What's new

Scott Walker Quietly Repeals Wisconsin Equal Pay Law

littlebuffalo

Part Of The Furniture
PF Member
Messages
4,633
Highlights
0
Reaction score
0
Points
602
Peak Coin
0.000000¢
DB Transfer
0.000000¢
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/scott-walker-wisconsin-equal-pay-law_n_1407329.html

WASHINGTON -- A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill.

The 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges. Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court.

In November, the state Senate approved SB 202, which rolled back this provision. On February, the Assembly did the same. Both were party-line votes in Republican-controlled chambers.

SB 202 was sent to Walker on March 29. He had, according to the state constitution, six days to act on the bill. The deadline was 5:00 p.m. on Thursday. The governor quietly signed the bill into law on Thursday, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau, and it is now called Act 219.

Walker's office did not return repeated requests for comment.

State Sen. Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) and Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), the authors of the Equal Pay Enforcement Act, criticized Walker on Thursday for not informing the public of his actions on SB 202.

“We are finally starting to see progress here in Wisconsin, yet like their counterparts across the country, Legislative Republicans want to turn back the clock on women’s rights in the workplace,†said Hansen.

Women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men make. In Wisconsin, it's 75 cents, according to the Wisconsin Alliance for Women’s Health (WAWH), which also estimates that families in the state "lose more than $4,000 per year due to unequal pay."

Business associations lobbied in support of SB 202, according to the state's Government Accountability Board. Groups like Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and the Wisconsin Restaurant Association all backed a repeal.

Sara Finger, executive director of WAWH, said that the repeal was a "demoralizing attack on women’s rights, health, and wellbeing."

"Economic security is a women’s health issue," she said. "The salary women are paid directly affects the type and frequency of health care services they are able to access. At a time when women’s health services are becoming more expensive and harder to obtain, financial stability is essential to maintain steady access."

Walker is facing a recall election in June. The two frontrunners on the Democratic side who are competing to unseat him, former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, sharply criticized the governor for allowing the repeal bill to become law.

Falk said Walker has "turned back the clock for women across Wisconsin."

"As a woman and as a mother who worked full-time while raising my son, I know first-hand how important pay equity and health care are to women across Wisconsin," she said in a statement to The Huffington Post.

A spokesman for Barrett's campaign said that Walker's "ideological civil war includes a war on women, and repeal today of this protection against pay discrimination is a major step backwards for Wisconsin values and basic fairness."

"Tom Barrett knows equal pay for equal work is essential, and failing to stand up for Wisconsin women in the workplace is yet another reason he [Walker] must be defeated this summer," he said.

UPDATE: 2:17 p.m. -- The Plum Line reports that President Barack Obama's campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith responded to Walker's repeal, calling on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, to take a position on the issue.

"As he campaigned across Wisconsin, Mitt Romney repeatedly praised Governor Scott Walker's leadership, calling him a 'hero' and 'a man of courage,'" she said. "But with his signing yesterday of a bill make it harder for women to enforce in court their right to equal pay, Walker showed how far Republicans are willing to go to undermine not only women's health care, but also their economic security. Does Romney think women should have ability to take their bosses to court to get the same pay as their male coworkers? Or does he stand with Governor Walker against this?"
 
Wouldn't surprise me in the least to see members of the GOP start filing bills that try to repeal the 19th Amendment.

seriously, do you ever think before you bash other good people or are you so f- in miserable you try to make everybody else that way too.

I really want to know?

I have never known the united states to be so divided until this president took office. wtf
 
seriously, do you ever think before you bash other good people or are you so f- in miserable you try to make everybody else that way too.

I really want to know?

I have never known the united states to be so divided until this president took office. wtf
Are you seriously defending screwing working women who may not be receiving equal pay for equal work?


