Yesterday, as you may have heard, was Equal Pay Day. It's the day that marks how much longer American women have to work to earn the same amount of money American men make in the same positions -- so if we use Jan. 1, 2011 as a starting date, what men made as of Dec. 31 is equal to what women made as of yesterday.
With this in mind, Mitt Romney's remarkably vague position on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act matters, and is of growing importance every day.
The Romney campaign didn't want to take a position last week, and when ABC's Diane Sawyer asked the presumptive Republican nominee about the law this week, Romney said he supports equal pay, and wouldn't "intend" to change the Fair Pay Act, but he refused to say whether he would have supported it when it became law in 2009.
Some Romney allies are choosing to be far more forthcoming. In Michigan, Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Pete Hoekstra, a longtime Romney ally, last week called the law "a nuisance." In Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker, a man Romney has described as a "hero," repealed a state version of the Fair Pay Act.
And in New Hampshire yesterday, state GOP Executive Director Tory Mazzola, a top Romney surrogate in New Hampshire, went even further.
For those who can't watch clips online, Mazzola said of the Lilly Ledbetter law, "Instead of being about fair pay, it is really about a handout to trial lawyers because it expands the areas that people can sue their employers unnecessarily."
Taken together, we have a story of growing importance, especially in light of the Romney campaign offensive on women's issues last week.
As we talked about on the show last night, the questions are obvious: does Romney support the Fair Pay Act or not? Does he agree with his own surrogates? When nearly every Republican in Congress voted against the legislation, were they right or wrong?
Rachel explained, "It is one thing to say you support the outcome that somehow women and men should be paid equally. But given the fact they are not paid equally now, should we fix it? Should there be a policy implemented to help fix that?"
These need not be rhetorical questions.
Leave a Comment:
I guess my concern revolves around that choice tidbit: "Mazzola said of the Lilly Ledbetter law, "Instead of being about fair pay, it is really about a handout to trial lawyers because it expands the areas that people can sue their employers unnecessarily"."
Since a representative from the Romney campaign is apparently suggesting that it is "unnecessary" to address inequities in pay between men and women, I wonder why-- or under what conditions-- any person would wish to support a campaign that has so clearly suggested that it is not interested in supporting the fundamental notion of the equality of all citizens under the law.
Those comments struck me also.
We don't want to pass a law to protect wage rights because it expands the areas where lawyers can sue employers unnecessarily.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you sue and win, it wasn't unnecessary.
Talk about political speak.
It;s a really huge distinction that needs to be made.
I think it's a law that in a better world would be unnecessary. We don't need a federal law backed up by state laws that reinforces the right of tall people who are paid unfairly to sue - because nobody would dream of basing pay on height.
I think it's wrong for trial lawyers to make a killing on this at the expense of business owners, too.
But business owners can insulate themselves from the risk of that by -and here's a novel idea - paying their employees fairly.
@Lymis- well that's really the whole point. If you, as an employer, don't want to run the risk of being sued for discrimination in pay....then don't discriminate w/ how you pay. It's like Republicans put all this heft on the idea of 'individual' responsibility, but when it comes to businesses or churches there's absolutely no concept to them that a business or a church can also be personally responsible. That to me is the scary thing.
I would agree w/ you in principle that if this were a situation in which lawyers were just suing businesses left and right then yeah that'd be a terrible piece of legislation. But businesses that pay their workers equally aren't being sued left and right. It's just businesses that don't pay equally. And since they have an alternative it's hard for me to take the side of 'the blood sucking lawyer screwed you over on this.'
My neighbor happens to be a divorce/criminal lawyer. Typically no one is happy when they get done, even if they win.
As you say, the lawyer didn't "screw" the employers. They did it to themselves.
Bad example. Back in the early 90s, I worked for a company that did exactly that.
Seriously -- the CEO was a self-conscious little short guy, and nobody who reported to him could be taller than he was. It was not even a good idea to have someone taller than him show up for a meeting where he was, so your chance of getting promoted out of the lowest levels of the Company were pretty near nil if you were more than about 5'4" tall.
I even had my immediate management come to me one day to tell me he was doing a plant tour and to make myself scarce (I'm 6'4")
Damned enlightening experience for someone who'd never really been the object of discrimination before.
Barbara Feldon had height-related issues working on Get Smart. She's taller than Don Adams was, and in those days it didn't do for a woman to be taller than a man onscreen. She wasn't fired (she was hired in full knowledge of how tall she is) but except in long shots she had to perform sans shoes and with her feet turned in. She complained that she was the only actress in the world with calloused ankles.
Would someone ask that twit why she thinks that suing employers when they engage in discriminatory salary payments is unnecessary? What other option would she suggest?
Since the easiest way to avoid being sued is to pay equally regardless of gender, how is this a handout to trial lawyers?
