I'm so tired of hearing about poor businesses that might be sued. If they were doing what they should be, that would be far less of a concern. Most people can't afford to file frivolous lawsuits. Goodyear screwed the woman the suit was named for by paying her less than men doing equivalent work - she didn't need to be educated or trained, she needed to be treated properly. Unless McCain means women all need to go to law school...

Yea because women aren't educated or trained enough.

I'm so glad you posted this; I couldn't believe this story when I saw it this morning!!

I wish we didn't NEED an Equal Pay Act, but as long as our government gives more allegiance to companies that practice unfair work conditions, than its individual citizens, we're going to need something to keep them in check.

"It is named for Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.'s plant in Gadsden, Ala., who sued for pay discrimination just before retiring after a 19-year career there. By the time she retired, Ledbetter made $6,500 less than the lowest-paid male supervisor and claimed earlier decisions by supervisors kept her from making more."

She worked there for 19 YEARS .
It is absurd to suggest she needed "more training"!!

Well, she is a girl and tires are hard to figure out.

"If a women sues before retirement, she risks her job!"

I also agree with this statement. This legislation was regarding the amount of time a person has to take legal action.

I say us women uprise and sue him for practicing discrimination, which has been made illegal by the U.S. Constitution.

Ugh! What a loser. And if his wife sticks with him for that, she's probably just super submissive and one of those stay at home women who want to only cater to men (not that every stay at home mom is like that...just her).

Come on ladies, really? If she was paid 6 grand less maybe it was because she didn't have the training or education or maybe she didn't know how to negotiate, like a lot of women don't.

Are you telling me the only reason women get paid less is because everyone is sexist? I think Carly Fiorina would disagree with you.

We know the woman worked there for 19 years, we don't know what kind of worker she was. Maybe she came in late all the time, maybe she showed up drunk, who knows?? Maybe she didn't have the training her male counterparts did, ie. maybe they had a masters degree and she didn't. There is a glass ceiling for everyone when it comes to education.

All this bill does is reaffirm us as a wholly litigious soceity.

"or maybe she didn't know how to negotiate, like a lot of women don't"

I can't believe you just wrote that.

Besides, no one forced her to stay there and work for that company only.

Sorry Jill but its true, a lot of women don't like to negotiate.

"We know the woman worked there for 19 years, we don't know what kind of worker she was."

Which is why she should have the opportunity to try her case in court!

This legislation wasn't about issuing guilty verdicts for every case presented. It was about allowing them to take the steps to get it tried. If the case doesn't have merit, it will be thrown out.

Maybe it would be thrown out, maybe it wouldn't. The McDonalds case wasn't thrown out, besides how many millions of dollars do we need to waste on frivlous lawsuits that even make it to the "throwing out" stage?

Companies have evaluation processes usually on a quaterly basis, if the company has documented their half, they shouldn't be sued just because that person disagrees.

What really pisses me off about this post is this line "If employers are not susceptible to lawsuits, do they have any incentive to close the pay gap?"

I don't know, maybe hiring and retaining people who are successful?? Are you seriously suggesting that the only way to close the pay gap is through lawsuits? Thats ludicrous.

I think we can all agree that women should be paid more, but in no way should companies be able to be sued because someone's perception is that they aren't being paid enough.

Besides, if the companies are spending all their money on lawyers to defend themselves from these suits, where is the money to provide the equal pay going to come from? The sky?

Cabaker is right that many women don't negotiate their salaries. I find issues like this so hard, because even though there are numerous studies showing their is still pay gap, there are also numerous studies that show women don't ask for raises or negotiate salaries as frequently as men do. And having worked in the insurance industry with a good amount of experience in Employment Practices liablity people can and do sue their employers and WIN for no reason. It's typically cheaper to settle than to go to trial even if the person being sued is in the right.

Hey cabaker27! To answer your question — of course not. But, if women are systematically discriminated against, they may have to take what they can get.

I do think things are so much better for women in the workplace today, but statistics show that there is still more work to be done. Also, I'm sure there are solutions in addition to this bill.

