Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know all of the details of the Lilly Ledbetter case but I don't see nothing wrong with extending how much time can go by before a person can take action if they know they have been discriminated against. I mean years can go by before you realize you're being mistreated. Discrimination can be more covert nowdays.
Lilly Ledbetter was lied to by her company for 20 years. They kept their pay records confidential. As soon as she learned of the discrimination, she filed suit. The SCOTUS ruled very strictly that the 180-day limit applied to the time of the actual discrimination rather than the time of discovery. The law attempted to clarify that.
McCain was opposed to the proposed law. Therefore, he thinks that it's OK for companies to discriminate against women as long as they don't get caught within 180 days.
i'm generaly a fan of CNN's fact checking, but in this case, to coin a phrase, the conclusion is more complicated than CNN's comments may suggest.
"McCain said he opposed it" is, of course, the core of the point. McCain explained multiple time why he opposed it, though his explanations did not always line up with each other.
One was:
Quote:
"I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems," the expected GOP presidential nominee told reporters. "This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system."
As both CNN and a poster above noted, he did not vote on it, but neither did he offer any amendments to try to tighten it, while still addressing the problem.
Quote:
McCain stated his opposition to the bill as he campaigned in rural eastern Kentucky, where poverty is worse among women than men. The Arizona senator said he was familiar with the disparity but that there are better ways to help women find better paying jobs.
"They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else," McCain said. "And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them.
In Ledbetter's case, none of that applied. It was unrelated to her problem - and it misrepresents the problem even in rural Kentucky.
In May, McCain told a 14-year-old girl that equal pay and legislation such as Ledbetter bill don’t do “anything to help the rights of women.”
But it is not only the Ledbetter case that is at issue, for all that it is the one that CNN focused on.
In 2000, McCain also opposed an amendment To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex (U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote).
Mind you, it was a parliamentary procedure move that 'merely' prevented the amendment from being considered, but it is a) exactly the sort of bill that Senator McCain claims to prefer, and b) he voted straight along party lines - no maverick he on this issue!
In 1985, as a U.S. Rep, McCain voted against a study to investigate pay differences among federal employees and determine whether they were the result of discrimination. (1985 CQ Almanac; HR 3008, vote # 318, 10/9/85).
There are other votes through the years, I am sure. If he were the staunch advocate of fair pay for women that he claims in his speeches, I have no doubt that something would have passed.
It hasn't. He may be a leader in some areas and he may be a maverick in some areas, but this one is not among them.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,529,163 times
Reputation: 2038
Come on, I read that. One, he certainly did NOT support this legislation which would have protected women and anyone who has had their civil rights violated. He was aware of the specification to this case and again as someone mentioned earlier, he basically said, it's ok for employers to get away with it if they can hide their discrimatory ways more than 6 months after the 1st offensive act.
Does anyone know the reason given for needing a statue of limitations for filing discrimination lawsuits? Lily Ledbetter didn't file her lawsuit until after 19 years. I wonder if her particular case was the best to base this Act on since 19 years is an unusually long amount of time to file a discrimination suit and maybe that's why McCain opposed it? In other words her case seemed like an extreme or rare case.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,529,163 times
Reputation: 2038
19 years is a long time, but he could have clarified that in his position. Since he did not one could assume that he is for only a 6 month limit, which is a absurdly short time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Default McCain Didn't Vote Against Women's Pay
