2009-01-13T13:15:48Z opencongress.org tag:opencongress.org,2007:/bill/comments/53517 2009-01-13T13:15:48Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-01-13:/comment/76857 Anonymous I was glad to see this bill passed in the House. There's another bill that just passed in the House, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, that would penalize companies per paycheck that the discrimination occurs. Being a single woman and a person who was for years discriminated against for her gender in the business world, it's about time and long in coming. As for opening up law suits and hurting companies, companies should be doing ethical business practices and if they are not, then I'd love to see them fall. They deserve it. They have no one to blame except themselves. There's nothing worse than sitting in the Presidents office and told "You will never make as much as a man does in my company, no woman will!" I was fired two days later because I filed a complaint. I was unable to pursue it back in the 1980's without getting my own attorney and paying out of pocket for one so I had no recourse and looked for another job to only have it happen time and time again being paid less than a man. I learned to keep my mouth shut if I wanted to keep my job. Another protection this bill can offer is to protect transgendered people who are constantly discriminated against and who usually cannot find employment. Let's face it, people are either good workers or not and it really doesn't matter what gender they are and their gender should never be a factor in deciding pay or benefits either. 2009-01-10T08:19:42Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-01-10:/comment/76084 Anonymous unless it is the government being sued because they ,of course, are exempt from the punitive damages clause. 2009-01-09T07:41:12Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-01-09:/comment/75701 stevesharris Allows the victim the potential of the same access to legal resources as the company at fault and removes restrictions on compensation/damages that would otherwise render a case unlikely to make it to court. 2009-01-12T16:41:25Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-01-12:/comment/76683 pegwinn I already don't like it. Introduction and voting within 72 hours? The text of the bill isn't here or at Thomas yet. I wonder what kind of pork is getting slid in. 2009-01-14T12:33:56Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-01-14:/comment/77064 Anonymous To respond to the previous comment, I was working as a computer operator at the time. Not too many woman worked in that field at that time. I could never find another job in that field because they were not taking woman serious in that field. I left and worked in business, accounting and the airline industry for 20 years after that. I finally optained my B.A. and worked in research, case management, and finally returned to business and obtained my financial license. I eventually had to leave that industry due to my health and now on permanent disability. If I was paid properly and equally all those years, my Social Security payment would be quite a bit higher since it is based on your pay. This bill needs to pass so that people get a fair chance throughout their life. 2009-01-13T17:00:54Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-01-13:/comment/76920 Anonymous what do yo do for a living? 2009-04-13T22:58:11Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-04-13:/comment/102391 Clint_Thomas This should be left to the states to decide, this is not a federal issue 2009-01-13T03:00:15Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-01-13:/comment/76728 zio56 At a time when more than 11 million Americans are unemployed, the highest unemployment rate in sixteen years, this bill exposes large and small companies to vast new liabilities extending back decades. What our economy needs now is for businesses to hire more workers in America, but they are not going to do that if it means exposing themselves to expensive and frivolous litigation. The only things these two bills will stimulate are more litigation and a further exodus of jobs out of the United States. 2009-01-19T14:22:11Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-01-19:/comment/78271 slinkymaster That is an unfortunate situation for you, but now courts and the government are going to be determining pay for people who felt like they didn't get the raise because of their gender. Alot of things were different in the 80's, if you were black you wouldn't even be in the same room as the president of your company. Things will change over time, all this legislation does is allow women to fight for their raise in court. 2009-06-29T14:34:48Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-06-29:/comment/111506 amandacaudill I agree. 2009-02-09T09:51:27Z tag:opencongress.org,2009-02-09:/comment/84829 zjfelling While I am strongly against bringing the Equal Opportunity Survey back (it doesn't work), I support the passage of this bill. It will cost $15 million, but the bill is too important to get bogged down over semantics. The bill allows employees to discuss their wages, and also leaves an exception for small businesses. So, even though the EO survey will cost more money, the rest of the bill makes up for that shortcoming. One note, I am very upset that the so-called "conservative" republicans, when they brought forth a motion to recommit forthwith that it didn't include a measure to remove the section on the EO survey instead they made yet another stand for big business.