A lower court awarded her more than 3-million, the Supreme Court said she filed her case too late. No one alleged any wrongdoing on Ledbetter's part ever - one of her coworkers slipped her a note telling her that all the men were getting paid more than she was.
Companies also do what they can get away with and as long as Ledbetter stuck to the rules and didn't discuss her salary with anyone at the office, they got away with screwing her.
Why are you so quick to assume that individuals are lying or at fault, especially women? Corporations have plenty of reason to lie, cheat and steal as well.

Cabaker I agree that we don't know about this particular woman's circumstances...BUT what bothers me is that McCain lumped women into a group saying "what WOMEN really need is access to education and training, not access to the court system."
It is possible that this particular case doesn't warrant a court date, but you can't say that all women as a whole need is more training and that would solve the problem. There are certainly legitimate concerns of sexism out there.
I hate when politicians group people into stereotypical lumps.

Also — my questions are not always rhetorical. I actually want answers, like the ones you offered cabaker!

But we don't know their being systematically discriminated against, I think we should have some evidence of that before we stick it the companys that keep our economy going.

they're, not their.... sheesh! business is where i get really fired up!

Which is why she should have the opportunity to try her case in court!

She did. She took it all the way to the Supreme Court who rejected her claims.

Nineteen years is an incredibly long time to stick with a job that you don't feel is compensating you fairly. Often in cases like this, a person has the obligation to take whatever mitigating action they can reasonably take. I would think that taking at least one other job in that two decades might be a first step.

Reading an actual news source - i.e., not The Huffington Post - it sounds like he didn't even vote on this! This is kind of a sneaky post, IMO. He verbally opposed it, but did not vote on it. This post makes it seem like he helped defeat the bill.

Clearly, his opinion on this subject is important to discuss. But, the fact that he didn't vote against it seems like pertinent information.

Here is a factoid I just found: According to surveys from the Women Work! Online Career Center, two-and-a-half times more women than men said they feel very apprehensive about negotiating salaries, while men initiate negotiations about four times more often than women.

Well, dang. Type faster, Jennifer76!!

thanks for the info jen!

What someone gets paid (either gender) should be based on merit and ability....Not legislation. If you feel you are not making enough stand up for yourself and make a case. To approach a situation with the thought process of "I should be making the same as he does" is not professional. I personally have dealt with this situation, and got exactly what I was entitled to. Negotiation skills go a long a way.

Yeah I said it. Negotiation skills. Education experience and training help too.

I agree with Cabaker this would bring a bunch of unnecessary lawsuits.

A lower court awarded her more than 3-million

$3 million!? Even if that gap of $6,500 went for her entire 19 year career, you're looking at underpayment of $123,500. Why $3 million!?

Companies also do what they can get away with...

That's exactly right. And that's why it's important to vote with your feet and your wallet. There are other ways to affect change than litigation.

"Companies have evaluation processes usually on a quaterly basis, if the company has documented their half, they shouldn't be sued just because that person disagrees."

I think that if a woman's evaluations show that she was coming late, coming in drunk, that would be reflected. Her lesser pay would be justified, and there would be no case. However, if she had stellar reviews and continued to make $6,500 less than the lowest paid supervisor , there could be discrimination at work there.

"I don't know, maybe hiring and retaining people who are successful?"

The fact that they kept her there for 19 years suggests to me that she WAS successful. I don't know too many businesses that keep employees around for nearly 2 decades that aren't doing a good job.

Cabaker...say that you have better credentials than a male employee, yet he gets paid more than you for doing the same job. You talk to your boss about it, and he says "Oh well, you'll get over it". Exactly what is it you're going to do about it?

That bill is for the women who are willing to fight over uneven pay. Sadly, because there are so many "at will" states (Michigan being one of them), its hard to negotiate prices with someone who can fire you for saying that you don't want to take the money they offer.

I'm sorry that you didn't stop to think about how the bill could help us, and instead chose to think like a chauvinistic douche bag male...

