Congress votes on ‘Ledbetter’ and ‘Paycheck Fairness’ Acts
January 23, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Complaint investigation, Employment law, Gender discrimination, Money, Pay and benefits, Special Report, policies
Two Democratic cornerstone pieces of legislation passed the U.S. House last week: The Lilly Ledbetter Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. And Ledbetter cleared a major hurdle in the Senate, too. A summary of each act:
The Lilly Ledbetter Act changes existing law — and a U.S. Supreme Court decision — holding that cases of discrimination in the workplace have a 180-day statute of limitations in which someone can make a claim. The act is named for a woman who worked for Goodyear for 18 years in Alabama, and learned just before her retirement that she had been paid less than men doing the same job. For that reason, she couldn’t have filed a discrimination complaint within the 180 days required by law, even though the evidence showed she did indeed suffer discrimination in pay. The act changes the rules on the statute of limitations by assigning the 180-day limit to each paycheck. In other words, every time someone gets paid, that person has a new 180 days in which to file a pay-discrimination claim.
The Paycheck Fairness Act –
- requires the EEOC to survey pay data already available and issue regulations within 18 months that require employers to submit any needed pay data identified by the race, sex, and national origin of employees, giving the EEOC easier ways to detect violations of law and toughen enforcement.
- toughens the remedy provisions of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) by allowing plaintiffs to recover compensatory and punitive damages from employers. The EPA now provides only for limited damages and back pay awards, which tend to be less.
- allows an EPA lawsuit to proceed as a class action in conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). Under present law, it’s difficult to bring EPA suits as class actions because the EPA requires plaintiffs to opt in to a suit. Under the federal rule, class members are automatically considered part of the class until they choose to opt out of the class.
- prohibits employers from punishing employees for sharing salary information with their co-workers.
Here’s how each member of the House voted on the Ledbetter Act and on the Paycheck Fairness Act.
And then a few days later, the Senate voted, 72-23, to limit debate on the Ledbetter Act — major step toward approval. President Obama already has voiced support for the bill.
What do you think of the Acts? Take our poll at the right of this story.
Tags: eeoc, EPA, goodyear, Ledbetter Act, Paycheck Fairness Act
January 26th, 2009 at 10:52 am
If one , anyone , can wait till the end of their career to file , there is little opportunity for the employer to know what the reasons were that long ago . Documentation of every differentiation will be the curse.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:52 am
YOU GO GIRL!!
It’s finally here, the day a woman can make the same amount of money for running circles around a man who is supposed to to the same….
January 26th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Oops! that is supposed to “do” the same.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Will they ever be a truly Bi-partisan vote. The 180 per pay check is a bit much, overkill especially when each should be responsible for their own well being. It may be better for employers to better educate the employee on the compensation systems, as well as employers providing some statistical info to the employee on ranges, or job analysis.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:00 am
I have a sinking feeling that there will be a lot of compliance and reporting in this area, whether or not someone files a complaint. In smaller organizations, where no two jobs are exactly the same, will we be working with “comparable worth” issues? I’m all for fairness, but running out of resources in my group and VERY unlikely to get any more to deal with more regulation.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I do not disagree in priniciple with this issue but it sounds like we better start retaining payroll records forever. So much for records retention schedules. I can just see the subpoenas now for 20 year old payroll records that we do not have. The burden of proof will fall on the employer and I am sure the penalties will be severe.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:28 am
While I am in favor of equal pay for equal work, I object to the constant barrage of federal laws that put American companies at a disadvantage when trying to compete in a global market. American companies must, not only comply with a myriad federal and state laws, rules and regulations, but must be able to document on demand that they are in compliance. If you complain about “jobs going overseas”, look no farther than Congress.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:49 am
This is similar to the continuing violation theory that we have long lived with in the labor contract arena. The real question is whether the remedies can reach back beyond the 180 day period, they are normally limited to the filing period in labor contract decisions.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Sorry, but this kind of legislation scares me to death. We are being choked to death with the government telling us how to run our business and adding layers of additional burdens of documentation, regulation, hoops to jump through. What about fairness to employers who are trying to stay in business and not lay off workers and provide jobs?!
