Thursday, November 18, 2010

The Paycheck Unfairness Act ~ By Phyllis Schlafly

Increasing class-action business for trial lawyers means the Democrats are pandering to their important donors. These additional costs imposed on employers will also result in shipping more jobs overseas.

Elaine Chao, secretary of labor under President George W. Bush, correctly called the PFA a "job killing, trial attorney bonanza." She said it would encourage employers to view female applicants as instigators of lawsuits instead of contributors to productivity.

Phyllis Schlafly writes about the Paycheck Fairness Act, (as the title obviously suggests!), legislation that I was unaware of until I saw the following segment on Fox & Friends on Monday, November 15, 2010:

Stuart Varney discusses the Paycheck Fairness Act, another attack on freedom

Video provided by TheREALjohnny2k

This bill is obviously not what our economy needs right now! And like Stuart Varney mentions, it isn't what Congress needs to be spending time on during the lame-duck session, being that they need to be working on extending the Bush tax rates before the end of the year, so that our taxes don't go way up at the beginning of 2011.

But not only should they not be trying to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) during the lame-duck session, they should never, ever even consider it. It is not needed, as we already have the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The PFA is supported by radical feminists and labor unions and - you guessed it - Socialists and Marxists. This is one more case of certain people (Progressives) wanting to destroy the free market system even at the cost of destroying jobs and productivity and small business. This sounds like it's pretty much intentional that those people are trying to destroy America as we know it. Just sayin'...

Why are football and baseball players paid more than the president? Lawyers more than ministers? Rock stars more than musicians in major symphony orchestras? Should government decide what people are worth and bias the pay scales based on gender?

If it were really true that businesses pay women less than men for the same work, then cost-conscious bosses would hire only or mostly women. Since that doesn't happen, there must be other factors.

The proper role of government is to provide equal opportunity, not preferential treatment based on warped social theory, especially when the feminist arguments are so demonstrably false, and their demands will increase unemployment.

People who work longer hours earn more, and they should, yet government statistics are based on a 35-hour work week even though many, especially men on average, work longer hours. Equal pay for everyone is a Marxist notion – we believe in equal pay for equal work.
The Paycheck Unfairness Act

By Phyllis Schlafly

November 17, 2010 @ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Women didn't vote for Democratic candidates in the November election in the numbers expected, so President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid want to woo them back into the fold by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) in the lame-duck session. We don't need this: It's a job killer, not a job creator.

The Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 3772) would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Those laws have produced fair results for many years.

Under current law, Title VII entitles an employee to win back pay if the employer intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices. PFA would allow unlimited compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded by judges and juries, even without proof of the employer's intent to discriminate.

The Equal Pay Act currently requires that meeting the test of equal pay for equal work requires that the employees being compared work in the same physical place of business called an establishment. The PFA would redefine the word "establishment" to mean workplaces in the same county or political district.

The PFA would invite the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to develop "rules of guidance" to define "establishment" even more broadly. This leaves the door open for the EEOC to compare and force the equalization of pay for a woman's job in a rural area with a man's job in an urban area where the cost of living is much higher.

That obviously would increase employment costs in lower-cost areas. Fewer people would be employed, and some of those jobs could be shipped overseas.


Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

No comments:

Post a Comment