.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Lilly Ledbetter vs Goodyear:
The Lefty Blogosphere's Most Overrated,
Biggest Non-Story Of The Year (so far!)

The reason Ledbetter vs Goodyear is the blogosphere's biggest non-story is because Liberal bloggers - especially female liberal bloggers - are angry (when aren't they?) that Lilly Ledbetter didn't get her way (huh, sounds just like a typical Liberal woman, doesn't it?)

Ledbetter worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber for 19 years. During that time, Goodyear says her work performance evaluations were below average. After she retired from Goodyear, Ledbetter decided that that would be good time to file a lawsuit against her previous employer for - what she claimed - violated pay discrimination between genders, you know, the old Liberal whine that women aren't paid the same as their male co-workers for the same job.

Ledbetter, like a good little Liberal, took her case to the the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) and she lost. Boo-hoo.

From TIME (emphasis mine) :

    Lilly Ledbetter filed the case against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. because at the end of a 19-year career, she was making far less than any of 15 men at her level. She argued that Goodyear violated Title VII every time it gave her a smaller paycheck. Her complaint was timely, she said, because she filed it within 180 days of her last check. But the court majority read the statute to mean that only an actual decision to pay Ledbetter less could be illegal, and that happened well outside the 180-day period.

The ruling by the court is right-on. Look at it this way, she waited 19 years to file suit and then files suit within 180 days of her final paycheck? This woman is none too bright. She forges along in her daily work routine for 19 years, clueless that others may - may - be earning more than her, coupled with the fact of Goodyear saying her performance reviews were substandard. Like I wrote, this woman is none too bright.

Some Liberal female bloggers have written that there should be absolutely no statute of time limitations on cases like this. Well, keep on living in your tiny, brainless bubble gals.

Cornell Law, publishing the Certiorari of the Supreme Court, states:

    Ledbetter should have filed an EEOC charge within 180 days after each allegedly discriminatory employment decision was made and communicated to her. Her attempt to shift forward the intent associated with prior discriminatory acts to the 1998 pay decision is unsound, for it would shift intent away from the act that consummated the discriminatory employment practice to a later act not performed with bias or discriminatory motive, imposing liability in the absence of the requisite intent. Her argument would also distort Title VII’s “integrated, multistep enforcement procedure.”

    [...]

    Ledbetter’s “paycheck accrual rule” is also not supported by either analogies to the statutory regimes of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, or the National Labor Relations Act, or policy arguments for giving special treatment to pay claims.

Exactly! Clearly Ledbetter subscribed to the Ultimate Liberal Philosophy of claiming "victim" status at what she alleged was the fault of Goodyear. Nothing could be more more absurd.

Many a Liberal Blogger writing about this story will assert the false claim of a Right-Wing SCOTUS that reached the decision. What they fail to consider is that Justice Anthony Kennedy is no Conservative or Right Winger. Yes, he was appointed by Reagan, but if these Liberal Bloggers would bother to look up FACTS, they would find that Kennedy has often been the "swing" vote on the Supreme Court.

Kennedy has voted with the Conservative Justices almost as equally as he has voted with the Liberal Justices. Instead of bothering to find this information out about him, which takes no more than a few minutes, Liberal Bloggers - especially the angry females - are simply too anxious in publishing their ranting diarrhea based on the "emotional aspect" of this case. This is not surprising, considering females tend to view everything through a prism of emotion while men consider facts, history, proven data and objectivity.


Lilly Ledbetter; You snooze you lose - and she snoozed...for 19 years.

With all this said, I strongly support equal pay for both genders for doing the same job, but there are caveats to this. If a man and woman have the same job, but the man has a college degree and the woman does not - shouldn't the man be paid more? Absolutely, and it works the other way around, too. The length of experience someone has in a job is also a factor in who may earn more than someone else doing the same work. Did it ever occur to the hysterical female bloggers that one man is often paid more than another man who do the same job because one guy has more experience than the other? Of course not, the ladies only view it through a false prism of discrimination.

It's a good thing Ledbetter lost her case. Anyone who waits 19 years is none to bright in the first place and that's probably why her performance reviews were below average and her pay was less than her male co-workers. All in all, a fine ruling by SCOTUS.