January 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Private Party – Ditto, Ditto, Ditto!! The only people 100% against these changes are the ones who should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing now. To the rest of us, it’s not a big deal.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Private Party: DITTO!! To everyone else, quit complaining about the government telling us what to do. If we are doing what’s right already, these issues are no big deal. If someone, and I quote, is…”scared to death”, they probably have reason to be. The government has always been telling us what to do in the form of the Constitution, laws, regulations, etc. As far back as I can remember they have been telling me not to speed, kill somone, cheat on my taxes, rob a bank…and the list goes on. If businesses were all doing “the right thing”…these laws wouldn’t have even gotten to the ink on paper point.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I think the main point of the issueis being overlooked. Throughout history pay inequity has been rampant. It is our job to educate management on the legal ramifications of compensation discrimination.
Other countries have many more regulations than the US. We let a person go in Mexico and he received a mandatory severance of over $90,000. He had been employed with us for 12 years. In Canada we laid off an employee with five years of service and we had to pay out $10,000.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
America is supposed to be a beacon on the hill, a shining light of democracy. If Corporate heads, like John Thain of Merrill-Lynch, were not so busy lining their office toilets with gold and focused on spending their outrageous bonuses, while they are letting taxpayers bail them out, they might be able to pay attention to the principles of fairness.
And Carl, no reason to hold on to physical payroll records forever, if someone can sue within 180 days of their last paycheck. First, one could most correctly assume that if an employee was being screwed on her last paycheck she was being screwed all along. Second, we are in the digital age now, we can easily store data from decades past.
But no one has to worry about covering their butts if they just act fairly all along. Face it, we are a nation of greed…our highest ideals are about material possessions. It is so easy for people to convince themselves they are being fair…they are unaware of their own programmed prejudices and private agendas, to care about the. However, on the other side of the coin, some employees feel they are being victimized. But when one truly is, it exposes all of us to the same abuse, and there needs to be laws to keep us all honest & accountable, and to keep us that beacon of democracy.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Dear “Ditto”…you didn’t have to prove that you didn’t speed, kill, cheat, etc. We are still innocent until proven guilty. Here, we have to defend what we did do and the cost will be high even though we are innocent. I believe the adage is, you can’t prove what didn’t happen. Perhaps your company has never had false accusations about sex discrimination, age discrimination, wrongful termination, etc., but employees being human, find that a good way to retaliate.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I agree with Carl. It is not fair to penalize a company and make them defend against something they are not legally required to keep records for. There are many reasons why two people working the same job would make different pay. Unless it is a union shop, how else should a company differentiate adequate performers from outstanding performers?
The same pay for the same job may be equal but not always fair. My friends who are in unions complain about some of the deadbeats who do only as much as they must and still get the same pay as they do for doing minimal or crummy work. There shouldn’t be enormous disparity in pay but paying one person a little more for exceptional performance great and attitude is reasonable. I see more unnecessary legal disputes more than I see equity for those who are not adequately compensated.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
What concerns me is that our out-of-step government (both state and federal) continuously look for ways to burden the employer, like they are punishing them. Democrats punish employers whenever they are in power. Right now employers need to be able to operate a business and keep those they have employed, employed. Threatening employers with lawsuits every payday undermines recovery. I agree that it is largely this over-burdening legislation that sends good paying jobs overseas.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
My greatest fear? HR people who don’t READ the issues! This is a HUGE POINT: Geography is no longer a factor in being able to determine the “fair pay”. I have a little office in South Dakota. If I have to pay my workers the same there for the same job I pay them for in Washington State or California, we will have to shut down the plant. Even the minimum wages are different in those states. The fact is an administrative assistant can buy a nice house in South Dakota for $160K, but the same house in Washington is going to cost $350K… and we will have to pay them the same because the geography doesn’t matter any more. Are you guys reading this??? Experience, not a factor. This legislation is BAD NEWS for small business, large business, and even worse… for the small town with the one main business in town. I’m picturing the elation of the employee who gets a raise from that organization because of the Fair Pay Act, and then the horror as they and all their co-workers suffer the shut-down of the plant because it’s too expensive to run.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Ditto Private Party: Of course their are laws and regulations that set guidelines on behavior. But the last time I looked the government wasn’t asking you to keep records of the speed of your vehicle every time you drive it in case someone accused of speeding. And, at least right now, you don’t have to get affidavits signed by people you interact with each day attesting that they did not witness you killing anyone or robbing any banks. log the speed of your vehicle. As far as taxes, we are already dealing with a massive amount of recordkeeping and paperwork.
