GOP War On Women: Senate GOP blocks equal pay bill

[jillian]

Here's the proof...





Senate GOP blocks equal pay bill | MSNBC

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a Democratic-backed bill that aims to combat unequal pay between men and women.

but the "base" will love it....

of course, the "base" is a bunch of old white reactionary males.... so it isn't surprising.

it's all good. that's why they can't win national elections.

 

[ron4342]

Here's the proof...





Senate GOP blocks equal pay bill | MSNBC

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a Democratic-backed bill that aims to combat unequal pay between men and women.

Call it by its real name, "The tort lawyer 100% employment act"

If you are correct, are you not saying that there are a whole shitload of companies paying women less than men? The fact that tort lawyers would have a field days petty much justifies the need for the law to be passed. If there was no inequality there would be no need for tort lawyers.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

And when anyone says anything about the Republicans' war on women, they turn their palms up and claim it's a myth.

No wonder they've been getting creamed so bad among women voters - oh yeah ... but it's just a "media myth."

It is a myth.

There are already several laws, the latest being Lilly Ledbetter, on the books dictating equal pay.

This whole fan dance is a big fat diversionary tactic and a throwing of red meat to the progressive faithful, as a meme to try and get them to turn out this fall.

Doesn't surprise me that the knee-jerkers here are falling for it.

Yeah, sure it is.

Laws don't mean crap when you block the enforcement.

Then why do you need yet another law on the books, to not be enforced?

Some may be stupid enough to fall for the smokescreen. But apparently a whole lot of women aren't that stupid - they avoid the GOP like the plague.

We already told you that you are falling for the smokescreen.

But I think that mistakenly presumed that you are not the one blowing the smoke.

 

[kidrocks]

It is a good tool to use even through it is a lie. Do you really want the federal government standing over the private sector in this country like china?


Why do you think it can't be that men just fill more of the higher paying jobs in this country?

Yeah, sure. Just a lie.....

They've just killed the best chance women have of receiving equal pay for equal work THREE times.

Yeah, just a lie .......

The federal government doesn't have to stand over anything - in fact all they have to do is move their ass out of the way and stop shielding employers who discriminate and let women have access to information and access to the courts.

Bullshit, there are already laws on the books. Are you really that ignorant or just plain stupid?

And there is plenty of unequal pay between men and women too. Obviously it seems.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is a myth.

There are already several laws, the latest being Lilly Ledbetter, on the books dictating equal pay.

This whole fan dance is a big fat diversionary tactic and a throwing of red meat to the progressive faithful, as a meme to try and get them to turn out this fall.

Doesn't surprise me that the knee-jerkers here are falling for it.

Yeah, sure it is.

Laws don't mean crap when you block the enforcement.

Some may be stupid enough to fall for the smokescreen. But apparently a whole lot of women aren't that stupid - they avoid the GOP like the plague.

Who is blocking enforcement?

Glad you asked. A couple of things this bill addresses.
First - employers put policies into place that punish (or fire) employees who share information about what they earn with other employees. So if a woman can't find out what men who are doing the same work make, they can't know if they are being discriminated against.

Two - employers are not required to disclose demographic pay information - another avenue of discovery blocked.
Three - currently women don't have access to civil courts to press pay discrimination suits.

 

[martybegan]

Why?

Because all it is going to do is open up companies to lawsuits just on the appearance of discrepancies between male and female pay. Companies will settle even if they did nothing wrong just to avoid court costs and bad publicity, and in the end the only people who will make money are the trial lawyers, and the only people who will lose money is the consumer.

The only companies that settle just to avoid litigation and bad publicity are the guilty ones.

You are so naive it is not even funny.

 

[martybegan]

Here's the proof...





Senate GOP blocks equal pay bill | MSNBC

Call it by its real name, "The tort lawyer 100% employment act"

If you are correct, are you not saying that there are a whole shitload of companies paying women less than men? The fact that tort lawyers would have a field days petty much justifies the need for the law to be passed. If there was no inequality there would be no need for tort lawyers.

