"Change is the first bill I signed into law -- a law that says you get an equal day's work -- somebody who puts in an equal day's work should get equal day's pay."
==========
==========
==========
==========
=======
That's
not what the LilyLedbet
terAct is or what it does.
That act has been at the top of Obama's 'most ardent supporters
' lists of his "accomplis
hments", and I can understand Obama-supp
orters' confusion about it, because to explain the ridiculous
ness of it as an "Obama accomplish
ment" can't be done in a 10-word sound byte.
To begin with, claiming LilyLedbet
ter as Obama's achievemen
t is like the driver of the winning car in this year's LeMans race (MikeRocke
rfeller) picking up a hitch-hiki
ng Obama right before he crossed the finish line. It's even more deceitful than that, for any Democrat or any member of Congress to pat themselves on the back for fixing that which they themselves broke. But even that doesn't quite explain it.
Obama and Democrats got into power on a pledge to change the way Washington works. Little is ever said or explained about what that really means, but I'll attempt it:
By the time that elected officials manage to enact legislatio
n, the problem the legislatio
n is to address has usually grown and morphed into something beyond what the legislatio
n would affect or change, making it either irrelevant or creating a boondoggle that gridlocks later congressio
nal efforts. Or, something else.
With LilyLedbet
ter, it took 45 years to have the legislatur
e address a problem (statute of limitation
s for filing equal pay discrimina
tion lawsuits in the CivilRight
sAct of 1964) in what never should have been agreed to by Democrats in the first place in 1964. LilyLedbet
ter really had nothing to do with "landmark sex discrimina
tion". It had to do with when the clock starts running for filing a very particular kind of lawsuit. It doesn't affect statutes of limitation for any other kind of lawsuit. It doesn't apply to the filing of all lawsuits. It's just for a particular class of lawsuits - For presenting an equal-pay lawsuit.
And it wasn't 45 years of Congresses trying to fix it. It was a year and a half. It was in response to the SupremeCou
rt's decision in 2007 in one woman's lawsuit. It's not going to affect millions, or thousands or even hundreds of others - Ironically
, if it were to affect more women, it never would have passed, no matter what party held the Congress (because it would have meant more money paid out from corporatio
ns to women, and Democrats work for corporatio
ns just as Republican
s do).
For Obama or DLC-contro
lled Democrats to tout passage of LilyLedbet
ter without having followed it up with
legislation for transparency in pay is the height of gall. LilyLedbet
ter is a joke without it. It's like taking a starving person to a Michelin-s
tarred restaurant and not letting them eat.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
0 comments:
Post a Comment