Would you want it legal for someone to sue you for being unfair to them 20 years ago? Or, would you think there needs to be some limitation on the time frame so that you are adequately capable of defending yourself? I would prefer the latter.
It is already against the law to discriminate pay based on gender.
One can be FOR fair pay for women and AGAINST your way of making that happen. This does NOT mean they aren't FOR fair pay just because they disagree with you and your means to the end.
If they're still doing it? Damn straight.
RD, maybe you should look up the Lily Ledbetter case to see why the law was passed.
...........this is not how the Lilly Ledbetter Act works Rob.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009
....This is what the Lilly Ledbetter Act does for both parties.....
Steve, come on, proofread a litte, please.
It's the day that marks how much longer American [[what? Women, perhaps?]] have to work to earn the same amount of money American men make in the same positions [...]
With this in mind, Mitt Romney's remarkably vague take on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act matter[s], and
are[is]of growing importance every day.Yeah, we get the gist, but you used to be more careful.
this is about equal pay for equal work, and the woman,
citizens of this country
having the right to go before a judge if they believe they've been wronged.
just get a day in court. not win the case, just get a day in court.
rikyrah, "a day in court" is already possible and already an option. Actually, there are several options for someone who has been discriminated against.
Does this spokesperson feel she should be paid equally? What would her response be if she found she was getting 20% less than her male spokesperson colleagues?
Er a bit of confusion. The woman pictured in the still frame is a local reporter introducing the segment. The person making the comments about suing employers for unfair pay being 'unnecessary' is actually a man who is shown later on in the clip.
Well, that makes more sense. Thanks.
I wish one of these pundits would just ask Romney the question and then say "Candidate, we're going to sit here until you answer me or until you run away. No other questions will be asked and we will film the entire thing."
Do you every watch politicians and political spokespersons? This is the game they ALL play.
So suing for "fair pay" is unnecessary, but being paid less for the same work is "fair"? Duh what? And yet people look at me sideways when I say that the GOP suffers from schizophrenia, yea okay.....
Based upon everything that Mr. Romney has said, even with his flip-flopping, I strongly feel that he would not have signed the Lilly-Ledbetter bill into law! Whatever his controlling forces want, he will oblige, and these forces were against this bill and are against this law.
Mr. Romney is a waste. I cannot see him as President of the United States, which he would be in name only. He is not good for America nor for 99% of Americans.
Romney has nice hair and his trees are the right height. That is all he brings to the party.
Must be damn frustrating trying to run for President while constantly tripping over that ever-belittling tongue. Face-plant in the hurdles, ... again. Ouch.
Aiding stay-at-home parents = handout
Women earning equal pay for equal work of a man = handout
Helping poverty stricken areas of our country get on their feet to not have to rely on government aid = handout
Giving kids an equal ability to get a higher education and reduce dropout rates = handout.
Ya know, I'm about over this need of calling everything that can further our country into something better as a "handout". I'm also sick of the fact that we actually have to make such laws to protect people which should just already be in common practice. I look at other countries with very similar proposals and I think "Gee, with all that handout they must be suffering drastically according to our so called higher-educated elected officials." Then I'm taken aback by the fact they're doing much better then we ever have in every category of what our GOP keeps labeling as "handout programs that ruin our country and make us lazy".
I thought we left a monarch society of one ruling party telling us all how to think, worship, live and telling us what the worth of our life is. Until they've lived a day of a normal American Woman's life.. they really ought to just shut their trap and stop pretending that "Hey, I have a friend of a friend of a cousin of a distant uncle that lives in middle class america!" is a proper way to address these issues.
The only true lazy ones here are those who don't have the gravitas to actually learn from those who were less fortunate than themselves and actually empathize with them. To admit a mistake and learn from it?! What an ABSURD thing to do! Women getting treated equally?! Well that's just horse mallarky and government hand outs! We know what women need and that is legalized beatings, limited healthcare, and less money. Duh!
PLEASE DELETE TYHIS NAME FROM YOUR MAILING LIST THIS WAS MY FATHER AND MOTHE ANTHONY TONY& MARY NUNEZ
12202 ALOGONQUIN APPLEVALLEY CALIFORNIA,
THEY ARE BOTH DECEASED
TONY ANTHONY NUNEZ 122022 ALGONQUINN RD APPLEVALLEY
PASSED AWAY LAST MAY MOTHER'S DAY 2011
MARY PASSED AWAY 6 MONTHES EARLIER.
AS A FAVOR PLEASE REMOVES THESE NAMES
I 'AM THE ONLY SON
God Bless You, Love is coming to us all.
Amazing ain't it?Get the government out of the boardroom and into the bedroom! The heck with "the people" we can deny them the vote with twisted logic and even get some of them to applaud us for doing so!
No mister and Ms. America this is not a bad movie, it is actually occuring.