There are some inequities in the workplace, but in 23 years of managing HR I have yet to see a true equal pay violation. Stop legislating to the lowest common denominators of employer. It overburdens the rest of us who are paying fairly. And we are the overwhelming majority.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Please pardon the typo in my last message. I left “log the speed of your vehicle” in the text; I meant to delete that along with the rest of that thought.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Lynn – Regarding YOUR GREATEST FEAR,please copy me the HUGE POINT regarding geography in these laws that says an employer has to pay the same rate in different parts of the country!!! i think these laws are related to gender, race, religion, etc. Am i missing something? Or is fear running the discussion?
January 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I agree that certain issues such as geography, tenure and performance need to be taken into account to determine “fair pay”. But as a woman who has more years tenure, works in the same office and performs equally as my male counterpart, yet makes 40% less, this is a huge step in the right direction for equity in pay.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I just love government and politics. This is America people and we live in the greatest country in the World. Get ready for the next 4 years because change is going to happen if you like it or not. What if I live in NYC and make $250.000 as a man and that same country has a branch company in Iowa. The female in that company does the same thing I do. My question is do you pay the same or do you consider regional ecomomics in the matter? I know $250,000 buys more on Iowa than in NYC. I work in a female dominated profession and would like to see this change but regional ecomonics needs to be assessed prior to any laws being passed.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
SHRM is doing a boatload of lobbying on this one. Here’s a statement from their summary. I’m looking for the text during my break to get exact wording. They’ve done the research though:
“The Paycheck Fairness Act would limit an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different locations with different costs of living. Second, the bill would lift the caps on compensatory or punitive damages for which employers would be liable, in addition to current liability for back pay. These damage penalties would apply to even unintentional pay disparities. “
January 26th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Seems to me the whole discussion of paying women less than men for the same work would lead companies to hire more women since they could make more profit. Do we see this happening in any industry? Does it seem “fair” for someone that is less skilled at negotiating a starting salary to be compensated later for that lack of skill? This case is more proof that government is the problem not the solution. It makes me wonder if there will ever be new companies formed when they see how the government prefers to tie their hands at every turn. It gets more depressing every day with this “change” agent.
January 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
This is another long list of job killing government mandates. We are in the middle of an economic crisis and this is the type of legislation they concentrate on when we need jobs? What planet are these people from? Enough regulations already! This is why government now employs more people than construction and manufacturing combined. As an employer, I have a hard time swallowing more regulations from a government that squanders our social security taxes in the general budget, yet holds me to stringent Pension regulations. No more help from the government please.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
These two issues were being discussed on talk radio in Denver on Friday, and according to the host, the Ledbetter case was awarded huge sums of money because the employee’s supervisor, who gave repeated poor reviews on Ms. Ledbetter, had passed away years ago. Jury disregarded the poor reviews, and ruled in favor of Ms. Ledbetter. The Supreme Court ruling, based upon the rules on statue of limitations, overturned the lower courts decision. So, even if we keep good records, with the new rules (180 per paycheck), what happens if the people involved are no longer able to testify?
January 26th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Lynn has it right. The initial regulation states that geography doesn’t matter when it comes to fair pay. I think even those of you who call yourselves HR professionals (but one wouldn’t know by your stance) can figure out how wrong that is.
SheBurns, instead of asking someone to show you, why don’t you be a good HR person and do a little research yourself? Your company depends on it.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
HR DUDE, when you say “initial regulation” are you referencing the initial Fair Pay regulation or are you referencing one of these two bills being discussed. The HR/Morning Statement made no reference to the geography aspect in regard to the 2 bills.
As to why I ask someone to show me, I figure someone who is making these statements already has the info, why not share it here? I wear more than just an HR hat, so I have a lot of other responsibilties, and I learned a long time ago to use whatever is at hand.
My company does not depend on this issue. My company depends on having clients willing to pay us what it costs to provide their service with a fair markup.
Your demeaning remarks are rude, and unnecessary. Why can’t you just state your viewpoint without attempting to belittle others based on their positions.
HR is middle management, but somehow some folks get highly influenced to move from the center and to take the stand of the top dogs instead of the work horses, even though it makes no difference in their paychecks. Or does it? I suppose some HR managers can get bigger bonuses the less they pay the work horses.
