McCain/Palin on Equal Pay

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:22:16 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A number of TalkLeft posts have focused on the need for legislation to reverse the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision. That decision severely limits the ability of wage discrimination victims to sue their employers. Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to correct the problem.

John McCain opposes the legislation. Today we learned that Sarah Palin joins him in that position.

The McCain campaign said Sunday that the presidential candidate and Palin support equal pay for women even though they do not think the 180-day limit for filing complaints should be changed.

In other words, they support equal pay as a theory, but they don't support an effective remedy for women who don't discover within 180 days that they are being paid less than male employees doing the same work. McCain and Palin want to continue to give discriminating employers an easy way to avoid the law: keep pay decisions secret for 180 days, and they get a pass for their illegal conduct. It's nice to know that some things never change, including Republican support for business interests over employees' rights.

< Obama to Ask Supporters to Help Gustav Victims | Why Women Support Obama-Biden >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

McCain/Palin on Equal Pay | 47 comments (47 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Voting for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Gabriel on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:27:40 PM EST

or voting for Obama means choosing between two very different views of how the world should be. It's not just (or even primarily) about Roe v Wade, as this post makes clear.

: Until you examine Biden's record (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by hairspray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:31:46 AM EST

on this issue. Biden has been a good pro-choice legislator, but I don't think think that was a risk for him. On the other hand, he has been awful on bankruptcy and other banking issues and there is a risk standing up for the "little people" here. This requires going against the people who fund his campaigns. I'd like to see more on Biden on these scores instead of "my roots are in Scranton."

This needs to be a debate question. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by eustiscg on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:38:14 PM EST

"Senator McCain (or Governor Palin), you have said you support Equal Pay. Currently, a woman gets only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns in the same or a comparable position. The problem is even worse when those women are women of color. Obviously, the current legal solution isn't working. What will you do, in practical terms, to fix this problem?"

I suspect whatever answer they give would be a hanging curveball for either Obama or Biden ...

The VP Debate (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by indy in sc on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:48:18 PM EST

is going to be moderated by Gwen Ifill. I enjoy her work and find her fair minded. I'm also glad it's going to be moderated by a woman, which will help avoid accusations of men "ganging up" on Palin if she ends up not doing well.


Fair-minded? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:25:58 PM EST

Pfffftttthhh!

She's a charter member of the Village. Yech.


She also was one of the minions (5.00 / 3) (#22)
by zfran on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:48:05 PM EST

who consistently put Hillary down.


zfran (none / 0) (#29)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM EST

I agree with that; indeed !! But what does the charter memeber of the Village mean?


: The Village (none / 0) (#47)
by gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM EST

Andy, that's the term used on many of the blogs to refer to the whole Washington-New York media echo chamber.

what does (none / 0) (#21)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:45:13 PM EST

that mean?


Only part of your statement is accurate (none / 0) (#42)
by hairspray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:15:42 AM EST

She is not fair minded IMHO.


Equal Pay Practices (none / 0) (#31)
by kgb on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:26:00 PM EST

http://www.thenextright.com/michaelturk/quick-back-of-the-envelope-calculations

http://www.Legistorm.com

Find an answer who is already support The Equal Pay doctrine..


*This* is the sort of info that Dems oughta (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by kempis on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:47:15 PM EST

push in discussions. This needs to get out there--repeatedly.

Good contrast. No blowback. Truthfully exposes the GOP's typical agenda.

No blowback? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by oldpro on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:12:15 PM EST

Better check to make sure.

I have no link but a dim memory of hearing (on the radio?) or reading somewhere that in their Senate offices, McCain paid equity or more to his female staff while Obama did not. I'll look ... anybody got a link?

The other issue sure to be raised is this: Kennedy filed that bill in July '07...over a year ago. Committee hearings held 6 months later in January '08. Since then...nothing. Still sitting in committee with 44 co-sponsors.

One might ask why the Dems haven't moved this bill "if it's so important?" Good question. Plenty of reasons but in 'soundbite politics' it won't matter that they didn't have the votes or a vetoproff majority.

Democratic women will want to know why the Hell they didn't force the Rs to vote no...or force Bush to veto it if it got that far...

Trust me...there IS a political downside to asking the question. Dems aren't home free on this one. Not yet anyway.


Oh, yeah...google is our friend. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by oldpro on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:24:58 PM EST

There's a slug of stories on Obama's vs. McCain's pay equity and Obama loses the argument bigtime.

