'LEDBETTER LAW' COLLATERAL DAMAGE

As the accompanying story notes, the very first bill signed into law by President Obama was the long anticipated 'equal pay' legislation known by the name of a woman wronged in the workplace long ago. Most certainly, no intellectually honest person will deny that equal work, when the person hired to do that work is fully qualified to be doing so, deserves equal pay. Obviously, gender should not be a factor in determining pay rates if the jobs being done are equivalent.

In that respect, this legislation has a point to make although it is something that should have been in place in Ledbetter's time. Making it the law of the land now is fine, if not too late. Most, not all, employers long ago abandoned paying employees based solely on gender and in most places in this country, equal pay for equal work has been the common practice. Still, it is OK to have it codified in the law.

Except for the unintended consequences that this high profile, stealth legislation brings on to American society. The damage to be wrought is not at all balanced by whatever lesser positive outcomes will be generated from now on. Ledbetter was ripped off in her time and she gains nothing from this new law other than satisfaction. She was not alone in her time and before. But this law tends to be more symbol than substance and it will most likely do harm. To that point:

1. This is a full out, boondoggle pay back to the 'corporate' parent of the Democrat party, The Trial Lawyers Association. The TLA is the largest special interest donor to Democrat pols across the board. Once in office, those same wholly owned Democrat "public servants" continually pass legislation favorable to the fiscal interests of the TLA membership. This law is a perfect example. As implied in the cartoon above, every Ledbetter related tort, attorney and client will be euphemistically referred to as "Sue". Many a lawyer and law firm will further enrich themselves while feeding off the carcass of this legislation. In reality, the 'Ledbetter Law' is much more about special interest influence in government than it is about fairness or equal pay.

2. Say for a moment you own a business. Regardless of party affiliation or political philosophy, you work to generate a profit so that you can not only stay in business, but you can grow your business. Survival in the marketplace is your first and foremost priority. Along comes the 'Ledbetter Law'. What are your options going forward in order to avoid harmful and costly litigation? The easiest and most efficient is to hire fewer women or only hire women on the entry, minimum wage level. Doing so minimizes risk under this new law. It may not be nice or fair, but it is practical.

3. How about companies that already have men and women working in what a jury might decide are "equivalent" jobs, even if an employer can make the case that the jobs differ notably? What are the options if you are smart enough to know that you never want to get in front of a jury "of your peers" where a plaintiff attorney can sell fiction as easily as fact? There are two practical ways to go. Raise all lesser salaries so that everyone in similar jobs makes the same money or lower upper level pay rates so that the same outcome is achieved over time. If you are in business to make a profit, which makes more sense relative to the bottom line? Lower salaries of course. The problem is that when doing so a business is liable to lose it's good people. The 'Ledbetter Law' figuratively puts a gun to the head of business owners. That might work out OK in larger corporations but it just might put your local mom and pop out of business.

Politicians, of course, are out to look good, not think through the consequences of their actions. For them, it is all about money, votes and winning elections.

Where equal pay is denied on the basis of gender, or any other non workplace factor, employers should be taken to task. That kind of discrimination is deplorable. But the truth is, in the vast majority of American workplaces, that type of practice has vanished.

Now comes the 'Ledbetter Law'. It enriches lawyers while hurting women and small business. Unwise, in the extreme.


Obama signs first bill into law, on equal pay
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Declaring that ending pay disparity is not just a women's issue, President Barack Obama signed legislation Thursday that gives workers more time to take their pay discrimination cases to court.

Lilly Ledbetter, the Alabama woman whose story was the impetus behind the new law, stood alongside Obama as he signed the first bill of his presidency.

Also in the East Room of the White House were labor, women's, civil rights advocates and members of Congress for whom the bill was a priority.

"Equal pay is by no means just a women's issue, it's a family issue," Obama said. "And in this economy, when so many folks are already working harder for less and struggling to get by, the last thing they can afford is losing part of each month's paycheck to simple and plain discrimination."

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision that denied Ledbetter an opportunity for redress.

Ledbetter, 70, has said she did not learn about the sizable discrepancy in pay between her and her male co-workers until near the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala. She sued, but the high court said in a 5-4 decision that she missed her chance to bring the action.

The court said a person must file a discrimination claim within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than another doing the same job.

Under the new law, each new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for an additional 180 days. That was the interpretation before the Supreme Court was asked to step in.

First lady Michelle Obama held a separate reception with Ledbetter in the State Dining Room just down the red-carpeted hallway from the earlier event. "She knew unfairness when she saw it, and was willing to do something about it because it was the right thing to do — plain and simple," Mrs. Obama said.
Ledbetter, who won't benefit from the legislation, said the richest reward is that the nation's daughters and granddaughters will have a better deal.

"That's what makes this fight worth fighting," Ledbetter said. "That's what made this fight one we had to win."

The Bush White House and Senate Republicans blocked the bill in the last session of Congress. But Obama strongly supported it — he talked often about Ledbetter during the presidential campaign — and the Democratic-controlled Congress made it a priority in its opening weeks.

Opponents contended the bill would gut the statute of limitations and benefit trial lawyers by encouraging lawsuits. They also argued that employees could wait to file claims in hopes of reaping larger damage awards.

Supporters said the bill does not change current law limiting back-pay awards to two years, so there would be no incentive to wait to file a claim.

Obama cited Census Bureau figures that show women still earn about 78 cents for every dollar men get for doing equivalent jobs, and it's even less for women of color. He said Ledbetter lost more than $200,000 in salary, and even more in pension and Social Security benefits.

The bill, which amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act, also applies to discrimination based on factors such as race, religion, national origin, disability or age.
___
On the Net:
Information on the bill, S.181, can be found at http://thomas.loc.gov
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Sphere: Related Content