Mel, You won’t much notice this if you are a man, but it is still “a man’s world.” Women notice it every day in many aspects of their lives. Most men just reap the benefits without noticing, because they are programmed and conditioned to ask for what they want. Women are programmed and conditioned to please and nurture, with the belief that if they work hard they will be justly rewarded. This doesn’t mean that women cannot overcome their conditioning, but it isn’t like negotiating a salary is a skill that everyone learns in school, and some are just better at it than others. Negotiating a salary or wage is a life skill, not a job skill, unless you are in fact a negotiatior and naturally apply it to your salary. Most people don’t even get a chance to negotiate a wage. And in these economic times, people are going to be taken advantage of even more. In a dog eat dog world, whoever can get the most bones and get away to bury and hoard them is Top Dog. In a civil and democratic society we have rules that keep people from taking advantage of others. Too many rules for you? Maybe you’d prefer to have your kids start working in factories at age 12 instead of being educated. Where would YOU like the rules to stop? When they stop benefitting you? The only people I really hear complain about too much gov’t interference when it comes to labor are white males, usually those in upper management, and their white wives.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
SheBurns: I have the actual print out of the HRBill, but it’s really long. I’d planned to just copy it here, but it goes for pages. For a synopsis of the bill, it might be easier to just go to SHRM’s website and search on it. Go to http://www.shrm.org/government/hrvoice/alerts_published/1CMS_022494.asp#TopOfPage, Also, they have several position papers, so you should be able to get the gist of it. You should be able to get the actual copy of the HR bill at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1338/text.
Geography isn’t the only issue. Another issue is not being able to take into account previous salary.
Your assertion that “most people don’t negotiate salaries” might be inaccruate. If you believe you can’t negotiate, you won’t. I am a white woman, and I negotiated the heck out of the position I just stepped into. The company I was coming into was not “into negotiating salary”, but they saw I was valuable, and did it because…well, I pretty much insisted. If this bill was in place, my current employer would not have been able to take into account my previous wage, which was a good one (because I’d worked very hard to earn the right to be highly paid). They wanted to pay me less, but I was able to bring my previous work experience AND previous salary into the negotiation. I was able to get a $3K increase to my previous wage. With this bill, that is no longer a consideration. I’m not thrilled about that. If they would have just stopped at the fair wage thing, I’d be right in there with you. But they didn’t. Now they are mandating things that could hurt real people. That’s why a thorough reading of the act and the associated papers are a good idea (by the way, I don’t have a problem with you asking for them – saves time, and I DO have them available).
Being a woman in the workforce, I know what it feels like to work with men and have them just assume you’ll be the one taking notes at the meeting because you’re the “woman”. But the only reason that happens is because we let it. It takes looking them in the eye and saying, “no it’s your turn”. And taking the notes when it IS my turn. It’s the same with pay. If it takes the government mandating it, I’m not thrilled… I’d prefer women be strong and confident in their approach and make it happen. But if they need gov’t help, OK. What I don’t want is for the government to screw me out of my ability to negotiate a fair wage, and to really mess up a small town’s ability to stay alive with a company that’s profitable. No disrespect to the women trying to get their fair share.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
While I agree with the legislative intent of this act, it does irritate me that the government has decided to be focused on these kinds of regulations which have minimal contribution to the expansion of the economy. Of what worth is there, if we are compliant with this regulation, but we fail to expend our limited resources in HR in helping our businesses grow the top line and also effectively manage the bottom line?
As an HR professional that interfaces with our Board and the executive team, it is somewhat disconcerting when I am compelled to bring these kinds of new regulations to the table for their attention – at a time when we are trying to save jobs and stay afloat in this economic decline.
In more than 17 years – I have yet to see an equal pay claim filed. If any equal pay-related issues have arisen, it was immediately brought to the attention of HR and management that get work to resolve it with fairness and transparency. But these issues are rather infrequent in my experience.
Again, while I understand the intent of this law and agree with it – I am disappointed that our government is spending time on these types of issues right now and sending them to the businesses to expend its resources to be in compliance.
What we really need is legislation that supports job creation and builds the economy.
My 2 cents….
January 27th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Well said Sr. HR. The issue isn’t unfair pay, although it does happen, the issue is burdening good, compliant employers. It is also of little comfort to hear the Ms. Ledbetter had poor performance but still prevailed in that case and that LEGISLATION was created around it. Dumb and ugly.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:39 am
We are a very small business where I am not only HR, but the controller also. The question that I have is regarding the sharing of wage information. This does not give someone the right to ask what his/her suppervisor is making does it?