This excerpt from CNS News dot com:

"On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)"

UPDATE: Evidently there WAS a vote held in April on the bill...McCain was absent (campaigning?) but is reported opposed. No 60-vote filibusterproof majority, so....


oldpro (none / 0) (#38)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:38:13 PM EST

I don't understand your "Update": what happened when the vote was held in April? And what is the current status of this bill ?


The Dems (none / 0) (#39)
by TChris on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:43:39 PM EST

did not have 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster, and so the bill stalled.


: Yup. Thanks, Chris. (none / 0) (#40)
by oldpro on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:14:05 PM EST

It's still in committee.

: Ah, okay (none / 0) (#48)
by Andy08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:07:42 PM EST

thank you!

Obama is amking (none / 0) (#33)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:09:45 PM EST

a big mistake going after Palin on this issue because she has said nothing on the subject. It is McCain and Obama should be pointing at him. Obama going after Palin makes him look really bad.

From the ABC Political Radar Article I linked below:

Obama hits Palin on Equal Pay for Equal Work
August 31, 2008 3:58 PM
ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Senator Obama - for the first time - has brought up specific criticisms of Senator McCain's new VP choice, Sarah Palin - accusing her of not supporting Equal Pay for Equal Work.
"John McCain's new VP nominee seems like a very engaging person, a nice person," Obama started to say during a town hall in Toledo, OH, "But I've got to say, she's opposed like John McCain is to equal pay for equal work. That doesn't make much sense to me."

...

The Obama campaign could not provide immediate proof Palin's opposition to Equal Pay - and instead only connected Palin to McCain's opposition.

The attack on Palin is an attack by association being she on the Rep. ticket with McCain. But this is on McCain and Obama should go after him. Not her....


: "making" that is (correction) (none / 0) (#34)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:10:46 PM EST

: According to a post upthread, it is (none / 0) (#43)
by hairspray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:25:45 AM EST

Biden who is not so good on this issue. So if the debate is between the two VPs she could win this one.

interesting...thanks for the info (none / 0) (#46)
by kempis on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 06:11:13 AM EST

Ugh. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Iphie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:03:05 PM EST

Here's my recommendation then -- remove the onus from the employee to discover their co-workers salaries and make the disclosure by the employer mandatory.

: That opens up a can of worms (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by AF on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:19:03 PM EST

Just clarify that each unequal pay check is a fresh act of discrimination (as the 4 Supreme Court dissenters would have held) and the problem is solved.

: Ahhhh! I like that one!! (none / 0) (#20)
by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:32:01 PM EST

: Yes, I am surprised (none / 0) (#24)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:57:47 PM EST

there hasn't been a challenge by someone that given the law employers should be REQUIRED to that
update and publish somewhere immediately their salaries lists as soon as there is ANY change on any one of its employees.
It's obvious that that should be there at a minimum for minimum fairness sake,

Good Lord, they are such Republicans. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Lysis on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:04:01 PM EST

I hope the Democratic ticket leads on this, perhaps as part of a larger emphasis on gender issues as a whole.

Ideally, having a woman on the Republican ticket will make the Democrats fight harder for the female vote. Fingers crossed.

: Dream on (none / 0) (#18)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:29:45 PM EST

I had no idea her position on this issue (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:31:02 PM EST

Was so radical and out of the mainstream.

: She hasn't (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:23:36 PM EST

expressed any position. Obama's criticism came
because she is VP to McCain; hence it is by association b/c she is now on the ticket.
Look at the ABC News Political Radar article I link below this comment.

The problem with (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:53:45 PM EST

the 180 days limit is that salaries are not public. It is very difficult for an employee to find out how much his/her co-workers are earning. If everytime there is an increase to anyone salaries are published but usually they are not and even if they are somewhere they are updated like a year behind. Usually nowhere to be found at all though.

And what is the employee supposed to do? Go ask management or whoever is your employee how much anyone is earning every 6 months of your life?

The 180 days is ABSURD and I cannot understand how can it be "constitutional" nor FAIR.

TCHRIS: I don't remember well, but wasn't tehre a case recently on the courts? If memory serves me the employee lost but I cannot remember why the court went againt her.

Could you write some on this? Thanks.

It is REALLY BAD.

Ledbetter Convention Speech (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by eustiscg on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:10:52 PM EST

Lily Ledbetter also gave a speech at the Dem Convention last week. Here's a link to the transcript.


Click (none / 0) (#25)
by TChris on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:58:39 PM EST

the Ledbetter decision link in the post for more information about the Supreme Court case. From there you can click the Ledbetter v. Goodyear link to actually read the decision.


