Comments on: The Paycheck Fairness Act

By: robertm75

robertm75 — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:10:17 +0000

The State should not be in the business of determining wages in the private sector, especially when, as Checkmate2012 points out, they themselves are exempt from the same policy.

By: checkmate2012

checkmate2012 — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:04:28 +0000

60 votes were needed.

Great news.

By: checkmate2012

checkmate2012 — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:38:40 +0000

This Act ($15M) is awful for business as you stated due to more burdens and lawsuits. Perhaps if Reps. just changed the training phrase to private businesses only, that would reveal the real purpose & get the Dems to pick a fight on that. The Dems also implicate that women are too stupid to negotiate without gov’t training.

from Thomas(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c1123TAYnq:e8686:)

SEC. 5. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.
(3) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES- To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency, such as a State, a local government in a metropolitan statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget), a State educational agency, or a local educational agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a community-based organization.
(5) USE OF FUNDS- An entity that receives a grant under this subsection shall use the funds made available through the grant to carry out an effective negotiation skills training program that empowers girls and women. The training provided through the program shall help girls and women strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation that are equal to those paid to similarly situated male employees.

And there are No punitive damages against the gov’t:
(c) Enhanced Penalties- Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended–
(1) by inserting after the first sentence the following: `Any employer who violates section 6(d) shall additionally be liable for such compensatory damages, or, where the employee demonstrates that the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference, punitive damages as may be appropriate, except that the United States shall not be liable for punitive damages.’;

By: central807

central807 — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:48:36 +0000

Liberalism…creating another “unjust” America, one imaginary victim at a time.

By: central807

central807 — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:47:38 +0000

Liberalism…creating another “unjust” America, one imaginary victim at a time.

By: commonsenseobserver

commonsenseobserver — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 13:10:33 +0000

But this bill is not the solution. Yes, I favour stronger protections for female employees who raise the issue, to prevent retaliation, but the potential cost to employers is too large, the definition has been significantly broadened, and the burden of proof has been shifted directly to the employer, which is unreasonable and opens the door to frivolous lawsuits. These parts are wrong. Congressional Republicans should move an alternative that facilitates negotiations between employees and employers and protects both.

By: Kyle-MI

Kyle-MI — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:59:35 +0000

The issue and the solution would be so complicated that the required federal legislation would be a behemoth (even more so than most regulation). To “solve” the problem you would almost need micromanagement of wages. Even people working in the same job for the same company with the same sex get payed different amounts.

By: Kyle-MI

Kyle-MI — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 12:54:52 +0000

This is what Dems do best. They propose legislation that creates buzz and gets everyone talking about an issue even if the bill is garbage and has no chance of passing. This is what the GOP needs to do more. They need to propose bills that highlight their side of an issue. These are the type of things that drive the national conversation.