And this is the reason why this story is the biggest non-story of the Lefty Blogosphere and the hysterical female bloggers who whine and write about it.

©2007

Sources and references:
TIME: The Supreme Court's Step Back for Women,
Law. Cornell,
Wikipedia: Anthony Kennedy,
Wikipedia: Ledbetter v Goodyear

(Note to JMJ: My post has nothing to do with your writing on this story or of our difference of opinions on this case.)

Labels:


Comments:
I was listening to Hillary's drivel on TV and she was relaying the story of Lilly Ledbetter. So, of course, I Googled Lilly Ledbetter to see if, in fact, she was a real person. After all, this was a Clinton spewing the story. It could have been ficticious for all I knew. But lo and behold, it was a true story. But, of course, Hillary as she is ranting about all of the injustices of poor Lilly's discriminatory salary leaves out the fact that Lilly was a substandard worker at best, was scheduled for lay-off three times in ten years, and not to mention, the law is the law. She didn't file her claim, supposing she had one, in a timely manner. Could there be a dimmer bulb? It took her 19 years to figure out she wasn't being paid as much as her male counterparts. But the fact of the matter is, she wasn't doing the job as well. Like you pointed out, she probably didn't have the same education qualifications as some of the other male counterparts. If anything, Lilly should be thanking Goodyear. From what I read, they even gave her a 7.85 percent raise at one time, mostly a pity raise, because she was so pathetic. The Liberals are so ridiculous in their thought processes, I just don't get it. I must say, as a court reporter, I work for so many Liberal thinking -- well, Liberals, and I just can't figure it out. These are lawyers and Judges, and they are way smarter than I am, so how can they be Liberal? I don't get it.
Signed, Tammy, Conservative and in Phoenix, and don't believe men are paid more than women in this day and age. It's ridiculous.
 
Hi Tammy, you summed it up so well. And yes, we should all be skeptical of "stories" told by Hillary Clinton and check to verify if they are true or not.

Boy, you write really well. I hope you are blogging or consider to jump into it.

Thanks for visiting and commenting. Thanks for stopping by.
 
Hi David,

Thank you for your kind words. I believe that is the first time I have ever written a comment on a blog before. I must say, I am really not up to speed on the whole blogging thing, but I do thank you for your vote of confidence.

Tammy
 
Hi Tammy,

You're welcome and I meant what I said about your writing and the style of your writing. Heck, even if you disagreed with me on this issue - or any other one - you write well and I'd say the same; encouraging you to get into the blogging thing.

Was it the Ledbetter search on Google as how you found my blog - if you don't mind me asking?

Thanks for visiting and commenting.
 
Hi David,

Me again. Yes, that's exactly how I found you. After listening to Hillary Clinton tell her story about Lilly, I Googled Lilly Ledbetter, and I began reading the hits and yours was one of them. In fact, that's how I get to this page every time. I Google Lilly Ledbetter and just scroll down to your name and see if there is any comments.

I suspect this communication will cease sooner or later. I hope there is nobody out there in Cyber space counting how many times I have Googled Lilly Ledbetter's name from my computer, I wouldn't want them to get the wrong impression -- like I somehow care about the fate of Lilly Ledbetter. It's merely the pathway to this page.

I have glanced at some more of your articles when I clicked on your profile, especially of interest is the case of the Iron Range workers in Minnesota -- how unbelievably sad. Has Mandernach had the decency to resign yet? I'll have to keep tuning in to your page to find the answer on that one, otherwise I don't know how I'll learn about it.

As far as Minnesota's Governor running as VP on McCain's ticket, maybe that's the best way to get rid of two losers. Better he run with a loser like McCain than somebody like Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney or Rudy Guilani(not sure if I spelled his name right, but you know who I'm talking about).

Being from Arizona, I am not a big fan of John McCain, nor Jon Kyle right now. I am very disappointed on this whole immigration issue. I will never vote for John McCain, actually, never have, and I don't think he remotely has a chance of winning the White House, in my never-to-be humble opinion. I hope I am right about that.

Well, I guess I really got off the topic of Lilly Ledbetter, huh? I presume you live in Minnesota. I bet it's a lot cooler there than it is here.