As for partisanship, it was the post 1980 GOP [& later the Tea Party] who divided the country, insisting on litmus & loyalty tests, proclaiming anyone who disagreed as un-patriotic. Many of the longest serving GOP members of Congress are disgusted with the more recent state of affairs. They know it takes both parties working together and hammering out compromises to get things done, something the newer members of the GOP & Tea Party refuse to do. This is what is responsible for driving out centrist & liberal members of the GOP, they have basically given up & are leaving office, unable to work with members of their own party. It is the reason the GOP has crap for presidential candidates lately because reasonable folks know the primaries are controlled by the extremists, Tea Party, & religious right. If they stand by their beliefs and refuse to kiss those asses they won't make it through the GOP primaries to perhaps reach greater appeal of the rest of the GOP who are sitting out of the primaries & complaining about crappy choices.
 
Are you seriously defending screwing working women who may not be receiving equal pay for equal work?

yep , I am

As for partisanship, it was the post 1980 GOP [& later the Tea Party] who divided the country, insisting on litmus & loyalty tests, proclaiming anyone who disagreed as un-patriotic. Many of the longest serving GOP members of Congress are disgusted with the more recent state of affairs. They know it takes both parties working together and hammering out compromises to get things done, something the newer members of the GOP & Tea Party refuse to do. This is what is responsible for driving out centrist & liberal members of the GOP, they have basically given up & are leaving office, unable to work with members of their own party. It is the reason the GOP has crap for presidential candidates lately because reasonable folks know the primaries are controlled by the extremists, Tea Party, & religious right. If they stand by their beliefs and refuse to kiss those asses they won't make it through the GOP primaries to perhaps reach greater appeal of the rest of the GOP who are sitting out of the primaries & complaining about crappy choices.

More bullshit , as usual. I hope to drive out all liberals and centrists. We need
morality back. I am tired of explaining to my kids about all this sex out of wedlock, babies with no daddies, welfarecand entitlement. How about what ever you earn you get, nothing more and nothing less. oh yeah and the government doesnt take 1/2 of my husbands salary and divy it up betrween a bunch of people who don't even try to support their families.
 
Whatever gaps exist, he insists, stem from women’s decision to prioritize childrearing over their careers. “Take a hypothetical husband and wife who are both lawyers,†he says. “But the husband is working 50 or 60 hours a week, going all out, making 200 grand a year. The woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go. Now they’re 50 years old. The husband is making 200 grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn’t discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person.†[...]
Grothman doesn’t accept these studies. When I ran the numbers by him, he replied, “The American Association of University Women is a pretty liberal group.†Nor, he argued, does its conclusion take into account other factors, like “goals in life. You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious. To attribute everything to a so-called bias in the workplace is just not true.â€

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...-senator-money-less-important-wome/?mobile=nc
 
More bullshit , as usual. I hope to drive out all liberals and centrists. We need
morality back. I am tired of explaining to my kids about all this sex out of wedlock, babies with no daddies, welfarecand entitlement. How about what ever you earn you get, nothing more and nothing less. oh yeah and the government doesnt take 1/2 of my husbands salary and divy it up betrween a bunch of people who don't even try to support their families.

Wow another CW person who makes sense in their posts.
 

I thought you were sort of educated, you quote a "crazies" website. :flowers:Common sense says that the supposed wage "gap" is not real (its not actually a gap when adjusted for performance and other factors) in many cases, because of time off for having/taking care of kids, not working as much (we all know slacker parents (often just happens to be mothers because they take on more childcare responsibilities by choice) (who take extra days off "just because x was sick"), not being career orientated (including hitting the door right at 5:30pm leaving others to do their work Ugh!), lack of experience, not being in the workforce as long or working as many hours, just really have to :slap: :slap: :slap: :slap:.

And in any case, the gap shown in flawed studies is garbage since they often do not compare equal jobs they is use "comparable" work in the opinion of the authors, not equal experience etc, they do nutty apples to oranges comparisons of unequal jobs and experience and claim there is a gap. Even liberal groups find that when you adjust for some of these factors the "gap" almost vanishes.
 