January 27th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
SheBurns, you proved my point…and Lynn said it again. You can make all the comments you want about how men don’t understand woman’s disparities in the work force. The truth is, you don’t know me and you don’t know Mel. If you would listen to what I’m saying, there are more changes aside from simply making sure that woman are paid at the same rate as men in both of these acts. The equal pay act is already established and I fully support that.
I stated “initial act” because we all know verbiage change when laws go through congress. Both of these acts sort of go hand and hand. The Ledbetter Act, among other things, erases the statute of limitations an employee has to make a case…which might not be too bad in of itself. However, it should be discussed if that act does more harm than good. For instance, an employer can begin lowering starting wages for everyone, even though thier productivity may differ, because of fear the courts won’t understand how productivity is defined…that’s just for starters.
What we are also trying to discuss is not if the paycheck fairness act (which alters the FLSA) is good for employees, particularly female and minority employees, but what is included in the act…and how that affects businesses. For instance, all employees can discuss thier pay with all other employees. That in of itself could be bad for the work environment because it causes the employer to have conversations with employees to let them know why they are being paid less than others…a conversation an employee may not be ready to hear. (because of performance, productivity and other bonafide factors…we all know of employees who feel they are simply intitled to a certain salary just because they show up. In other words, it reduces incentive to work harder). The legislation clarifies that, for the purpose of determining discrimination, compensation comparisons can be made between employees even if they do not work at the same physical place of business…and the business can potentially be sued…
You said “my company doesn’t depend on this issue…” However, your company can be sued if you remain ignorant and create excuses like you “wear many other hats.” One of your jobs as an HR person is to protect your company from legislation. Part of that is having a healthy debate and educating yourself on laws that can/will have an impact on employment/employer practices.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
What I see this legislation doing is making it harder for those that truly are more productive, men or women, being compensated the same as their less productive peers. If that is the goal, to have less incentive to improve all types of work, then this will succeed. There are far too many regulations for businesses to manage these days and I work in benefits and pensions without having to deal with HR tasks too often. However, I am a manager and do not relish the possibility of having to keep every piece of documentation until the end of time. I restate, the government is not solving a problem here it is creating a new one. It seems a little too much like payback to the lawyer lobby.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
that’s right, Mel. It’s called Socialism. The intent is to have one salary for all people. Gee, that solves everything, right? With this act and Obama’s wish to “redistribute the wealth” there will be no incentive to be better at what you do. The “American dream” will no longer exsist and innovation will cease. Why? Because if you bust your butt, there’s no reward. Others just benefit from the sweat of your brow.
We, as HR folk and as Americans better pay real close attention to what’s really going on…
January 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Joe, from what I read, it only prevents the employer from retaliating against employees who share their salaries. So, employees may share their salaries if they would like, but employees are not obligated to share salaries with others. So, you are safe. You still have a right to keep your salary confidential if you would like.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Employees can ask anyone what their salary/wage is…the law will just protect those that choose to disclose it.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Lynn, thanks for your generosity in sharing information. I also negotiated my salary, but many workers are paid wages, which they are not aware they can negotiate.
I agree with all that wages & salaries should be based on competence and productivity, so the concept equal pay for equal work should include “equal work” not inferior work. I do not think that the “goal” of this law is to create less incentive. I think it is to insure more fairness. Did they get it right in the writing of it? Probably not. Which is why our legislation is a work in progress. Otherwise we wouldn’t need legislature; it would all already have been written correctly to begin with and we could just have judges to interpret it.
I also know that no matter what documention you have or not, the overriding principle of business law is that “anyone can sue anyone anytime for anything.”
I have also been involved in just enough employee claims to know that the law often has little to do with how things get settled. Emotions rule judges, arbitrators, juries as much as if not more than the rule of law, justice, or fairness, but I still want laws to guide me and others.
