Community | January 29, 2009 | 41 comments

Obama signs first legislation

Image
ebindelglass
President Barack Obama signed an equal pay bill into law Thursday, declaring that it's a family issue, not just a women's issue.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Election 2008,   2 more
  2. tags:
    News News and Politics Politics Obama 7 more
  3.     
    |

41 comments // Obama signs first legislation

  • wayseeker
    • 0
      wayseeker  
    • Your wrong gram. Obama didn't sign the bill under the table. Here's a quote from the article. " Obama appeared before a jammed East Room audience, and his entrance and many lines of his brief remarks were met with happy applause and yells". You need to get another Cristal ball to predict the future. America did "wake up" when they the elected Obama. Freedom, truth, and honor were the last things on Bush's and Chaney's minds. Wake up to the possibility that Obama is a man of incorruptible integrity who may be quiet lonely in the Capitol.

    • 3 years ago
  • gram
    • 0
      gram  
    • I dont have faith in America any more the first week in office he signs a bill under the table so the public don't find out. Wake up AMERICA and get over he's an aferican. Please . Dont' sit on the couch and complain, lets take our country back over. OBAMA you are going to be worse then Bush. I hope you don"t have to deal with homeland attacks. Hurracains, fema, wall street. You would'nt just drink you would go to pot and cocaine. o I forgot it would still be Bush's proplem he did it. YOU JUST WILL PASS THE ____. We have a chance for a new America get stars out of you'r eyes

    • 3 years ago
  • wayseeker
  • CAUSECAST
  • TabulaRasa
    • 0
      TabulaRasa  
    • This is why mothers that would like to stay at home and take care of their kids can't do so. Because by equalizing the pay, you aren't raising a woman's pay, you're only taking away from what the Father makes.

      Now I know you have to take into consideration those who are single and don't have families but in effect, this is what happens.

      Why do you think back in the 50's women could stay home and take care of the kids? Why do you think that generation by generation kids are becoming worse and worse?

      Now I only believe in what I just said half-heartedly but it's just something to think about, so don't be too harsh.

      And no I'm no sexist. And yes I do fully believe that pay should depend on performance. MOST women in a warehouse can not carry a 50+lbs box. It's just the reality of things [I've worked in a hardware store with women, I am fully aware]. I'm neither strongly against this nor strongly supporting.

      ... gosh I just know people are going to flame me for this...

    • 3 years ago
  • fountaingoats
    • 0
      fountaingoats  
    • TabulaRasa:

      Actually, women (and men!) who want to stay home can't do so because the US standard of living has taken a nosedive since 1980 and one income isn't enough to support a family any more.

      But in truth, your logic is flawed at a more basic level. Why do you assume that women want to stay home and men don't, or that the person making money in a single-earner family should be the man and not the woman?

      The truth is, that women who perform the same as men in the same job *at the same level* still don't make the same amount of money. So it's not just about women's inability do physical tasks like lifting heavy boxes - office jobs where women are equal or better performers still do not have equal pay between genders.

      This bill isn't saying that any difference in pay between a man and a woman is sexist - if the performance or responsibility level is different between any two people, the pay level is likely to be different. Whether gender discrimination occurred in any case would be determined by the court in which the woman was suing the company. This bill just says that she can still sue if she found out that she'd been paid 20% less for years and years without knowing about it, as long as the discrimination was still occurring. Let's say that a woman in sales is outperforming her male colleagues, and still getting paid less - but she doesn't find out about it until she's been working there for a year. Are you saying she shouldn't be able to do anything about it at that point? That's all this bill is doing, but I don't expect that you've actually read what it's about.

    • 3 years ago
  • TabulaRasa
    • 0
      TabulaRasa  
    • TabulaRasa:

      lol I don't assume anything. More or less I was just throwing out an idea... not to mention I was dead tired last night and will continue to be so because I work 80+ hrs. Which speaking of work, I have to go right now. Bye =)

    • 3 years ago
  • fountaingoats
    • 0
      fountaingoats  
    • TabulaRasa:

      "This is why mothers that would like to stay at home and take care of their kids can't do so."