I thought you were sort of educated, you quote a "crazies" website. Common sense says that the wage "gap" is actually smaller than it should be (its not actually a gap when adjusted for performance) in many cases, because of time off for having/taking care of kids, not working as much (we all know slacker parents (usually mothers) (who take extra days off "just because x was sick" well those of us who have been in the workforce do), not being career orientated (including hitting the door right at 5:30pm Ugh!), lack of experience not being in the workforce as long or working as many hours, just really have to :slap: :slap: :slap: :slap:, I would think you would get it :hah:


Thanks Bob! This should keep the ladies busy later today. :lol:


:32:
 
Thanks Bob! This should keep the ladies busy later today. :lol:


:32:

Hey, why not have a lively discussion. I'm sure it will. Interesting to see what others will use as arguments other than "just because" :lol: :flowers:I'm all for real equal pay for equal work with exactly equal experience, hours, performance, commitment to the company, future expected career with company etc. but you have to be very careful to make apples to apples comparisons. :flowers:
 
Are you seriously defending screwing working women who may not be receiving equal pay for equal work?


As for partisanship, it was the post 1980 GOP [& later the Tea Party] who divided the country, insisting on litmus & loyalty tests, proclaiming anyone who disagreed as un-patriotic. Many of the longest serving GOP members of Congress are disgusted with the more recent state of affairs. They know it takes both parties working together and hammering out compromises to get things done, something the newer members of the GOP & Tea Party refuse to do. This is what is responsible for driving out centrist & liberal members of the GOP, they have basically given up & are leaving office, unable to work with members of their own party. It is the reason the GOP has crap for presidential candidates lately because reasonable folks know the primaries are controlled by the extremists, Tea Party, & religious right. If they stand by their beliefs and refuse to kiss those asses they won't make it through the GOP primaries to perhaps reach greater appeal of the rest of the GOP who are sitting out of the primaries & complaining about crappy choices.

Ennui, why must you try to confuse her with the facts? That ruins the whole just blame President Obama routine when you throw in facts.

Please stick to the plan from here forth, or you might confuse things more, it is absolutely President Obama's fault that there are GOP candidates, sitting governors, senators, etc. with multiple marriages and adulterous pasts (and presents) that must be explained and we all know that. The facts are just there to try to distract us because only with facts are you able to spin things and say in one breath "I have never known the united states to be so divided until this president took office" (obviously insinuating that the problem somehow lies in this president) and then say "I hope to drive out all liberals and centrists" in the next (a complete contradiction of the first statement, unless the way we fix the division is by making everyone the exact same way) because that will really help get the country back to not being so divided.

No more facts please...thanks.
 
seriously, do you ever think before you bash other good people or are you so f- in miserable you try to make everybody else that way too.

I really want to know?

I have never known the united states to be so divided until this president took office. wtf


The United States has always been this divided, there is just better news coverage now.

A Republican governor repealing an equal pay law that protects women from workplace discrimination is terrible. He is facing a recall election that he is not expected to win, so my guess is he is getting his "bucket list" handled before he no longer has any power.

Do you ever actually read what Ennui posts or do you just automatically disagree with her?
 
PS - I read your later posts and realized the answer to my question is self-evident and I don't need you to answer it. Matter of fact my eyes might burn up of another post of that fascist rhetoric.
 
The article posted is quite misleading when in fact the Senate Bill 202 does not take away the right to equal pay for women.


No, it just makes it impossible to sue for compensatory damages in your local circuit court. "Compensatory damages" are lawyers fees, travel fees, missed work for court fees, costs of buying things like health care when one is unlawfully underpaid or unlawfully discriminated against. The benefit to employees being able to sue in circuit court (as opposed to Federal) is that this manner of suing is affordable to almost everyone. It is available to the common man, not just employers with deeper pockets. Filing fees are low. The courthouses are generally local to where the employee lives. The only federal court in Wisconsin is in Madison. Costs to travel there to litigate an unfair wage claim, you know, where they didn't receive the wages they're entitled to, is out of reach for many people.

The limit for an employer of any size was $300,000 per action which is not onerous - if an employer is found to be in violation of the Fair Wage Act, they should pay compensatory damages. That is the only deterrent against MORE employers doing it. If there is no penalty, there is no deterrent. If there is no deterrent, then there is no "law."

When the government makes using your rights difficult or impossible, they aren't rights any more. I fail to see why anyone who has ever been employed would consider this method of "protecting employers" (from the consequences of discriminating against their employees? really?) at the expense of employees to be reasonable.
 
Back
Top