Life Meets Work Blog

President Obama signed his first bill today—the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Ledbetter worked as a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber for nearly two decades.  In 1998, someone left an anonymous note in her mailbox, alerting her to a wage disparity.

As reported on NPR, all 16 men who did her job earned more, including a relative newcomer who earned $6000 more than the well-tenured Lettbetter.

She filed a EEOC complaint and won the maximum allowable damages of $360,000.  Goodyear appealed and the Supreme Court overturned the award, interpreting the law to indicate that discrimination complaints must be filed within 180 days of the initial discrimination decision.

Congress made a failed attempt to adjust the law in 2007.  Opposition suggests the revision will encourage unfounded lawsuits.  As NPR reporter Nina Totenberg said, Ledbetter was upset by such criticism and noted the law still “caps damages at $300,000, limits back pay to two years, and does nothing to fix the effects of unequal pay on pensions and social security.”

For more: Video and transcript of the signing ceremony and President Obama’s comments today.

Posted by Jaime

In his inauguration comments, President Obama applauded those Americans who take a cut in hours to save a coworker’s job.

At the same time Congress is working to pass unprecedented wage-equity legislation, our new president is saying to us, “Don’t fight to save your paycheck if it means sending a colleague to the unemployment line.”

The government is doing something for you.  Now step up for the government, your employer, your neighbor and reciprocate.

Be generous.  For some, that means giving up a few hours and the pay that goes with it.  For others, like these professors at Brandeis University it meant giving up pay, regardless of the workload.

When your employer asks for voluntary cutbacks or unpaid vacations, say ‘yes’ if you can.  It could be the person in the cube across the aisle absolutely can’t.

It’s time to love you neighbor as yourself and do unto others as you would have done to you.  In the words of the inauguration poet Elizabeth Alexander, “What if the greatest word in the land were ‘love’?”

Too sappy?  Well, it’s an emotional kind of day.  Maybe we could do with a few more days like this to keep what’s really important top of mind.

Posted by Jaime.

On January 9, the House marked its first week of the new session by approving two measures designed to prevent wage discrimination.  Both measures are under review by the Senate and are reportedly supported by President-Elect Barak Obama.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act passed 247-171 and is now before the Senate. On January 15, the Senate has voted to end discussion and is expected to pass the bill shortly.

The Fair Pay Act would essentially remove the statute of limitations on wage discrimination claims, resetting the clock with each subsequent pay- or pension- check.  The act would reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2007 decision which held claims to state limitations (either 180 or 300 days) from the first instance of the discriminatory action—whether or not the employee was aware of the discrimination.

The Paycheck Fairness Act passed the House 256-163 and is also before the Senate. It requires employees to demonstrate that wage disparities are based on job performance, experience, education, or other bona fide business purposes.  For the purposes of determining discrimination, it allows comparisons to be made between different physical locations.  It also prohibits retaliation against employees who share salary information and allows employees to seek compensatory and punitive damages for violating equal pay laws.

Opposition
Opponents argue the Paycheck Fairness Act goes too far in exposing employers to damages, leading more employers to settle cases even when no discrimination occurred. They also argue that it limits standard pay practices such as regional market rates and prior salary history.

They also argue that the Fair Pay Act goes beyond reasonable limitations, exposing companies to nearly un-ending responsibility for pay decisions made by prior management for which no witnesses or records may be available. They say the legislation, as written, could also allow descendants and family to bring wage discrimination suits—even after the employee is deceased.

Posted by Jaime.

The U.S. economy is in a recession, and job losses continue to hit all time highs. As a result, employment sites are experiencing record traffic. But it’s not just the job boards that are welcoming more visitors. Networking sites are also seeing significant increases.

As reported in a recent issue of DMNews, traffic to LinkedIn grew 174% over the last 13 weeks of 2008.For job-seekers and job-holders alike, these sites provide opportunities to build new connections, seek career advice, and showcase accomplishments.

While the debate over using social networking sites in the screening process continues, we think it’s good news for employers. As the volume of information on sites like LinkedIn and Facebook grows, employers have greater opportunities to evaluate new job candidates.

As one executive pointed out, the very public nature of LinkedIn means users are less likely to pad their resumes. People are more inclined to be truthful since colleagues have direct access to these brag pages. So next time you’re reviewing potential new hires, hop over to LinkedIn and see if their public profiles match their CVs.

Join the Life Meets Work LinkedIn community for more employment news and discussion.

Posted by Jaime

The House is scheduled to vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act today, January 9.

Earlier this week, lobbyists encouraged their constituents to contact their representatives for and against this bill.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) says the bills go too far.  Here’s an excerpt from their action alert:

The Paycheck Fairness Act would limit an employer’s ability to justify paying different salaries to workers based in different locations with different costs of living. Second, the bill would lift the caps on compensatory or punitive damages for which employers would be liable, in addition to current liability for back pay.  These damage penalties would apply to even unintentional pay disparities.

MomsRising, however, argues the Paycheck Fairness Act provides long-overdue equitable protection for women.  From their action letter:

The Paycheck Fairness Act would deter wage discrimination by closing loopholes in the law and barring retaliation against workers who disclose their wages.  The bill strengthens the Equal Pay Act to ensure that it provides effective protection against sex-based pay discrimination.  Toward that end, it also allows women to receive the same remedies for pay discrimination that are currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race and national origin.

Can you see the legitimacy of both arguments?

Posted by Jaime