You assume all lawsuits have actual cause, and that an innocent party when accused will defend itself until the end instead of settling with no admittance of guilt.

 

[ron4342]

Here's the proof...





Senate GOP blocks equal pay bill | MSNBC

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a Democratic-backed bill that aims to combat unequal pay between men and women.

The crazies on this board will cheer the gop'ers. Once more they fail to realize that you WIN elections by working to make people's lives better. You LOSE elections by working to make people's lives worse. Why is this such a difficult concept for the ding dong's in the gop?

 

[martybegan]

Here's the proof...





Senate GOP blocks equal pay bill | MSNBC

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, a Democratic-backed bill that aims to combat unequal pay between men and women.

The crazies on this board will cheer the gop'ers. Once more they fail to realize that you WIN elections by working to make people's lives better. You LOSE elections by working to make people's lives worse. Why is this such a difficult concept for the ding dong's in the gop?

How is increasing the cost of doing business, and thus the cost of provided products and services doing anyone any good?

 

[ron4342]

Call it by its real name, "The tort lawyer 100% employment act"

If you are correct, are you not saying that there are a whole shitload of companies paying women less than men? The fact that tort lawyers would have a field days petty much justifies the need for the law to be passed. If there was no inequality there would be no need for tort lawyers.

You assume all lawsuits have actual cause, and that an innocent party when accused will defend itself until the end instead of settling with no admittance of guilt.

You are making a false statement about what I assume. The bottom line is that if there is no inequality there is no case. Even if a tort lawyer tries to drum up a case where there is none it will fail and all the work of the tort lawyer will be wasted. Tort lawyers are only paid if they are successful. They will not waste time on a case if they know they have zero chance of winning.

 

[OKTexas]

Companies use the same standards to determine pay as the White House, experience, education and hours worked. There are already laws on the books dictating equal pay if everything else is equal, why do we need a new law? This is nothing but election year political grandstanding by desperate commiecrats.

So who died and appointed you head of the Department of Mr Know It All? Nice try though.

Just repeating what you mulatto messiahs mouth piece said yesterday, Take it up with him. Little Dickie Durbin got on the senate floor arguing for this bill, he pays his female workers an average of $11,500 less than the males. Just like you he's nothing but a hypocrite.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You are making a false statement about what I assume. The bottom line is that if there is no inequality there is no case. Even if a tort lawyer tries to drum up a case where there is none it will fail and all the work of the tort lawyer will be wasted. Tort lawyers are only paid if they are successful. They will not waste time on a case if they know they have zero chance of winning.

A lot of people don't understand how it works. Tort cases are usually a percentage deal.

 

[martybegan]

If you are correct, are you not saying that there are a whole shitload of companies paying women less than men? The fact that tort lawyers would have a field days petty much justifies the need for the law to be passed. If there was no inequality there would be no need for tort lawyers.

You assume all lawsuits have actual cause, and that an innocent party when accused will defend itself until the end instead of settling with no admittance of guilt.

You are making a false statement about what I assume. The bottom line is that if there is no inequality there is no case. Even if a tort lawyer tries to drum up a case where there is none it will fail and all the work of the tort lawyer will be wasted. Tort lawyers are only paid if they are successful. They will not waste time on a case if they know they have zero chance of winning.

So no company ever settles just to save on the cost of litigation, and the risk they will be found guilty by circumstance instead of actual malice?

Lol.

 

[ron4342]

Here's the proof...





Senate GOP blocks equal pay bill | MSNBC

The crazies on this board will cheer the gop'ers. Once more they fail to realize that you WIN elections by working to make people's lives better. You LOSE elections by working to make people's lives worse. Why is this such a difficult concept for the ding dong's in the gop?

How is increasing the cost of doing business, and thus the cost of provided products and services doing anyone any good?

I see!!! You have no problem with women being treated like wage slaves and being paid less for doing the same job as a man. What is important to you is how much you have to pay for goods and services and not whether people are being treated unfairly. How republican of you .......... By the by, where do you stand on slavery? After all, wouldn't that provide you the lowest costs for goods and services if women were paid nothing at all?

