And speaking of the Roanoke Times editorial team, here's today's offering of ill-conceived folderol:
Equal pay for equal workA few points:
If gratitude padded a bank account, Lilly Ledbetter would be one rich woman. Thanks to her, Americans now have a new law affirming that they are entitled to equal pay for equal work regardless of their gender, race, religion or disability.
But Ledbetter isn't a rich woman and her bank account remains diminished from the nearly two decades her employer, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., paid her less than what men in her position earned. And through her retirement, Ledbetter's pension and Social Security will reflect the reduced rate of pay.
Thanks to a ludicrous decision by a split U.S. Supreme Court, Ledbetter will always be less well off financially than her former male co-workers.
The justices ruled in 2007 that Ledbetter couldn't sue her employer for discrimination because she didn't catch the discrepancy within 180 days of her first paycheck.
There is nothing frivolous about wage discrimination, and businesses that treat workers fairly have little cause for concern.
Those businesses that do discriminate are now put on notice: Just because you get away with it for 180 days or 20 years doesn't put you in the clear. Each paycheck gives rise to a fresh claim. [link]
1) Let's deal with that which is really annoying:
"The justices ruled in 2007 that Ledbetter couldn't sue her employer for discrimination because she didn't catch the discrepancy within 180 days of her first paycheck."
The Supreme Court did no such thing. The justices simply ruled that the law passed by Congress (see U.S. Code TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 21 > SUBCHAPTER VI > § 2000e–5 > Enforcement Provisions) applied. This was a statutory issue (see and understand the term "statute of limitations"), not a constitutional issue.
Want to blame someone? Blame your butt-buddies in Congress who wrote the provision.
2) Even more annoying: "Those businesses that do discriminate are now put on notice." Who are they? Name names. It's illustrative that these guys have to back to 1979 to find an instance where this kind of discrimination (originally) occurred.
If this is a problem - if employers are discriminating against women because of their sex - name them. We'll then have a discussion.
Problem is, these jokers can't name one. Not one. Because companies today comply with the law. And have no reason not to.
3) "Thanks to a ludicrous decision by a split U.S. Supreme Court, Ledbetter will always be less well off financially than her former male co-workers." See above. Except for Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, who wanted to simply rewrite the law (which she's known for), the Court did nothing more than recognize the Constitutional authority granted the legislative branch of government to enact laws. Including enforcement provisions.
4) This new law - passed by Congress with great fanfare, and signed by our new president with over-the-top ceremony - amounts to nothing. No companies will be sued because of it. No companies will have to change the way they conduct themselves with their female employees.
It's a non-issue. One these liberal types seem to get their jollies from.
So we have us a new "Fair Pay Act." Big freaking deal.