Should Hillary Clinton SUE the Democratic Party for sex discrimination? Think about it. She was DENIED a job allegedly because of her sex, and the job was given to a LESS qualified (by an objective qualification measure) MALE. There are even some indications that Hillary Clinton was discriminated against because of her RACE, although that is less obvious. The Democratic Party itself even took actions to insure that Hillary Clinton would not get the job for which she had the superior quafilifications, such as DISALLOWING the results in Michigan and Florida until after the discriminatory result had been obtained. You do realize, don't you, that Hillary Clinton would have WON if Michigan and Florida had "counted" from the beginning, because of the momentum that would have given her going into Super Tuesday? The Democratic Party DID deprive Florida and Michigan voters of the right to have their vote count, despite the late, face saving, political sop to Florida and Michigan--hoping that the voters will be DECEIVED into believing their votes really counted.
Then the Democratic Party compounded the sex discrimination by giving the VP job to a less qualified WHITE MALE. Oh, the "qualification" issue is closer with Joe Biden, but how can you argue with the opinion of 18 million voters, against 5,000 or so? Is this not CONCLUSIVE that Hillary Clinton was the better qualified candidate for VP?.
Believe it or not, the above is all a tease/head fake. This entry is NOT about the entertaining, if logical, fantasy of Hillary Clinton suing the Democartic Party for sex discrimination.
This entry is about Hillary Clinton's false charge that McCain is "against" "equal pay for equal work" for women. That was the absurd overstatement in Clinton's speech last nigh (a statement I know abut only because some news organization saw fit to replay it as one of the "significant' parts of her speech.
Leftists lie. They lie often. They lie routinely, and as a matter of course. They lie without guilt, in a "higher" cause than truth.
"Equal pay for equal work" has BEEN the law of the land since the Civil Rights Act (Title VII). It is STILL the law.
What happened is that a woman named Ledbetter sued Goodyear for allegedly paying her half what Goodyear was paying "similar" male employees. Fine, right. Not quite. Ms. Ledbetter did this 18 YEARS after the alleged sex discrimination started. There is ALWAYS a statute of limitations (except in murder), because it is UNFAIR to expose defendants to lawsuits over things that happened DECADES ago. The law contains a requirement that the employee complain to the EEOC within 180 days, or the claim is barred.
Ok again, right. May seem a little short on the statute of limitations, but the law is the law. Not quite. There is SOMETIMES (when often seems pretty arbitrary) a JUDGE CREATED rule that the statute of limitations does not sart to run until the person knew, or should have known, of the claim. Federal judges, and I believe the EEOC, had been applying this rule (NOT part of the Congressional "Equal Pay" law). The issue went to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Look what the Supreme Court was faced with. It was faced with saying 18 YEARS was just fine (the woman won in the lower courts). What effect would this have on SMALL business (on ALL business, but especially on relatively smaller businesses). A person with a small business could be exposed to lawsuits FOREVER (18 years is pretty close to forever). The RECORDS may not even exist. Is that "fair"? Of course not.
The Supreme Court held, 5 to 4, that the 180 day requirement was applicable (probably with some narrow exceptions, but any such details are irrelevant to this discussion).
Neter Congress again. Women's groups (predictably) wanted to REVERSE the Supreme Court decision. This resulted in a bill. Let the NFIB (a small business interest organization) tell you its opinion of the bill:
"The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007 (S. 1843):
- Creates a new paycheck rule dissolving any statute of limitation* for an employee filing a compensation discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Forces employers to defend employment decisions that occurred in the distant past
- Allows plaintiffs to file lawsuits based on circumstantial evidence and "he said, she said" testimony
- Removes incentives for employees to act immediately when they are subjected to discrimination
- Contains a "pension annuity check rule" that would allow an employee to bring charges against an employer so long as the employee receives benefits, such as retirement benefits
- Brings about excessive litigation, significant costs and little resolution to small business"
The above is somewhat biased, of course, although LESS of a distortion than Hillary Clinton's FALSE statement. From the feminist point of view, they were merely trying to "restore" the "law" to their most favorable idea of what it was before the Supreme Court told them differently
John McCain voted against the bill, on the grounds that it merely encouraged lawsuits and enriched trial lawyers, rather than really helping women. That is not an unreasonable position, and certainly is NOT being "against" equal pay for equal work. "Equal pay for equal work is STILL the LAW.
Now you can argue that a firm six month deadline makes it too difficult for woman victims to effectively get compensation, even though the law says they are entitled to it. However, that is not nearly what Hillary Clinton said.
Are there possible compromises here, to protect business from possible lawsuits from disgruntled employees 50 (pick your own number) later. Sure there are. You could increase the limitations to, say, two years. You could have a six month, 1 year, or two year limitation on the REMEDY (saying, for example, in the Ledbetter case that she could recover for wages dating 6 months back from her complaint to the EEOC, but no further--assuming the discrimination was ongoing. You could otherwise try to TIGHTEN requirements, rather than pas a VAUGE law, so as to limit "stale" lawsuit by employees only looking to sue when they came up with other grievances against the employer. Democrats don't care about subjecting employers to lawsuits for the infinite future. That does not make it "fair".
Of course, you should have known that something more complicated was involved here than was stated in the Hillary speech. It should have rung FALSE to you that "equal pay for equal work" is not the law, after all of teh civil rights legislation we have had.
Sure, this is an egregious OVERSTATEMENT, with a grain of truth at the core. But it is only a grain. Imagine if President Bush had made thisobvious an overstatement about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!!!! He would be impeached by now.
Leftists get a pass on this stuff (distorting the facts out of all recognition). They shouldn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment