B and B

The Republican party launches fight against American workers

At TPMCafe, Robert Reich has a good summary of how Republican party is pitting Americans against Americans in oder for their obscenely wealthy patrons to re-assert control over the country and the vast majority of its money and resources.  He begins:

The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class - pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don't believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class.

By splitting working America along these lines, Republicans want Americans to believe that we can no longer afford to do what we need to do as a nation. They hope to deflect attention from the increasing share of total income and wealth going to the richest 1 percent while the jobs and wages of everyone else languish.

The assault on workers' rights in Wisconsin recently launched by its new governor Scott Walker is only one particularly visible and intense battle.  Those of us who don't want to see the country fall into the control of "robber barons" reminiscent of the late 19th century should stand with Wisconsin workers, and those of other states, in this battle.

 

Obama's new direction?

How is Obama going to handle the Republicans who are virtually unanimously out to destroy him?  As Paul Krugman relates, his recent words and actions are not a good sign.  I hope this changes very soon.

Mr. Obama’s [freezing federal workers'] pay ploy might, just might, have been justified if he had used the announcement of a freeze as an occasion to take a strong stand against Republican demands — to declare that at a time when deficits are an important issue, tax breaks for the wealthiest aren’t acceptable.

But he didn’t. Instead, he apparently intended the pay freeze announcement as a peace gesture to Republicans the day before a bipartisan summit. At that meeting, Mr. Obama, who has faced two years of complete scorched-earth opposition, declared that he had failed to reach out sufficiently to his implacable enemies. He did not, as far as anyone knows, wear a sign on his back saying “Kick me,” although he might as well have.

I do remember that there were times in 1995 after the last Republican takeover during a Democratic administration when I was about completely fed up with Bill Clinton.  His signing of the salvage logging rider, suspending environmental laws to permit accelerated logging in U.S. National Forests, was almost the last straw for me.  Fortunately Clinton realized his mistakes and turned things around in time.

Now is the time for the Paycheck Fairness Act

The Paycheck Fairness Act may come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate today.  This is a critical piece of legislation that addresses several shortfalls in current laws against unequal pay for women.  We know from personal experience that these shoftfalls need to be addressed before we can hope to achieve the decades-old goal of equal pay.

Terrel McSweeny writes at whitehouse.gov:

Wage discrimination is real.

Just ask Lilly Ledbetter.  She is a mother.  She didn’t seek a “less stressful work environment” than her male counter parts.  And she was paid roughly 30% less.   If she had been allowed to share information about her pay with her colleagues she would have realized she was being paid less than men with less experience.

But Lilly couldn’t bring that case.  She could have lost her job if she discussed her pay with her colleagues.  The Paycheck Fairness Act would provide that protection. The author [of a Wall Street Journal op-ed] is right there are a lot of laws aimed at this problem – but because they don’t provide basic tools like pay transparency, discrimination persists.

Also see Carol Rose at boston.com:

Lawmakers meant for The Equal Pay Act of 1963 to ensure equal pay for equal work, but over time, because of weak remedies and loopholes in the law, significant disparities in pay persist.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would give employees the legal tools they need to finally close the wage gap by, for example, requiring employers to demonstrate that wage differences between men and women doing the same work have a business justification; prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire about their wages; and leveling the playing field by ensuring that women can obtain the same remedies as those subject to employment discrimination based on their race or national origin. The bill would also provide technical assistance to employers and provide important safeguards for small businesses.

The Paycheck Fairness Act already passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support and now has 40 co-sponsors in the Senate—more than it has ever had in any previous Congress. Recently, a report from the White House National Economic Council underscored the need for the Paycheck Fairness Act as an important step towards the economic security of women and our nation’s families.

If we want the tools to eliminate pay discrimination against women, it is time to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Conservative Supreme Court justices go "activist" against another discrimination law

The five conservative Supreme Court justices have gone all "activist" in undermining the clear intent of another discrimination law.  The previous example was in 2007 with gender discrimination -- a ruling that was remedied by the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  This time, in a recent decision, it is with age discrimination.

Employment lawyer Ellen Simon describes what these justices have done in this post at Today's Workplace.  Their argument is rather legalistic, but the intent of the decision is clear -- to make it harder to bring those who discriminate to justice.  Hopefully Congress will remedy this bad decision soon.

Misleading headline of the day

New York Times headline today:

By Slim Margin, Senate Advances Stimulus Bill

A more accurate description:

Senate Advances Stimulus Bill 61 to 36

"Slim-margin" is of course referring to the Senate rules that allow any 40 Senators to block legislation.  But anywhere else a 61 to 36 margin would be considered decisive -- even perhaps a "landslide".