: Thanks ! (none / 0) (#26)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:02:58 PM EST

What happened with (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:11:28 PM EST

the Legislation introduced by Ted Kennedy and co-sponsored by these 44 Senators? The link doesn't say what has happened with it since January 2008
(when the last action seems to have been).

We better get a BIG majority in Congress to change this.... Talking about which what would happen with Obama and Biden seats in the Senate? I read somewhere they have not resigned. Biden is up for re-election I think so what would happen with his seat ?

I have read the article you link (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Andy08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:47:43 PM EST

as well as an ABC Political Radar article.

Palin has never made a comment on Equal Pay. McCain has. As VP she is part of the ticket so what the "McCain campaign says" is the ticket. But Palin
herself doesn't seem to have made any comments.
Obama's comments today on her position are by association with McCain but not to anything specific. This doesn't change the facts of McCain's position but I thought by this post she had explicitely made some stupid comment.

The ABC article I link above is a good article.

: Apparently ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by TChris on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:35:23 PM EST

the ABC reporter didn't read the AP article linked in the post ... unless the GOP-friendly AP just made up the statement it attributed to the McCain campaign.

Where did we learn today (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:29:25 PM EST

how Palin felt about equal pay? We learned that Obama said she agreed with McCain. Does he have proof? Did she speak? Is there a link to her saying so? Or is he hitting Palin when he should be hitting McCain?

: Proof (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by Politalkix on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:15:53 PM EST

Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella issued this response: "For Barack Obama to accuse Gov. Sarah Palin of opposing equal opportunity for women, when she actually opposes the trial lawyers' effort to overturn the longstanding statute of limitations in America's courts -- is not only an absurd accusation, it's a disgrace." But if we're reading this statement correctly, this means that Palin backed the Supreme Court's 5-4 majority decision that invalidated Lily Ledbetter's equal-pay lawsuit. [link http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/31/1315768.aspx ]
"Opposing trial lawyers effort to overturning the longstanding statute of limitations in America's courts" is a fancy way of saying that she and Sen McCain are on the same page on this issue-both are against the Lily Ledbetter equal pay lawsuit.

You know (none / 0) (#2)
by zvs888 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:34:43 PM EST

I was kind of meh about the Palin pick.

But now I think it could help Obama a little bit, although it is a double edged sword with Gustav around.

He had a great convention and all, but the whole election still seemed like a referendum on him.

Now McCain has basically thrust his campaign into the spotlight to try and take the whole show.

It is a gamble, but at least Obama can just focus on campaigning in the swing states and actually trying to get votes, while the public focuses on McCain/Palin.

At least it's not like last month when I was groaning every day after Obama came home from Europe.

(I know this seems tangential, but I do think it has to do with the post since we're seeing so many of these kinds of posts.)

Well, that's a position that is just wrong. (none / 0) (#6)
by Anne on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:52:09 PM EST

But I don't know why we should have expected something different from the party that is the corporations' best friend.

Should we have expected Palin, as a woman, to see it differently? One would think so, but I don't imagine McCain put her on the ticket to be his own intra-party foil.

Well (none / 0) (#7)
by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:52:57 PM EST

I think to your average voter that clip is going to mean that both palin and McCain support equal pay for women. The 180 day window part probably won't register. My 2 cents anyway.

I'm sure that's what they want people to think. (5.00 / 4) (#8)
by TChris on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 07:54:27 PM EST

That's why it's important for those who follow the issue to expose their true positions.


Yes... (3.00 / 2) (#10)
by Thanin on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:02:07 PM EST

exposing palins extreme right beliefs very out in the open. Expose her quickly for how shes against womens rights.


: I'm not convinced that she is (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by hairspray on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:36:52 AM EST

doing a great deal to destroy women's rights. She is very pro-life for herself but has said she would not have a litmus test and indeed she just appointed a Supreme Court judge in AK who is very down the middle with a stellar reputation. He is not an ideologue. So we need to be very specific about the things she supports. This equal pay issue is one that can be used against her, but your generalizations aren't valid ones.

Agreed (none / 0) (#11)
by steviez314 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:02:27 PM EST

Do you have a way to put all the blog entries on the issues together so they can be referenced or linked to later? Maybe a special tag?


Is there a role for state AG's in this? (none / 0) (#17)
by EL seattle on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 08:29:24 PM EST

Or similar state agencies? Could employers be required at the state level to declare every 3 months or so that they are not in violation of the Equal Pay rules? If it turns out that the employer has lied in these declarations, they could face some serious financial downsides as a result.

Maybe this approach is being used already? Say, for undocumented workers? (I have no idea about that myself, but since there's a few law folks that seem to hang around this site, maybe someone here might know...?)