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, sure. Just a lie.....

They've just killed the best chance women have of receiving equal pay for equal work THREE times.

Yeah, just a lie .......

The federal government doesn't have to stand over anything - in fact all they have to do is move their ass out of the way and stop shielding employers who discriminate and let women have access to information and access to the courts.

Bullshit, there are already laws on the books. Are you really that ignorant or just plain stupid?

And there is plenty of unequal pay between men and women too. Obviously it seems.

Not usually when education, experience and hours worked are equal, but why look at reality because it's a great political propaganda issue. Right?

 

[kidrocks]

Because all it is going to do is open up companies to lawsuits just on the appearance of discrepancies between male and female pay. Companies will settle even if they did nothing wrong just to avoid court costs and bad publicity, and in the end the only people who will make money are the trial lawyers, and the only people who will lose money is the consumer.

The only companies that settle just to avoid litigation and bad publicity are the guilty ones.

You are so naive it is not even funny.

Why do you resort to name-calling?

It's called 'no contest'. The defendants plead guilty, but do not have to specifically admit to the guilt. Such is stipulated in the settlement language afterwards. No admittance of guilt.

 

[ron4342]

You assume all lawsuits have actual cause, and that an innocent party when accused will defend itself until the end instead of settling with no admittance of guilt.

You are making a false statement about what I assume. The bottom line is that if there is no inequality there is no case. Even if a tort lawyer tries to drum up a case where there is none it will fail and all the work of the tort lawyer will be wasted. Tort lawyers are only paid if they are successful. They will not waste time on a case if they know they have zero chance of winning.

So no company ever settles just to save on the cost of litigation, and the risk they will be found guilty by circumstance instead of actual malice?

Lol.

Wrong. Companies DO settle to save on the cost of litigation. If they know that the case against them is a strong one it makes no sense to throw good money after bad. The goal is to cut their loses as much as possible.

 

[martybegan]

The only companies that settle just to avoid litigation and bad publicity are the guilty ones.

You are so naive it is not even funny.

Why do you resort to name-calling?

It's called 'no contest'. The defendants plead guilty, but do not have to specifically admit to the guilt. Such is stipulated in the settlement language afterwards.

And as for "no-contest" you still end up paying.

Calling you naive is not name calling. Calling you a useless troll fucktard... THATS name-calling.

 

[martybegan]

You are making a false statement about what I assume. The bottom line is that if there is no inequality there is no case. Even if a tort lawyer tries to drum up a case where there is none it will fail and all the work of the tort lawyer will be wasted. Tort lawyers are only paid if they are successful. They will not waste time on a case if they know they have zero chance of winning.

So no company ever settles just to save on the cost of litigation, and the risk they will be found guilty by circumstance instead of actual malice?

Lol.

Wrong. Companies DO settle to save on the cost of litigation. If they know that the case against them is a strong one it makes no sense to throw good money after bad. The goal is to cut their loses as much as possible.

Companies settle even if they know they can win to reduce costs as well. All laws like this do is place the burden of proof onto the company to prove they didn't discriminate, and removes the burden on the people who were discriminated against. its a lawyer cash cow, nothing more.

 

[martybegan]

The crazies on this board will cheer the gop'ers. Once more they fail to realize that you WIN elections by working to make people's lives better. You LOSE elections by working to make people's lives worse. Why is this such a difficult concept for the ding dong's in the gop?

How is increasing the cost of doing business, and thus the cost of provided products and services doing anyone any good?

I see!!! You have no problem with women being treated like wage slaves and being paid less for doing the same job as a man. What is important to you is how much you have to pay for goods and services and not whether people are being treated unfairly. How republican of you .......... By the by, where do you stand on slavery? After all, wouldn't that provide you the lowest costs for goods and services if women were paid nothing at all?

I have an issue with a bullshit law making it so companies are guilty until proven innocent, which is what laws like this do. There are plenty of statues on the books that people can use to prove discrimination. What this does is makes the burden go to the companies to show they didn't discriminate, not the proper way where the aggrieved party has to prove their point.

and negged for hyperbole.