» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society
Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.
If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.
Custom Search
This is a topic from the Current Politics and Religious Topics forum on inthe00s.
Subject: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: CatwomanofV on 01/29/09 at 12:41 pm
His first piece of legislation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090129/pl_nm/us_obama_labor_3
Way cool. It is ABOUT time.
Cat
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: tv on 01/29/09 at 1:00 pm
Good job Obama! Just work on that Stimilus bill now and make the spending useful!
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: danootaandme on 01/29/09 at 1:57 pm
Trickle up baby, Trickle up :)
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 01/29/09 at 2:56 pm
It's about time. We've had such a reactionary government for the past eight years!
::)
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: MrCleveland on 01/29/09 at 4:09 pm
Anything for the disabled like me?...Who deserve it?
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 01/29/09 at 4:22 pm
Anything for the disabled like me?...Who deserve it?
I admit to some of the same sentiment, career success being elusive to me due to what you might call "invisible disability," but this is a step forward rather than all the steps backwards we saw under Bush!
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: LyricBoy on 01/29/09 at 7:59 pm
I admit to some of the same sentiment, career success being elusive to me due to what you might call "invisible disability," but this is a step forward rather than all the steps backwards we saw under Bush!
Note that the in the Supreme Court case that caused all the ruckus, it was the Bush Administration who argued that Lily Ledbetter SHOULD have been allowed to file suit. The EEOC lost that case, they argued in Lily's favor.
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: Reynolds1863 on 01/29/09 at 9:34 pm
I admit to some of the same sentiment, career success being elusive to me due to what you might call "invisible disability," but this is a step forward rather than all the steps backwards we saw under Bush!
They should just expand the A.D.A to include "invisible disabilities" instead of starting from scratch.
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 01/30/09 at 2:15 am
They should just expand the A.D.A to include "invisible disabilities" instead of starting from scratch.
Though I think "invisible disabilities" would be a tough sell...
8)
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: danootaandme on 01/30/09 at 5:38 am
Note that the in the Supreme Court case that caused all the ruckus, it was the Bush Administration who argued that Lily Ledbetter SHOULD have been allowed to file suit. The EEOC lost that case, they argued in Lily's favor.
Obama did it with a stroke of the pen. Bush didn't. Obama did what Bush, despite his public stance, wouldn't.
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: Reynolds1863 on 01/30/09 at 5:59 am
Though I think "invisible disabilities" would be a tough sell...
8)
How hard is it to duck tape Savage's mouth shut. If it's going to be done the time is now.
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: MrCleveland on 01/30/09 at 9:10 am
Note that the in the Supreme Court case that caused all the ruckus, it was the Bush Administration who argued that Lily Ledbetter SHOULD have been allowed to file suit. The EEOC lost that case, they argued in Lily's favor.
Fact-Bush's father signed the American Disabilities Act. Ten years later, many disabled students got some benefits.
These things take time.
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 01/30/09 at 12:23 pm
How hard is it to duck tape Savage's mouth shut. If it's going to be done the time is now.
I love Mikey Savage, I hope they don't give him that lobotomy!
Back in '04 when the stupid fugging liberals were bellyaching about there not being enough polling places in urban neighborhoods, Savage goes:
Whaaat? What do these people want, these stupid liberals; do they want polling stations in crack houses?
(urban neighborhood = crack house
you see)
I thought, what an awesome idea! Offer a free dimebag to all who cast a ballot. We'll call it "Rock the Vote"!
Gnyuck, gnyuck , gnyuck!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/laughing7.gif
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: LyricBoy on 01/30/09 at 7:12 pm
Obama did it with a stroke of the pen. Bush didn't. Obama did what Bush, despite his public stance, wouldn't.
Obama did not do it with the stroke of a pen. First the revised law had to be voted in by the Congress. Under the Bush admin, the congress rejected the change, it never made Bush's desk.
By the way, I agree with the new revision to the law. The "old law" in my opinion was a B.S. approach to eht issue.
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: danootaandme on 01/31/09 at 7:42 am
Obama did not do it with the stroke of a pen. First the revised law had to be voted in by the Congress. Under the Bush admin, the congress rejected the change, it never made Bush's desk.
By the way, I agree with the new revision to the law. The "old law" in my opinion was a B.S. approach to eht issue.
The bush whitheouse, and the repubs were against the the ruling, that is why it didn't pass.....until now.
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: Macphisto on 01/31/09 at 8:18 pm
Quick question: Does this mean that if a woman accepts lower pay for a position than a man does, she can still sue her employer?
There's going to be a lot of lawsuits as a result of this. Many of them will be very questionable in their motivations.
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 01/31/09 at 8:28 pm
Quick question: Does this mean that if a woman accepts lower pay for a position than a man does, she can still sue her employer?
There's going to be a lot of lawsuits as a result of this. Many of them will be very questionable in their motivations.
That's O.K. Precedent is a major component of how we make our laws.
The problem with your example is even if Jane, an applicant for assistant manager, is allowed to know what Bob, the other assistant manager earns, she cannot demand that same salary if Bob has been with the company for five years and proved himself an asset. Jane needs to keep the assistant manager position for x amount of time and be able to demonstrate she is worth as much to the company as Bob. Thus, it gets complicated...
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: Macphisto on 01/31/09 at 8:30 pm
That's O.K. Precedent is a major component of how we make our laws.
The problem with your example is even if Jane, an applicant for assistant manager, is allowed to know what Bob, the other assistant manager earns, she cannot demand that same salary if Bob has been with the company for five years and proved himself an asset. Jane needs to keep the assistant manager position for x amount of time and be able to demonstrate she is worth as much to the company as Bob. Thus, it gets complicated...
I just question the wisdom of getting the government involved in payrolls. It seems rather big government to me.
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: MaxwellSmart on 02/01/09 at 1:39 am
I just question the wisdom of getting the government involved in payrolls. It seems rather big government to me.
The government has always been involved with payrolls and it always has been big.
Subject: Re: Obama Signs Workforce Anti-Discrimination Law
Written By: Macphisto on 02/01/09 at 1:54 am
The government has always been involved with payrolls and it always has been big.
Actually... no... The government didn't begin to get involved in payrolls until the Civil War, but yes, it has been a while. It's also been big since the New Deal, but that doesn't mean we should just keep making it bigger.