My question is 19 years? At what point do you decide ... wow I should be making more. Something just doesnt seem right....

Disclaimer...sorry for being harsh on you...but if a guy were to say some crap like that, i would call him a douche bag. I don't know you personally so I'm not saying you are one. It was a general statement not geared towards you but instead the mentality.

If a boss said that to me about anything .. I would say "Oh well you will get somebody else."

That's an unfair comment ladychaos. Cabaker has been a very strong women's rights supporter on other threads. She's just very sensitive when it comes to business issues. She also likes to look at both sides of a coin. There is no reason to be insulting.

Wow ... unnecessary just a tad.

Cabaker...say that you have better credentials than a male employee, yet he gets paid more than you for doing the same job. You talk to your boss about it, and he says "Oh well, you'll get over it". Exactly what is it you're going to do about it

I would quit and find someplace that would treat me better. And in nearly 20 years I find it pretty hard to beleive that she couldn't get off her tuckus and find a better company to work for.

I'm sorry that you think I'm acting like a chauvinistic male douche bag, as mature as that statement is, but I'm more sorry that you didn't take the time to read the facts.

"Nineteen years is an incredibly long time to stick with a job that you don't feel is compensating you fairly."

She didn't know that she was being paid so much less than men who weren't even her equal. The $6,500 stat is from the LOWEST paid male manager on staff.

If they are paying all of the men in the company more for doing the same or LESS work, that is systematic.

"Yeah I said it. Negotiation skills."

Someone else said it first. Maybe next time, though!

I

Meow .. catty thread.

But what if all the men at the company negotiated and she didn't? Thats the company's fault?

betty -

somehow this cat doesn't look catty!

Wow, I'd better tread carefully on this one.

First of all what is the current statute of limitations? I can't really critize his choice to disagree with the bill until I know this. I do agree though that an open ended time frame for suing ones employer is not the answer to the problem. It only invites more headachs.

The need more training comment was not the best choice of words. However, I do think that Sen. McCain was referring to women in general and even more specifically in poverty striking areas. I am presuming that the woman in the Supreme Court case held a white collar position and probably had all the education she needed to do her job well. Waiting nearly twenty years to bring it up is a little absurd in my opinion.

For those of you who would say that she could have lost her job sooner if she had brought it up. That is what an anonymous letter is for to the appropriate agency.

I

One of my male friends has suggested that women get paid less, because with a uterus comes the risk of pregnancy leave. In most states women get paid leave for a certain amount of time, which means that the company will have to pay someone else to do their work at the same time they are paying the pregnant woman to stay at home with her child for months.

As a woman who has no intentions of having children in the near future, it would be unfair business practices to pay me less, simply because of the family planning choices that other women make.

Bettyesque...yes, like other legislations, there are plenty of "unnecessary" lawsuits. Sadly, our society is based on how powerful can you seem and how much money can you get, so people have their priorities set on screwed up and will do anything to get money, even if its unjust. I say put a clause in the legislation stating that the person must have (in the presence of a witness while being recorded), express their grievances first to their employer within a reasonable amount of time before they are able to sue. There should also be legislation that says that employers must disclose salaries upon request if there is question of equal pay (and the salary information should be anonymous except for gender for the purposing).

She didn't know that she was being paid so much less than men who weren't even her equal.

She had to have found out at some point. The fact that the Supreme Court believed she had been in possession of that information for too long to find her case credible counts for something with me. Anyone know when?

If they are paying all of the men in the company more for doing the same or LESS work, that is systematic.

Not necessarily. That's one explanation. Others are that she was the least qualified or the least productive or had the least seniority or was the only minority and suffered racial discrimination or etc.... You need a lot more information than this to make an actual determination on her case.

I have no tolerance for whining ... if I was this coworker girl pal Id tell her quit your crying and go get what you deserve.

Lady you have some good points there, esp. about expressing grievances... however, I don't agree that everyone should know what everyone else is making, there are tools on job sites that can give you a round about number of what you should be making... If this woman would have looked at those sites earlier, then I doubt she would have stuck around the 19 years.