’s story – she was an exemplary staffer at a
Goodyear tire factory in Alabama, but after nearly two decades of work,
she quietly received a note informing her she’d been paid 40 percent
less than her male colleagues.

It was a problem that wasn’t going to be solved by becoming a better
negotiator,

What’s more, let’s not lose sight of the larger context here. This has
become an issue of late because Greg Abbott, Texas’ Republican
gubernatorial candidate, has refused to endorse pay-equity measures like
the Fair Pay Act. His allies are trying to provide a coherent defense,
but apparently they can’t think of anything persuasive.

Complicating matters, it’s not just Texas.

Laura Bassett also had this report on developments in Minnesota.

A package of bills in Minnesota that would enhance women’s economic
security by raising the minimum wage, providing paid family and sick
leave and addressing the gender pay gap makes women “look like whiners,”
a state GOP lawmaker said last week.

“We heard several bills last week about women’s issues and I kept
thinking to myself, these bills are putting us backwards in time,” State
Rep. Andrea Kieffer (R) told colleagues at a Wednesday hearing on one of
the measures. “We are losing the respect that we so dearly want in the
workplace by bringing up all these special bills for women and almost
making us look like whiners.”

So let me get this straight. If women face discrimination in the
workplace, this Republican state lawmaker believes they should just
accept unequal pay and move on?

If Democrats are extremely lucky, this issue will become increasingly
important as the 2014 midterms draw closer.
--

Nahhh...there's no Republican war on women. Except on every issue that
matters.

Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On 3/20/14, 1:51 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:15:34 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,


I wish people would stop using that term. The particular piece of
legislation that carries that name really addresses a number of
employment practices and it is not specifically about women.

It basically lifts the normal 2 year sunset on civil actions when just
about any kind of employment rights are violated and applies equally
to men or women.

The only reason Lily was involved at all was because her beef was
raised over 2 years AFTER she retired but there were other
complainants but she was the most sympathetic.



Indeed, it does address the issue of unequal pay for equal work, and it
does extend the time period for filing a complaint. I understand several
of the women lawyers in the Texas AG's office are being paid less than
their male counterparts. That should be an interesting side issue.

--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On 3/20/14, 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:27:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/20/14, 1:51 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:15:34 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,


I wish people would stop using that term. The particular piece of
legislation that carries that name really addresses a number of
employment practices and it is not specifically about women.

It basically lifts the normal 2 year sunset on civil actions when just
about any kind of employment rights are violated and applies equally
to men or women.

The only reason Lily was involved at all was because her beef was
raised over 2 years AFTER she retired but there were other
complainants but she was the most sympathetic.



Indeed, it does address the issue of unequal pay for equal work, and it
does extend the time period for filing a complaint.

It is clear you never actually read the legislation.
It is a short bill, you can handle it. "Equal pay for women" is never
mentioned or even alluded to
It simply opens up the window that ANYONE can bring an action.


So? You think it has nothing to do with women being able to bring action
for not getting equal pay?

Naive.


--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On 3/20/2014 12:37 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 3/20/14, 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:27:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/20/14, 1:51 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:15:34 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,


I wish people would stop using that term. The particular piece of
legislation that carries that name really addresses a number of
employment practices and it is not specifically about women.

It basically lifts the normal 2 year sunset on civil actions when just
about any kind of employment rights are violated and applies equally
to men or women.

The only reason Lily was involved at all was because her beef was
raised over 2 years AFTER she retired but there were other
complainants but she was the most sympathetic.



Indeed, it does address the issue of unequal pay for equal work, and it
does extend the time period for filing a complaint.

It is clear you never actually read the legislation.
It is a short bill, you can handle it. "Equal pay for women" is never
mentioned or even alluded to
It simply opens up the window that ANYONE can bring an action.


So? You think it has nothing to do with women being able to bring action
for not getting equal pay?

Naive.


That's not what he said, assole.

On 3/20/14, 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:37:02 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/20/14, 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:27:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/20/14, 1:51 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:15:34 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,


I wish people would stop using that term. The particular piece of
legislation that carries that name really addresses a number of
employment practices and it is not specifically about women.

It basically lifts the normal 2 year sunset on civil actions when just
about any kind of employment rights are violated and applies equally
to men or women.

The only reason Lily was involved at all was because her beef was
raised over 2 years AFTER she retired but there were other
complainants but she was the most sympathetic.



Indeed, it does address the issue of unequal pay for equal work, and it
does extend the time period for filing a complaint.

It is clear you never actually read the legislation.
It is a short bill, you can handle it. "Equal pay for women" is never
mentioned or even alluded to
It simply opens up the window that ANYONE can bring an action.