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passes Senate

Excellent news.  From The Hill:

The Senate on Thursday flexed its bolstered Democratic majority and passed an equal pay measure that Republicans blocked last year. The bill could be the first measure signed into law by President Obama.

Senators voted 61-36 for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, after a day of beating back eight GOP amendments by decisive margins.

“We have now overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill to correct an injustice that has been prevailing,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), who led the floor debate on the bill.

All four female GOP senators crossed over to support the Democratic measure: Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas; Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine; and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) also approved the legislation.

Every voting Democrat backed the bill.

Yesterday, Congress took a large step towards helping enforce fair pay for women

The Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act both passed the House resoundingly on Friday.  Unfortunately, the vast, vast majority of Republicans remain adamantly opposed to recognizing the problems with workplace discrimination that these bills are meant to address. 

Also, I've noticed a misleading representation of the Ledbetter Act being passed around, either by lazy journalists (NPR) or by conservative propagandists (CEI).  These people suggest that this act is meant to extend or abolish the status of limitations on filing discrimination lawsuits.  This is completely false.

For an accurate, short description of the Act, see this AP article by Jim Abrams from yesterday:

The Lilly Ledbetter Act would reverse a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that a worker must file claims of wage discrimination within 180 days of the first decision to pay that worker less, even if the person was unaware of the pay disparity.

The 180-day limit, for better or worse, is untouched by the Ledbetter Act.  But it will apply to the time since the issuance of the last discriminatory paycheck, as it had in legal interpretation for decades -- until 2007.

Later in the AP article, Rep. Rob Andrews of New Jersey concisely summarizes the impact of that Supreme Court Ruling and the situation that the Ledbetter Act is meant to rectify:

"It should not become the law of the land that if you are an employer and can hide discrimination for 180 days you can get away with it."

For more on these bills, which now await action in the Senate, see the National Committee on Pay Equity.

New Congress will quickly take up the Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act

One of the first acts to be taken up by the new Congress should be the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act.  Hopefully this time, thanks to the GOP's numerous defeats in the recent elections, it won't be filibustered to death by the Senate Republicans.

From the NY Times on Monday:

President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress are planning swift action to overturn a Supreme Court decision that made it much harder for people to challenge discrimination in employment, education, housing and other fields.

...

The decision, involving a woman named Lilly M. Ledbetter, who had accused her employer of sex-based pay discrimination, was issued in May 2007. Since then, courts around the country have gone far beyond the facts of that case and cited it as a reason for rejecting lawsuits claiming discrimination based on race, sex, age and disability.In some cases, after initially ruling for employees, judges have reversed themselves and ruled in favor of employers. The judges said they had to switch because of the Supreme Court decision.

Lilly Ledbetter to address Dem convention on equal pay for women

More details from the convention website:

“We are honored that Lilly Ledbetter will address the Democratic Convention,” said Senator Barack Obama. “The fact that women are paid less than their male coworkers for doing the same job is unacceptable in the 21st century and counter to both the progress we've made and our shared values as Americans. Lilly Ledbetter's case before the Supreme Court has once again awakened the nation to this discrimination, and it's time we join together to right this wrong and pay women equal pay for equal work."

“The theme of Tuesday night’s program is Renewing America’s Promise, and there is no more critical promise that we can keep to American women than to ensure pay equity,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Permanent Chair of the 2008 Convention. “There is a clear difference between the parties when it comes to pay equity, and this election could not be more critical when it comes to garnering support for reversing the Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear case.  As American women are called upon to do more and more for their families with less and less resources coming in, the least we can do is to ensure pay equity.”

Apparently she'll be speaking at around 8pm Central time.

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act still in limbo

While we were traveling last week, we missed this news of a rally in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  From Womenstake:

As the rally commenced, one by one the Congresswomen spoke to the crowd and explained why the passage of this Act is integral to closing the wage gap and guaranteeing pay equity. Following Senator Hillary Clinton’s address, Lilly Ledbetter shared her own story and gave a face to the unfortunate reality of pay discrimination. As the rally came to a close, the Congresswomen urged the crowd to contact their Senators and demand that they support this Act and demonstrate their commitment to equality.

Kay Steiger at RH Reality Check has more:

"My struggle today is about timing," Letbetter [sic] said when it was her turn to speak, "at least, on the surface." Women who lack the power to contest pay discrimination in court -- and many do because they discover their pay discrimination long after the legal six-month filing period has expired -- end up earning less over a lifetime. As Ledbetter noted, to this day it affects her pension and social security payments. "The only bill that would fix the problem created by the court is the Paycheck Fairness Act," Ledbetter said.