|
You make the mistake of thinking that all "liberal" males are automatically feminists, and not bigoted against women, and so on, and this is clearly not true. Spend any time in the world at all, and you will be unable to determine which ones are the "liberal" males and which are the reactionary neo-con Republicans; they all sound the same when it comes to us. They do not even take the issue seriously. The only good male is an actual feminist, specifically. All the rest are hypocrite pricks like that asshole Olbermann on TV, etc.
As to the issue of "equal" pay, which strangely never happens or comes true, the situation is worse now, the pay gap wider, than it was during the early 1980s, before that bastard Reagan dismantled the EEOC by putting Clarence Thomas in charge of it (to ignore and obstruct everything), and before the current group of extremist anti-Government types on the Supreme Court. The only times women get equal pay is at the lowest, minimum wage pay scale, and where there are unions negotiating for collective contracts, pay and benefits, and unions are being killed off in this country or jobs outsourced. I don't really agree with the gimmicky idea of an "Equal Pay Day," as I think it loses and confuses the issue, and because it is a "media attractor," "media savvy," etc., which attitude I think itself is dying, unless it kills us first. Much better is the link with the sample letter and explanation of the issue and what to write to your Senator.
To prove discrimination, an employee used to have to give evidence of unfair/unequal pay, benefits, promotions, or other conditions, obtained and filed within 180 days of discovery. It was considered an ongoing situation, and not something with one fixed starting point, because the pay disparity or other discrimination continues to the present day, and because it was not able to be discovered early on. Courts always took account of the obvious fact that no newly-hired employee could demand access to confidential pay records, to "check," and that in a hostile atmosphere for women, any "uppity" behavior of this kind would be met with retribution, and refused. Women in these hostile circumstances always talk about how they did not dare complain, there was no one friendly to take a complaint to, etc. Suddenly, though, the Supreme Court recently ruled against Ledbetter, who had discovered she was underpaid and not promoted as were all males working with her, and that there was no other reason for it; she had gotten commendations as one of the best workers, etc. The Court's "reason" for the ruling against her, was the totally new, and inexplicable claim that the law required her to file within 180 days of the very start of the situation, the first paycheck, etc., which had never been the case before, and no court had ever ruled such. This bizarre twist, understandable only as the act of a Court so extremist archconservative that it no longer even admits precedent law, is actually no longer the law as it had ever been. Too bad.
This is why there is a move to restate what was actually there all along, and that is that the "clock" does not start running on the time-to-file from the very start of employment, when the victim of discrimination could not possibly have known of the disparity; but only when it was found out, as it is a continuing situation anyway. This outrageous Supreme Court ruling, by the way, was not covered by any of the "liberal" males of the media; too "trivial," I guess.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