Having read more of HR Dude’s comments, I know a little more…he’s afeared of Socialism! If the terrorists don’t get us the socialists will. I am not trembling! I beleive in our system and that it is the greatest system, but it is not a system without flaws and it was not established solely to promote capitalism, but to promote democracy, and that it relies on our involvement in it…in knowing our legistlators and communicating with them and using our freedom of speech, not to just protect our special individual interests, but also to “create a more perfect union, etc., etc” which does include promoting the general welfare.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
These discussions are monotonously boring and repetitive. I guess I had no idea what a bunch of government-hating deviant conspiracy theorists make up the HR profession. Instead of having constructive discussions about how to implement these laws and deal with the positive and negative side effects, these discussion boards are just filled with angry, ranting individuals screaming about socialism, etc. Why not use these forums in constructive ways to help other HR professionals foster ideas as to how to implement and/or deal with these issues should they become a reality? I don’t think the angry rants and the hasty comebacks are going to be useful to anyone. So people don’t like it…that, unfortunately, is life. I don’t like paying taxes, but I do. So let’s try to help one another figure out how to deal with the outcome, pleasant or unpleasant.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Sorry to write again so soon, but I have just one word for SheBurns:
Amen.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
All About the People:
Risking sounding like this is a hasty come-back…. I thought I WAS helping. SheBurns asked for documents to back up my concerns. I supplied them. She seemed good with that. I didn’t take any offense at her comments. She made good points. I agree with some of them. I do not hate government. I do believe I have the responsibility as an HR person to speak up when there is a clearly poorly written piece of legislation. This has not yet gone to the Senate. We have opportunity as citizens of this great country to give our Senators feedback and to help SHAPE the legislation to become helpful and not hurtful, as I assume was the representative’s goal. By assuming this is all “hate talk” and NOT paying attention to the actual legislation, you don’t help shape the future. Instead, why not call a senator and praise the bill’s intent and then ask for changes to the troublesome pieces? That’s what I’m doing. It’s what we should all be doing on a regular basis if we truly have HR issues in mind. These elected officials don’t rule in a vacuum. Otherwise, it WOULD turn into socialism. The voice of the people isn’t only at the voting booth. It’s at times like these when clear heads need to seriously consider the reprocussions of these laws which our elected officials have not been alerted to. Ask them! They WANT our input. That’s why they have websites to collect this kind of information. Clearly the bad thing would be if all these people commenting on this site were to just stick to this site and NOT contact their elected officials. Then I agree, ranting here is not likely going to get anything done (except raising awareness, which is what I was trying to do). Sorry you didn’t like the tone of the exchange. But it’s still an important topic to which we should give thoughtful and serious consideration.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
The last couple of posts are exactly why I posted the socialism comment. Lynn, you have it right again. We can sit and complain about what’s going down the pipeline (laws), but what are we doing about it (requires action on the people’s part)? Certain things about these bills don’t sit well with me…and, by the sound of it, others as well.
The purpose of my posts are to encourage people to really read what is in front of the legislature and react to it…use the democratic process. If you read it your self instead of using what someone else extracted from it, your view point will end up tainted. I’m not a conspiricy theorist, by any means…I just see what’s happening and I don’t like it. When you see things like someone being able to sue a company for unequal salary, even though they don’t belong to the same organization…or even in the same geographic area, you should ask why? I can understand in the same org…but why should it not matter what company you are with or where you are located? That doesn’t make sense…if it makes sense to you, tell everyone why you think it’s good. Maybe you have an idea that no one has thought of… you can’t just sit back and say…”well, the intent of the proposed bill (s) is good…” of course it can be…but it can also be filled with ear marks. Ask yourself, what else is in that bill?
SheBurns…you are correct, the legislature is constantly a work in progress…that is exactly why you have to question and react to everything that’s in front of them.
I, for one, enjoy this site because it encourages debate and thought.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Yes, but WHO comes up with this sort of legislation? It is nearly impossible to keep track of it all. And when it does come down the pipe we are often bewildered that things like Ledbetter are even considered! The ranting and raving isn’t about “government hating” but really, who comes up with the garbage the rest of us are left to properly hammer out for years on end. It is exhausting that our legisaltors never seem to have a clue from the get go.
As for “for the people”, a good HR person is a professional that looks out for EVERYONE so if we are a little,a s you say, “government hating deviant conspiracy theorists” so be it.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
The discussion is wonderful but I have to correct one very important issue – the United States is not a democracy – it is a republic. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance? … and to the Republic for which it stands… Our economic system is not and never has been pure capitalism.
