About Us

F.O.A.D.

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.

Poco Loco

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."

F*O*A*D

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!

Wayne.B

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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Equal time for Dems...	Lu Powell[_8_]	General	4	September 2nd 09 11:27 PM
Equal pay for equal work?	Plays With Morons	General	2	July 1st 08 12:17 AM
Work At Home - Paid per Click +...	preeti	General	0	February 17th 07 08:53 PM
Work At Home - Paid per Click	preeti	General	0	February 17th 07 08:53 PM
Equal Opportunity	Bob Crantz	ASA	0	January 12th 06 03:52 PM

Menu

About Us