180 days is not fair and there needs to be a discovery rule extension, at least for some period of years. But the wage gap issue is more complex than overt discrimination -- saying "no, no, no, no -- it's not so!" doesn't tell us anything, with all due respect. After all, young women in their 20s and into their 30s outearn their male peers in many major cities. But we need to make work places much more family friendly, giving BOTH men and women more time and flexibility when it comes to children. This would enable women to work more, and also enable men to break free of the rigid "breadwinner" stereotype that still defines my gender, feminism or no (and I know a lot of young guys who would love to have more time with their kids but they've got to word). The result would go a long way to equalizing pay between man and women and also help make dads better parents.

Hey, just wanted to let any fellow readers know that it's not too late to call your Senators about this bill. Call (202) 224-3121 for the Capitol switchboard. When they put you through to your Senators' offices, here's what to say:

1. I am a constituent. My name is ________.
2. I am urging the Senator to vote yes on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
3. This bill is important because it will help to ensure justice for women who have been subject to pay discrimination.

Also, shameless plug -- we'll be posting about the results of the vote tonight, so check out http://www.womenstake.org to find out what happens and what else you can do to help.

If only I were a constituent of someone besides Sen. Brownback :(

Let me address the situation with doctors. Doctors are paid by insurance companies or Medicare/Medicaid without respect to gender.

The vast majority of doctors are not employees, they are independent contractors, which means they get paid the same rates regardless of wehther they are men or women. There's no evidence that Medicare or insurance payments to female doctors are lower than to male doctors.

There are plenty of examples of pay discrimination, but being a doctor is not one of them.

*sigh* it's times like this that I wish I actually HAD a Senator...Damn taxation without representation in DC!!! When that fat check I sent the feds on April 15th is still fresh in my mind too!

Today, Alix (my very cool almost 18 y.o. who changed the spelling of her name to match that of Alix Olson) told me she found out that she was being paid less than the 16 y.o. guy hired 2 months ago---she has been working at the same mall store for 1.5 years, been named employee of the month, etc . etc. She was told that salaries were secret (same as Ledbetter was told).
So, I told her about Lilly Ledbetter...and our Supreme Court's decision and the bill before the Senate.
Alix is not going to take this affront.
Neither should anyone!
Call your Senators!

Hey everybody, we can't let this one go without a fight. I'm sure we're all sick of the damn Republicans denying people their basic human rights.
The legislation didn't pass cloture (it can't be voted on either way until it passes cloture). We can get the Senate to vote again on cloture if we put enough pressure on them. Please go to womenstake.org to see how your Senators voted and how to contact them. If they supported the bill, please tell them thanks!

I didn't see this post until it was too late to call my senators, but I got on the senate website to check how they voted (Baucus is sometimes only nominally a Democrat), and I looked at the Yeas and Nays and the ONLY democrat to vote nay was Harry Reid. Wtf? I checked his website and it says:

"I don't know how anyone would oppose something like this. It just makes sense that people should be treated fairly," Reid said. "Today, Democrats tried to restore equal pay for equal work regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability, but were again blocked by Republican tactics."

Again, wtf? Some democratic leadership we have. It still wouldn't have gotten the 60-vote majority, but come on.

Is there a way to contact Ms. Ledbetter to show our support?

This is why we need a filibuster-proof Democratic majority and a Democratic president. Those who say there isn't any difference between the parties really don't get that one is committed to the concept of equality and the other is not.

Get a clue, ladies.

People who block the bill aren't out to hurt women. They aren't against equality. They are, however, against crappy legislation, and this is a perfect example of it.

Our legal history has always honoured the concept of statutes of limitations. There is a fundamental unfairness to being haled into court to defend oneself against charges that stemmed from incidents long past. Memories fade. Witnesses die.

There are several ways to make a good rule that is just - one that acknolwedges the difficulty in learning about pay discrimination and the difficulty in operating under conditions of limitless liability for actions done in years past. (Ladies, as a newsflash, one way to rectify pay discrimination is to make it so expensive for companies to operate that no one is employed. Life will suck equally for everyone.) Some ways to do this:
*Replace the 180-day limit with a discovery tollilng period: the 180-day clock starts not when the discriminatory action occurs, but when the worker finds out about it.
*Replace the 180-day window with, say, a five-year window. This could be done either with the discriminatory decision (to pay less) or with a paycheck. This allows workers to recover if discriminated against in the recent past while allowing companies to continue operations without exposure to ruinous liability.
*Devise some sort of safe harbour plan, wherein companies would be able to limit liability to, say, the last five or ten years if they do the discovery on their own. (Imagine if they all went through their billing records, figured out if there is pay discrimination, and, in exchange for rectifying it on their own, got a break from ruinous liability and perhaps the chance to pay the 10 years of back pay over a period of years, with interest, to spread out the damage and allow the business to continue to operate.)
*Impose a law that, from now forward, pay scales will not be hidden from employees. Employers could be required to break down pay by level of education, experience, years on the job, any hard factors of performance (hours worked, commissions made, items sold, patents acquired), and race and sex. Figure out for yourself if you are discriminated against, and then sue.

Fact is, companies merge, buy each other out, and, most importanly, rely on the law as it is written when making business decisions. If a Company A buys out Company B, it will pay a certain price for it, under the belief that its liability is limited to certain, discrete areas. If its liability is not so limited, it would pay much less, or would not have made the deal. In the future, perhaps, companies will examine each other's bookkeeping and pay records to determine if there has been discrimination.

The law of unintended consequences: the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a prime example of this. Companies will have a huge incentive to discreetly lay off older workers, knowing that they represent the highest liability. They have NO incentive to re-negotiate their salaries, knowing that doing so could open themselves up to liability for 30 years of back pay - 30 years of back pay that has invariably been spent on other things - most likely, inflated salaries for male employees.

It's been discussed on Feministing how women don't negotiate as strongly for salaries and are often penalised when doing so. Companies may have lost records of negotiations made 10 or 20 years ago - negotiations that are not the result of discrimination necessarily, but may result in liability nonetheless. (Hence my point about the statute of limitations.)

Off all the options available to it, the Congress took the worst one. Any piece of legislation that does not recognise the very real, very probable consequences ought not be passed, because, last time anyone with a brain checked, good intentions don't make things all happy and fluffy.

Well, at least we know why McCain didn't vote for it. He doesn't think the government should interfere with private business on this issue, and thinks women will get higher paying jobs if they would get some education and training. http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=1392352