Back to the issue at hand – how long will a company need to keep payroll records – granted they can be scanned and kept on a disc but you still need to store tham and plan on doing that every year. I think most companies try to do the right thing but it is expensive to defend every allegation. So, maybe there should be a law that if you lose the case you must pay the other sides’ legal defense costs? Yes, I know that opens up a can worms but as a small company that does pay fairly, we could not afford to defend ourselves against frivolous claims for very long – then there would be about 35 people out of a job.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I don’t think anyone ever said in this discussion that the US is a Democracy, but I did say it was set up to promote democracy, meaning democratic principles of equlity, where everyone is equal under the law. For a long time this was not the case, and when it became closer to being the case, CORPORATIONS, especially huge ones, got legislatin which designated them as persons and they have so much more power than the average citizen that they are basically in charge of our country now, also known as the Shadow Government.
No one ever talks about Republican principles except in the case of the political party, and then it isn’t principles but positions. I know the diff between a Democracy and a Republic and it is very clear the US is a Republic (in prinicple) which was not established by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, but by the Constitution itself.
Thanks again for the site references for these bills, Lynn, and all you contribute in these discussions. You are my hero!
Most companies now buy “Employment Pracitces” Insuruance for all types of employee claims, then you only have to pay the premium & if there is a claim the deductable, which usually goes to the company’s lawyer. The premiums for these are based on # of employees, previous lawsuits, and your employee manual among other things. That way, no one is going to actaully pay beyond their premium and deductable for frivolous or valid lawsuits. (Granted the more lawsuits there are the bigger those premiums become.) Lawsuits from clients are more likely to drive us out of business, like the drycleaner who got sued by his creepy client, but where was his liability insurance? Our insurer always steps up when we have that rare claim against us.
Business owners are always talking about their fear of going out of business for one reason or another, usually having to do with lawsuits or government regulations or unions. But I wonder how often that actually happens. I think it is rare. More often people go out of business because their is no demand for their goods & services or because the finances are poorly managed. The SBA reports 7 top reasons for business failure and none of them are excessive costs of government regs or costs of lawsuits or costa of labor.
January 29th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Now that the president signed the Lily Ledbetter Act, we’ll see how it really shakes out. I have already received an e-mail flash from my attorney stating that every pay change had better be well-documented (we know this but it doesn’t always happen) and we should keep every personnel record FOREVER.
To all of you who have been contributing these last few days, it’s terrific that you’re thinking and you care. That’s why we’re in HR.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
All About The People Says, you are absolutely correct!
I was so appalled at how nasty and cynical my former HR directors and managers treated employees because of the new employment laws! When they came around me bashing President Obama, I told them that I didn’t want to hear it and I dared them to say anything racist. I voluntarily exited this position with glee because who wants to be around all this whining baby mess!
Some of you seem panic stricken. I strongly suggest that you consider making an appointment with your employee assistance program so that you can handle all the work you have to do. It seems to me that you can’t take what you have been dishing out to employees for over 8 years!
Just do what you have been telling employees to do all along, stop whining and find solutions!
February 2nd, 2009 at 9:53 am
“Former HR Assistant”: – EXACTLY!! Paraphrased, most of these posts tell the employees to stop whining, suck it up and do their jobs or go find another one and also have them complaining themselves about following new rules, etc. We expect our employees to follow the rules we have set in place — in the form of a handbook — whether they like it or not because, hey, those are the rules. However, it’s a bit hypocritical for the HR professionals to whine and complain because they don’t like the rules when they should stop whining, suck it up and do their jobs…or go find another one. If an employee doesn’t like my attendance policy I will explain that it is in place for a reason and nobody has to follow it, but if they don’t they will be out of a job. Maybe one bad apple spoiled it for everyone but that’s just the way it is. These laws are no different. Maybe it was one or two bad companies the fostered the need for these changes, but that is just the way it is!!! I think instead of going off on six paragraph rants about “big brother” trying to tell us what to do we should be thinking of ways to implement these laws in a constructive way. I do think that a good number of these HR professionals need to take part in their EAPs!! If I was so angry and stressed everyday, I would find another line of work!
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:37 am
I don’t see any participant on this blog more “ranting and raving” than “All about the people”……………………..whats with all the exclamation marks? Wow
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Sorry…I will be more bland when pointing out people’s hypocrisy in the future. I still haven’t seen any constructive conversation on these topics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:17 pm
All about the People: That’s because you are blinded by your own agenda. Enough of this topic. Next…?