36 Republican Men Vote Against Fair Pay!

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Byrdie714

New Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
8,889
Reaction score
0
Fair Pay

On Jan. 22, 2009, the U.S. Senate passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act by a vote of 61 to 36. The 36 JERKS that voted no...were Republican. Not surpirsingly the man who spent 2 years telling us how he defends women and fair pay...Mr. John McCain...was among them.

Why is it okay in GOP land to pay women less than a man for doing the exact same job????
 
wow, this is discrimination ... *shake my head*
 
Not surprised, women are deserved to have fair pay as men does.

I'm glad for being not member of republican or democratic party.
 
Greedy and egostical men! :roll:
 
oh I don't know, woman are obviously far more inferior to men, they can't cook, can't do more than one thing at once, prone to irrational outbursts and above all take far too much interest in sports and the opposite sex, to be able to do the same amount of hours as men...

oh no, wait a min, i got them round the wrong way;)

shocking but I'm not surprised, so much for the new world being free of all that, in the UK i wouldnt bat an eyelid, but I expected more from the new worlds
 
Men need to make money then wife can stay home as housewife. Unless they're single and dirty who need more money to go stripping club. Nice!

However... I thought Democrat take over the House and Senator? What happen?
 
Not surprised either.

Republicans has long lost my respect in this time of century.
 
PowerON said:
Men need to make money then wife can stay home as housewife. Unless they're single and dirty who need more money to go stripping club. Nice!

However... I thought Democrat take over the House and Senator? What happen?
Click to expand...
Your post doesn't make any sense, There may be some women who enjoy staying at home doing their chores while their husbands/spouses work/screw other people. :roll: I see no valid reasons to treat women like they are second-class citizens or some dogs. They deserve all the equals their husbands/spouses get.
 
And we gnash our teeth and rail at other countries for their "unfair treatment" of women. :roll:
 
Just because someone opposes legislation that purports to help women does not mean that person is an egotistical jerk who doesn't care about women. Policies that try to help a certain group very often actually hurt that group. It's part of the law of unintended consequences. Yet when critics of the policy try to point that out, they are labeled as mean-spirited and uncaring towards that group.

I can't read the minds of the senators who opposed it, but I imagine their reasoning is along the lines of this article by the Heritage Foundation.

The Ledbetter Act: Sacrificing Justice for "Fair" Pay

It's a pretty long article, so here's the gist of it. This Ledbetter case is about the 180 day statute of limitations in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The new law would have the effect of allowing a woman to sue years or even decades after the alleged discrimination occurred. This would allow a flood of lawsuits, many of which would be frivolous. It would lower employee wages and increase the price of products as employers have to adjust the way they do business to protect themselves. It would also give them an incentive to hire fewer women- something which is illegal, but hard to prove. That's where the law of unintended consequences comes in. This article suggests it would be better to simply increase the statute of limitations to two or three years.
 
Did any of you bother to read some of the links at the bottom of that page..that have in them explanations as to why those Republicans were not for it? It sounds great- EQUAL PAY. But the devil is in the details.

Oops..I guess darkdog did.
 
darkdog said:
Just because someone opposes legislation that purports to help women does not mean that person is an egotistical jerk who doesn't care about women. Policies that try to help a certain group very often actually hurt that group. It's part of the law of unintended consequences. Yet when critics of the policy try to point that out, they are labeled as mean-spirited and uncaring towards that group.

I can't read the minds of the senators who opposed it, but I imagine their reasoning is along the lines of this article by the Heritage Foundation.

The Ledbetter Act: Sacrificing Justice for "Fair" Pay

It's a pretty long article, so here's the gist of it. This Ledbetter case is about the 180 day statute of limitations in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The new law would have the effect of allowing a woman to sue years or even decades after the alleged discrimination occurred. This would allow a flood of lawsuits, many of which would be frivolous. It would lower employee wages and increase the price of products as employers have to adjust the way they do business to protect themselves. It would also give them an incentive to hire fewer women- something which is illegal, but hard to prove. That's where the law of unintended consequences comes in. This article suggests it would be better to simply increase the statute of limitations to two or three years.
Click to expand...

Dutch said:
Did any of you bother to read some of the links at the bottom of that page..that have in them explanations as to why those Republicans were not for it? It sounds great- EQUAL PAY. But the devil is in the details.

Oops..I guess darkdog did.
Click to expand...

Action speaks louder than words regardless of the little details.

The 36 men could've amended the bill but choose not to and thus voted against fair pay for women.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Action speaks louder than words regardless of the little details.

The 36 men could've amended the bill but choose not to and thus voted against fair pay for women.
Click to expand...

That is the bottom line.
 
Byrdie714 said:
Action speaks louder than words regardless of the little details.

The 36 men could've amended the bill but choose not to and thus voted against fair pay for women.
Click to expand...
What do you propose the amendment should say? "Hey, just kidding about the virtually limitless statute of limitations in the main text of this bill"?
 
darkdog said:
What do you propose the amendment should say? "Hey, just kidding about the virtually limitless statute of limitations in the main text of this bill"?
Click to expand...

Anything that gives women Fair Pay.

They could've have been pro-active about the situation but choose not to. Thus making them look bad in obtaining equal rights for equal pay among women.
 
darkdog said:
What do you propose the amendment should say? "Hey, just kidding about the virtually limitless statute of limitations in the main text of this bill"?
Click to expand...

Change the main text of the bill. What would be your solution? Continue to justify the fact that women make .70 cents on the dollar when compared to men doing equal work?
 
Byrdie714 said:
Action speaks louder than words regardless of the little details.

The 36 men could've amended the bill but choose not to and thus voted against fair pay for women.
Click to expand...


No they could not have amended the bill. The Democrats control everything. If you'll read up on it- amendments WERE put out by Republicans, but were defeated.
 
Dutch said:
No they could not have amended the bill. The Democrats control everything. If you'll read up on it- amendments WERE put out by Republicans, but were defeated.
Click to expand...

Defeated because they did not support the intent of the bill.
 
jillio said:
Defeated because they did not support the intent of the bill.
Click to expand...

If their amendments had passed, and then they still voted against it, you'd be correct.

What happened to- they could have amended it? :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top