Walker Doubles Down on WOW

S

Satchel

2,500+ Posts
He seems to be in his own world. I'm glad he's among the highest profile Republicans in the country. Oh, and there's even more on abortion and sex ed:

Walker Repeals Equal Pay Law

In what was perhaps his most surprising move, Walker signed a bill repealing the state's 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court.

The law allowed individuals to plead their discrimination cases in the less costly state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court, a provision the newest legislation rolled back. Jeff Hynes, the president of the Wisconsin Employment Lawyers Association, told the Journal Sentinel the changes sends a signal to employers that mistreat their workers that they "can get away with it every time."

"The governor and the Republican leadership in Wisconsin have effectuated a one-two punch with respect to employees' rights to get any meaningful remedy" in discrimination cases, Hynes told the newspaper.

The law approved by Walker removes the ability for victims of wage discrimination to go to court for compensatory and punitive damages, although they still have the ability to seek back pay. Hynes noted that Walker previously signed legislation that puts a limit on the amount of attorney's fees victims can recover in lawsuits, making it even less likely that wronged employees will take their cases to court.

Under the new law, there will be no remedy for justice under state employment law for women who are sexually harassed in the workplace, or for minorities who are subjected to racial epithets and other signs of discrimination.
The Link
 
Me too.
cool.gif
 
Well let's be clear. Reading that article was basically like reading a Media Matters talking points list. They included just enough superficial response to claim it was unbiased, but it didn't go into any specifics on any of it. Just a bunch of name-calling and hate-mongering, as usual.

It's very typical in the sense that the article tries to convey the sense that because of this change, there will be NO recourse, even though it admits that's not really the case. It's written specifically to leave the impression that state law dictates that the person will have no recourse - which is absolutely false.

No discussion on how the "equal pay" figure is arrived at - typically equal pay does not take into account apples-to-apples comparisons. Typically resistance to these laws are related to that fact - but no discussion of that in this article.
 
The unlettered governor of Wisconsin repealed legislation that ensured equal pay for women. What fan of women in the workplace could be against that?
 
I just addressed that stat in the post that you ignored - but since I actually tried to engage in fact and reason, I expected it to be ignored. So no harm, no foul.

The realty is that we have a law on the books that deals with inequity, and the reason you want another law is because currently, it's too hard to find actual apples-to-apples cases of discrimination. It's much easier to group a bunch of people together, take logic and decision-making issues out of the question and deal with it as a lump sum. That way you can do what you do best - pit people against an anonymous group of oppressors using nothing but generalizations and accusations with no recourse by the accused to defend the individual decisions.
 
pay gap is a liberal myth

I can imagine what a POS that law was and Walker is a hero for going after it knowing full well the media wouldn't have the intellectual curiosity to go beyond the law's ridiculous name.

Puting courts and bureaucrats in charge of what people make is the ultimate socialist power grab. He knows his main objective is to make his state more business friendly and that's gonna cost certain people their power. Let the pigs squeal....no one gives a ****.
 
Interesting, both articles are from legitimate sources. Hook's is from 2011 while Satch's 2010. I guess we can assume Obama deserves credit since in one year during his administration everything was equalized.

Now we can join hands and sing anything but kumbaya.
smile.gif
 
Keeps throwing out the same stat. And at least Time does address my questions - which makes Time much better and more reasonable than Satchel who refuses to address a concern he doesn't understand.

The problem is that again, the numbers that liberals insist on using are the ones that do not take into account other factors. In addition, the recent Wal-mart situation is a great example of the deliberate attempt to take those considerations out of the picture. By allowing class-action suits across an industry or company, it doesn't matter whether there's actually a reason why one person's pay is less than another's. It's another way for people like Satchel to be able to make blanket decisions on behalf of people they don't know and will never have to look in the eye.

Again... there is a law on the books. If there is a woman being discriminated against, she has redress. Back to the point originally, the article tries to make it seem as if the governor is not allowing any redress at all, and that is not the case.
 
Linked quote from satch:

Under the new law, there will be no remedy for justice under state employment law for women who are sexually harassed in the workplace, or for minorities who are subjected to racial epithets and other signs of discrimination.


Response by Prod:

I hope you and yours use that as a campaign add. Because it's so completely over the top that even the media would have to say "whoa.... not so fast."

I can't figure out if you're a liar or someone who actually believes a woman will not be able to sue for sexual harrassment anymore.

Please explain why that is so over the top. Your rush to call names is not very productive.

But back to your interpretation of the quote, prod. The quote clearly states that there will no longer be redress under state employment law. It does not say that there will be no redress under all state law - just state employment law. Is the article incorrect?

It seems to me that the avenue of state employment law may no longer be available, but that other venues of state law remain open. Prod, are you saying that all state law is now off limits? Is that what the article says? I don't know, it could be. I'm just trying to understand your rather hyperbolic response and, from what it appears, your misreading of the quote.
 
I don't think you did, but if this is your way out, then so be it.

It still appears as if you had a faulty reading of the quote, and read that as there being "no state law at all" rather than just "no state employment law".
 
It's his way out as he looks for a plausible reason for Republicans to pick on women. It's just a really stupid strategy and one that I am peacock pround and hyena happy the GOP adopted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top