      With that statement, you *are* assuming that women want to stay home with their kids and men don't. Without that assumption, that sentence wouldn't make sense. I could turn it around and say, "Unequal pay for women is why fathers that would would like to stay at home and take care of their kids [while the mother earns the family's income] can't do so."

    • 3 years ago
  • Tayllerand
  • TabulaRasa
  • ipodrulz
  • dariusvons
  • AreOh
    • 0
      AreOh  
    • Equality. What a novel concept. Now if we can address the imbalances of the application of the law, we are getting somewhere...

    • 3 years ago
  • Vierotchka
  • Tayllerand
  • Vierotchka
  • kaps145
  • TabulaRasa
  • anjela3
    • 0
      anjela3  
    • Actually, thanks you kaps....women aren't supposed to be getting paid less. Very fascinating though that we could give a crap less if this is a women's issue, but now that its a family issue all of a sudden it's important.
      And petarro that's an excellent idea...but it would never happen because we have way to many under-performer/achievers that believe they are the greatest and spend their time telling people it is so instead of proving it...while those true hard workers just keep plugging away getting the job done. We have become a country where reality is perception and perception is for sale. Reality has not been the truth for a very long time. And I doubt if this bill will actually change a thing.....in reality.

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • The conservatives are silent in this thread because they don't want to publicly admit that they are against this.

      Enough bile though, this is a seriously good day for America.

    • 3 years ago
  • TabulaRasa
  • cerealforeal
  • kaps145
    • 0
      kaps145  
    • Awesome!

      For those who may not have actually clicked the link:

      Just as the article explains, equal pay for equal work isn't new. It's been in practice for quite some time. What this bill does though is get rid of a loop hole employers were using to pay women less. The employee had 180 days to file suit from the first instance of discrimination. If you're not suppose to discuss pay with fellow workers (which is stated in most work contracts) then how would you ever know you're being discriminated against? The bill has changed it to 180 days after the employee finds out they're being discriminated against which is what congress meant the first time around...woops.

    • 3 years ago
  • FallenMorgan
    • 0
      FallenMorgan  
    • Women are payed less because of long-standing social ideals. This is one federal legislation I agree with: it relates to civil rights. Everything else though should be up to the states.

    • 3 years ago
  • metalcookiesxy70
  • unimatrix0
  • trut
  • trut
  • donkeyfly69
    • 0
      donkeyfly69  
    • this is the first thing i've liked about obama. of course it would have been better if sexual orientation and gender identity could have been added to the bill

    • 3 years ago
  • KairiAvalbane
  • fiat_lux088
  • fountaingoats
    • 0
      fountaingoats  
    • fiat_lux088:

      This bill undid the horrible supreme court decision in 2007 that basically said that if a company was committing pay discrimination based on gender, the woman had to report it within 180 days of the first instance. So basically, if the company got away with it for 180 days, they could continue to discriminate.

      So no, there's no negative to this unless you're a sexist jerk, I guess.

    • 3 years ago
  • petarro
  • fountaingoats
    • 0
      fountaingoats  
    • petarro:

      How do you rate someone's performance without perception getting in the way?

      It was already illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender when determining a worker's pay. This bill effectively undid a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said that a woman had to report the discrimination within 180 days of the first occurrence.

      I agree that people should be paid on performance - but unfortunately, a woman who performs the same as a man still does not make equal pay.

    • 3 years ago
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • petarro:

      That's what the bill is doing stupid.

      God petarro, are you a just a sexist who thinks that women are automatically inferior or just a complete ignorant fool who doesn't know what this bill is trying to address?

    • 3 years ago
  • trut
  • TabulaRasa
  • NFUSA
  • SupeRblah90
  • blue_blooded
  • conservativelyliberal
more from Community:
from the community

top videos