Comments on: Obama signs Ledbetter Act: What it means to HR

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:50:33 +0000

Ledbetter Act giving HR big headaches already – http://www.hrlegalnews.com/ledbetter-act-giving-hr-big-headaches-already/

And so it begins….

By: John

John — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:45:42 +0000

Thomas

As with all cases you may find some things are practiced or done differently for other legitimate reasons. Where-as you may be correct with a military test, the assumptions are for reasons strictly related to the military. As you should know private industry, municipal governments, state governments, federal policies and military policies operate with different standards under the law and all have different protections. So you are still uneducated and fact less when it comes to state sponsored or presuming Title VII sponsored affirmative action.

To me your attempt to broad brush is typical of single mindedness mentality for something you personally do not like. There was not one thing in my post that you are referencing that well . . . was not a fact. You may attempt to debate that but, sorry, you are wrong. In fact it is starting to sound to me that you have larger issues well beyond the Ledbetter legislation. Can’t help you or sympathize with that.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:00:29 +0000

John, you can site all the facts you want; however, I know for a fact (after 7 years on recruiting duty in the military) that blacks qualify to enlist and can enilist in the military service with a lower AFQT (Armed Forces Qualification Test) score than whites. For true non-discrimination (which I am for) every person (black, white, or any other race) would be required to score the same. You can sit back and call my (so called assumptions) uneducated if you desire; however, the fact is that blacks are given preferential treatment in hiring practices of the United States Military.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:17:27 +0000

Would agree with Bill. He could of left it on his desk and not signed it – he’s not required to sign anything sent to him by Congress. It would have sent a message to the Congress on what is important. However, since he co-sponsored this bill in the senate and social engineering is one of his big agendas, signing this was political pay-back to the trial lawyers that supported him and the unions and made perfect sense. Not what he was elected to do, but what the lawyers and unions wanted (more to come for them btw). I’d like to give our President a break, but spending $750B on mostly pork and special interests – $750B that our children and theirs will have to repay someday (and more to come) is a mistake. How does building roads and bridges and unneeded labor laws help those 450,000 people laid off from Fortune 500 companies since November? How does a laid off worker from GM, Nike, WalMart, Emerson Electric, Macys, Kodak, etc… benefit from any of this? Labor unions benefit but not the general public that need jobs, not equal pay acts.

By: Lady McB

Lady McB — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:01:49 +0000

Bill, Our government system requires that the President (no matter who he is) sign or veto any bill that passes Congress. Obama didn’t bring the bill to Congress…Congress brought it to him. He’s dealing with all kinds of bigger deals, like the economy, _____, the war, the middle east, etc., etc. How about all the critics take a break, at least for a few months & give the new guy a chance, and maybe prioritize their own job duties.

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:40:49 +0000

I guess Obama didn’t have anything bigger to deal with right now. I think he needs to prioritize his agenda.

By: Robin

Robin — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:24:08 +0000

I have a retention scheduled provided to me by our accounting department. Retention time is as follows:
1. Payroll records and summaries, including payments to pensioners – 7 years
2. Employee Personnel Records (after termination) – 6 years
3. Vouchers for payments to vendors, employees, etc. (includes allowances,
and reimbursement of employeers, officers, etc., or travel and entertainment
expense – 7 years

Anything else, let me know — the rest of you answering 3 years could get in BIG trouble.

By: Should you self-audit to protect against ‘Ledbetter’ complaints? | HRMorning.com | Your daily dose of HR

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:02:21 +0000

[...] First, a quick recap of the law (see “Obama signs Ledbetter Act: What it means to HR”): [...]

By: John

John — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:05:27 +0000

Documentation. Employment records indicating date of hire, compensation progression, training, performance reviews that are accurate and can’t be turned into a ‘pretext’ by the employee are a few or the things we all have to protect our employer. Lawsuits may be inevitable unfortunately. Cost may be minimized by having proper documentation.

Having more males at a higher pay rate than females is not the real issue. It is having a compensation system that pays similarly situated employees comparably.

By: Art

Art — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:02:49 +0000

I feel your pain Lajeli. I am also in manufacturing and have a situation similar to yours. Most of our competition has moved their operations out of the country. (It’s not all about wages… you know?) At this point the law is so new that I’m just hoping I get ideas from reading about some other poor victims case rather than everyone else learning from reading about mine. The problems with most of these laws are the adverse consequences. Unfortunately this blog has been so full of “go ahead, knock that chip of my shoulder!” that there has been very little constructive discussion about how to deal with it. At least it has been that way for me. If I can just hold out about four more years, and the country is still in decent shape, I AIN’T GONNA WORRY ABOUT IT NO MORE!!!!