I'll keep reading your blog page, if that's the right terminology.

Tammy
 
Hi Tammy, thanks for the info.

Mandernach has not yet resigned. There are hearings scheduled this coming week on her decision in delaying the report.

I'm not fond of McCain - I respect the guy - but I could never vote for him for Prez. I think he's finding out now, with his poll #'s dropping, how straddling issues and leaning left has not impressed the Conservative voter base. Ditto your feelings on John Kyle.

We've been in the 80's and 90's lately and have for quite many years have had super hot, little rain summers. Winters have been milder, less snow, and not as cold. That Al Gore Global Warming thing, - you know ;-)

Denver and Chicago had far worse winters than us the past couple of years. And that's just fine with me.

Thanks for visiting and commenting.Glad you like what you find here, and even if you don't sometimes, that's okay too.
 
Hello... I also stumbled onto your blog by googling Ledbetter after hearing her speak of her case at the DNC before Hillary Clinton's speech... I also noted that both of you didn't see the full coverage of the DNC since neither of you saw Ledbetter speak and were wondering about whether Hillary was telling the truth about this story... Makes me wonder what coverage you are watching... I have a few points to address for Tammy's and your comments...

First off, I'd like to know what line of work Tammy is in where women are paid the same as men and that pay discrimination is ridiculous!... I work in the entertainment industry and men generally get paid twice as much as women... I need to get into Tammy's line of work!...

As to your comment "If a man and woman have the same job, but the man has a college degree and the woman does not - shouldn't the man be paid more?"... My question is that if a woman with no college degree can be hired to do the same job as a man with a college degree, is a degree even necessary for the job in the first place?... And if that is the case, then the man should be paid the same as the woman because his degree is not needed to occupy the position... And honestly, in this day and age of Sallie Mae, college degrees are basically useless unless highly specialized...

Just my thoughts... Thanks... Marisa...
 
Hi Marisa,

I can't speak for Tammy or what type of work she does. I don't personally know her...I think she found my post on this issue much like you did, just surfing through Google.

You make a good point about what I wrote, If a man and woman have the same job, but the man has a college degree and the woman does not - shouldn't the man be paid more?

I also added the caveat that ... and it works the other way around, too.

In this instance I guess I am referring to if a woman is hired to do the same work as a man, but she is only being hired to fulfill a quota and she doesn't have a college degree while the man does. So as not to be misunderstood as being sexist, I would apply the same to as if it was aother woman who had the college degree earning more than the same job being done by another woman without a degree.

We - we being the free market - should pay people who've earned a degree more than we pay those who haven't - in doing the same job. The employer is getting more with the person with a degree. They are receiving someone who accomplished something, someone who has more knowledge, someone who can bring more to the table.

I'm not dissing on those who haven't earned a degree - Bill Gates (I forget which) either didn't attend college or didn't complete it, and he turned out quite well financially. So there are exceptions.

I agree with your statement And if that is the case, then the man should be paid the same as the woman because his degree is not needed to occupy the position only with the caveat as I mentioned - anyone, male or female - does bring more to the table to their employer in terms of education, knowledge, vision with a degree than someone without one. At least "much" of the time. Not always.

I broke my comment policy rule of not publishing comments on posts 60 days or older because you're comment is well thought-out and intelligent.

What type of work do you do in the entertainment industry, if I may ask?

Thanks for visiting and commenting.
 
Tammy I'd like to believe in your fantasy world it'd be a lot easier but women are still discrimated against. My step-mother has paid 5000 less a year than a male co-worker and she had been there around the same amount of time as he was, her sales were higher, she was not only selling but packaging the tickets and mailing them out, and had also taken on some accounting duties for the department. Her boss told her that employee had a family (which she didn't at the time) and men are typically the bread winners... so I guess that's a great excuse and not discrimination at all. Do a little research before you call things ridiculous.

It does sound sketchy to file a suit after your last pay check but its ignorant to say discrimination is gone, also name calling is a great way to get your point across and to have people think you are a reasonable intelligent person.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker



Web Site Traffic Counters
Alabama Internet

Listed on BlogShares

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

This site uses photographs and material from other sources in strict
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.

Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.