So? You think it has nothing to do with women being able to bring action
for not getting equal pay?

Naive.

No more so than men who were discriminated against and specifically
protects old people who were discriminated against in the major part
of the bill that I didn't quote.

The word "woman/women" is never even used and there is nothing that
makes it specifically about women.
The only reference to Ledbetter was in the introduction of the bill
and points out that she lost her suit in the SCOTUS simply because of
the timing of the law suit. The intent of the bill was to expand that
window.


Of course I favor "covering" workers who were screwed out of equal pay
for equal work by employers. That the act does not mention "women" is
not relevant to its purpose.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:23:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/20/14, 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:37:02 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/20/14, 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:27:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/20/14, 1:51 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:15:34 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,


I wish people would stop using that term. The particular piece of
legislation that carries that name really addresses a number of
employment practices and it is not specifically about women.

It basically lifts the normal 2 year sunset on civil actions when just
about any kind of employment rights are violated and applies equally
to men or women.

The only reason Lily was involved at all was because her beef was
raised over 2 years AFTER she retired but there were other
complainants but she was the most sympathetic.



Indeed, it does address the issue of unequal pay for equal work, and it
does extend the time period for filing a complaint.

It is clear you never actually read the legislation.
It is a short bill, you can handle it. "Equal pay for women" is never
mentioned or even alluded to
It simply opens up the window that ANYONE can bring an action.


So? You think it has nothing to do with women being able to bring action
for not getting equal pay?

Naive.

No more so than men who were discriminated against and specifically
protects old people who were discriminated against in the major part
of the bill that I didn't quote.

The word "woman/women" is never even used and there is nothing that
makes it specifically about women.
The only reference to Ledbetter was in the introduction of the bill
and points out that she lost her suit in the SCOTUS simply because of
the timing of the law suit. The intent of the bill was to expand that
window.


Of course I favor "covering" workers who were screwed out of equal pay
for equal work by employers. That the act does not mention "women" is
not relevant to its purpose.

In other words, Harry is saying, "Whoops, I ****ed up."

On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:46:42 -0400, wrote:

My bet is that when you look back a decade from now, there will be far
more actions from senior citizens looking for redress in regard to age
discrimination and gay men complaining about work place harassment
than all the women put together.

===

You touch on an interesting point. There is all kinds of
discrimination, not only in the workplace but in all of life. There
is discrimination against fat people, skinny people, short people,
ugly people, dumb people, people with funny voices, and on, and on,
and on. There is discrimination against assertive people, and people
who are not assertive enough. Where does the redress stop?

The concept of equal work is also very subjective unless you are
working on an assembly line or something else with easily measurable
productivity.

On 3/20/14, 3:24 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:23:23 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/20/14, 1:05 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 12:37:02 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/20/14, 12:15 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 09:27:44 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 3/20/14, 1:51 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 18:15:34 -0400, F*O*A*D wrote:

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,


I wish people would stop using that term. The particular piece of
legislation that carries that name really addresses a number of
employment practices and it is not specifically about women.

It basically lifts the normal 2 year sunset on civil actions when just
about any kind of employment rights are violated and applies equally
to men or women.

The only reason Lily was involved at all was because her beef was
raised over 2 years AFTER she retired but there were other
complainants but she was the most sympathetic.



Indeed, it does address the issue of unequal pay for equal work, and it
does extend the time period for filing a complaint.

It is clear you never actually read the legislation.
It is a short bill, you can handle it. "Equal pay for women" is never
mentioned or even alluded to
It simply opens up the window that ANYONE can bring an action.


So? You think it has nothing to do with women being able to bring action
for not getting equal pay?

Naive.

No more so than men who were discriminated against and specifically
protects old people who were discriminated against in the major part
of the bill that I didn't quote.

The word "woman/women" is never even used and there is nothing that
makes it specifically about women.
The only reference to Ledbetter was in the introduction of the bill
and points out that she lost her suit in the SCOTUS simply because of
the timing of the law suit. The intent of the bill was to expand that
window.


Of course I favor "covering" workers who were screwed out of equal pay
for equal work by employers. That the act does not mention "women" is
not relevant to its purpose.

In other words, Harry is saying, "Whoops, I ****ed up."


Moron.

--
Rand Paul & Ted Cruz…your 2016 GOP nominees, because ‘Mericans deserve
crazy!

On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:15:34 PM UTC-4, F*O*A*D wrote:
Texas GOP struggles with equal pay for equal work

03/19/14 09:31 AM



By Steve Benen


NOT...by the slug, harry krause.