President Obama Signs His 1st. Bill........Equal Pay!!

mark_is_god

antrim, Ireland

#16

Jan 29, 2009 @ 16:29:10

i was actually surprised by how "little" presidents were payed

0

El_Tino

booyaka!

Albuquerque, New Mexico

#17

Jan 29, 2009 @ 21:40:35

did the people against it bother to read any of the article?

Quote:
he bill is a response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said a person must file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than it pays another worker doing the same job. Under the bill, every new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for another 180 days.

So basically, this woman found out she had been paid less for 19 years, and the court said the statute of limitations was based on her first paycheck 19 years ago instead of her last one 2 days ago

This bill just clarifies what the basis for the statute of limitations is.

0

crazylikeafox

McKinney, Texas

#18

Jan 30, 2009 @ 01:15:23

@mark_is_god Said

i was actually surprised by how "little" presidents were payed

Yeah, it's surprisingly low for the amount of work they do. You don't become President to become rich, that's for sure.

0

cailyn10289

Scottish on Fridays

, United States (general)

#19

Jan 31, 2009 @ 07:29:44

@raditz8526 Said

Boo! Horrible law.

From what I've gathered, you don't like anything the democrats do, do you? Even if Republicans agree with it, if it's from a democrat, it must be terrible.

1

VoidStalker

detroit,

#20

Jan 31, 2009 @ 09:42:49

It's a horrible, intrusive, and I believe unconstitutional law....
But not for the reasons one may assume.

I think it is only fair that a worker (regardless of any sex/race/religion crud) is paid the same as anyone else doing the same job, for the same employer, at the same time.

So why do I feel that this is wrong? Simple, the fed has absolutely no business (or jurisdiction) dictating anything along these lines to the private sector.

I'll make a new thread to bash the whole 'government overstepping it's bounds' thing, once I figure out where it belongs.

0

Ametra

Newcastle, Australia

#21

Jan 31, 2009 @ 09:47:01

naww' us australians were way ahead of you there!

0

raditz8526

Deleted

, Minnesota

#22

Jan 31, 2009 @ 17:22:12

@cailyn10289 Said

From what I've gathered, you don't like anything the democrats do, do you? Even if Republicans agree with it, if it's from a democrat, it must be terrible.

No, I don't like anything democrats do. Everything they've done is grow government.

This law just opens the door for frivolous lawsuits. Maybe the reason women earn less is they produce less.

0

boxerdc

Deleted

,

#23

Jan 31, 2009 @ 17:26:02

@raditz8526 Said

No, I don't like anything democrats do. Everything they've done is grow government.

This law just opens the door for frivolous lawsuits. Maybe the reason women earn less is they produce less.

Well, I'd have to agree with that just based on the grounds that a woman produced you.

snap.

0

fortheanimals

,

#24

Jan 31, 2009 @ 17:31:34

@skottie Said

I have no problem with the law, but what about performance? If you have a person that works their a** off and another that is always taking coffee/smoke breaks, or standing around the water cooler. Should they get equal pay?

For the moment those two get the same wages unless they are from a different sex that is.
So yes equal pay for different sexes is something that should already exist for decades!

0

raditz8526

Deleted

, Minnesota

#25

Jan 31, 2009 @ 17:37:35

@boxerdc Said

Well, I'd have to agree with that just based on the grounds that a woman produced you.

snap.

awwwwww snap dawg! you tld me!

0

cailyn10289

Scottish on Fridays

, United States (general)

#26

Jan 31, 2009 @ 17:41:52

@raditz8526 Said

No, I don't like anything democrats do. Everything they've done is grow government.

This law just opens the door for frivolous lawsuits. Maybe the reason women earn less is they produce less.

I was just pointing out that you're very narrow minded.

1

Edited: January 31, 2009 @ 17:42

raditz8526

Deleted

, Minnesota

#27

Jan 31, 2009 @ 17:46:30

@cailyn10289 Said

I was just pointing out that you're very narrow minded.

No reason not to be when I know I'm right.

1

cailyn10289

Scottish on Fridays

, United States (general)

#28

Feb 01, 2009 @ 01:35:49

@raditz8526 Said

No reason not to be when I know I'm right.

Well, if in your mind you think your right, I guess that's all that matters.

I wish I could be like you sometimes. I need to become more close minded so I start thinking I'm right about everything. What a good feeling that must be!

0

El_Tino

booyaka!

Albuquerque, New Mexico

#29

Feb 03, 2009 @ 08:11:40

@VoidStalker Said

It's a horrible, intrusive, and I believe unconstitutional law....
But not for the reasons one may assume.

I think it is only fair that a worker (regardless of any sex/race/religion crud) is paid the same as anyone else doing the same job, for the same employer, at the same time.

So why do I feel that this is wrong? Simple, the fed has absolutely no business (or jurisdiction) dictating anything along these lines to the private sector.

I'll make a new thread to bash the whole 'government overstepping it's bounds' thing, once I figure out where it belongs.

Laws stating a statute of limitations are unconsitituional?

ok then.

0

Similar Topics
	Forum	Topic	Last Post	Replies	Views
	US Election 2012	Are we better off than we were 4 years ago?	Wed Sep 19, 2012 @ 23:50	39	2467
	US Election 2012	What President Obama said regarding "you didn't build that"	Wed Aug 08, 2012 @ 16:49	50	5838
	US Election 2012	Obama "Most dangerous president".	Fri Aug 03, 2012 @ 09:46	74	5331
	Jokes & Humor	obama 32 years ago.	Fri Sep 30, 2011 @ 12:08	2	499
	Politics	Bachmann- "We can't afford 4 more years of Obama".	Thu Jun 30, 2011 @ 23:28	112	7962

Politics