The Post Election Thread

[Guest Jules]

So, I thought "only government" could fix the problems we are facing these days. As of Tuesday, only the people and businesses can do it. Color me confused.

[Winston Legthigh]

So, I thought "only government" could fix the problems we are facing these days.

No you didn't.

[Guest Jules]

No you didn't.

"I" didn't, but Obama did. But now he says the opposite. Hence, my confusion.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Depends on the problem.

 

Check out the hook while the DJ revolves it.

[bjorn_skurj]

I just lay back and let the big beat lead me.

[mountain bed]

I just lay back and let the big beat lead me.

Texas radio?

[bjorn_skurj]

Texas radio?

Nope - that's a hip-hop reference, not classic rock. (Jungle Brothers' "Because I Got It Like That".)

[bleedorange]

People complain about lobbyists and big money interests in government, without realizing how the trial lawyers in this country have the Democratic Party in their back pocket.

 

That's all this is, dressed up as something else.

[Winston Legthigh]

People complain about lobbyists and big money interests in government, without realizing how the trial lawyers in this country have the Democratic Party in their back pocket.

 

That's all this is, dressed up as something else.

Dammit - if it weren't for you meddling kids...

[bjorn_skurj]

People complain about lobbyists and big money interests in government, without realizing how the trial lawyers in this country have the Democratic Party in their back pocket.

 

That's all this is, dressed up as something else.

I am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, but big giant lawsuits are one of the only things that keep corporations from totally raping the public day in and day out. Maybe once re-regulation takes hold we can work out some sensible litigation reform, but until then, there has to be a counterbalance.

[Sir Stewart]

People complain about lobbyists and big money interests in government, without realizing how the trial lawyers in this country have the Democratic Party in their back pocket.

 

That's all this is, dressed up as something else.

 

Well, yes, that and as a bonus - women may actually get paid the same as their male counterparts!

[bleedorange]

Well, yes, that and as a bonus - women may actually get paid the same as their male counterparts!

 

Laws for equal pay are already in place. There are good and legitimate reasons why statutes of limitation exist within the legal system.

[MattZ]

Laws for equal pay are already in place. There are good and legitimate reasons why statutes of limitation exist within the legal system.

 

If women don't have enough time (180 days from their first paycheck) to figure out they've been discriminated against, then the laws that are "already in place" don't do them much good.

 

And as for "good and legitimate reasons why statutes of limitations exist within the legal system," well, good and legitimate reasons exist within the system to correct statutes of limitations that hinder fairness.

 

I suppose you blame lawyers for the Bill of Rights too?

[JUDE]

Does this legislation mean I can sue my employers for compensating me differently for being a single dude in comparison to other employees who are married with children?

[bjorn_skurj]

Does this legislation mean I can sue my employers for compensating me differently for being a single dude in comparison to other employees who are married with children?

Gee, that would be awesome. It's bad enough I can't get laid, I don't need to be paid less to boot.

[bleedorange]

If women don't have enough time (180 days from their first paycheck) to figure out they've been discriminated against, then the laws that are "already in place" don't do them much good.

 

And as for "good and legitimate reasons why statutes of limitations exist within the legal system," well, good and legitimate reasons exist within the system to correct statutes of limitations that hinder fairness.

 

I suppose you blame lawyers for the Bill of Rights too?

 

So, what then, all people along with their heirs should have 500 years to bring up a case in which they might have been wronged? How is 180 days not enough or not fair? What is enough time?

 

What does this have to do with the Bill of Rights and why would I blame anyone for it?

[MattZ]

So, what then, all people along with their heirs should have 500 years to bring up a case in which they might have been wronged? How is 180 days not enough or not fair? What is enough time?

 

500 years? What are you talking about?

Not sure about you, but 180 days into my current job, I didnt know what everyone around me was making. I would have had no way to know one way or the other (if I was a minority or woman) if I was being discriminated against. This new law stands for the proposition that the statute of limitations should not expire within 180 days of being hired, and that it resets after each paycheck, because each paycheck is a separate "discriminatory act." If an employee leaves, she will never have more than 180 days after leaving her (theoretically) discimnatory workplace to bring a lawsuit. That's a 6 month statute of limitations. Unreasonable? What do heirs have to do with anything?

 

What does this have to do with the Bill of Rights and why would I blame anyone for it?

 

I don't know. But you are blaming lawyers for a law that is attempting to level what some consider to be an unlevel and discriminatory playing field.

[bleedorange]

I don't know. But you are blaming lawyers for a law that is attempting to level what some consider to be an unlevel and discriminatory playing field.

 

I was just making the point that the trial lawyer lobby is huge for the Democratic Party and any law that makes it easier or gives people more time to sue will be welcomed by the Democrats with open arms due to that fact.

 

This is one of those instances. It seems like a bit of a stretch to make each paycheck a discriminatory act. Usually, the market is pretty clear about what a proper salary is in a particular field, so six months after the salary is established seems like enough time to discern whether it's fair.

[jakobnicholas]

Wow!

 

 

Is this the first real Obama criticism from a mainstream media source? I must say I'm shocked.....AND impressed. You go Campbell Brown!

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/28/cam...html#cnnSTCText

[bleedorange]

Wow!

 

 

Is this the first real Obama criticism from a mainstream media source? I must say I'm shocked.....AND impressed. You go Campbell Brown!

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/28/cam...html#cnnSTCText

 

Obama's just finding out that you can't hire anyone in Washington that isn't either a politician or lobbyist. That's what these people do. They get voted out of office and then they turn around and start lobbying.

 

It's like the kid that promised recess all day when running for 3rd grade class president, and then realizing that he can't do it because he just didn't know any better.

[MattZ]

I was just making the point that the trial lawyer lobby is huge for the Democratic Party and any law that makes it easier or gives people more time to sue will be welcomed by the Democrats with open arms due to that fact.

 

And I was just making the point (and I think TheBunk is with me here) that any law that gives people reasonable time to sue will be welcomed by victims and opponents of discrimination too. Which ultimately, is a good thing. Sure, lawyers benefit, but I guess we can argue until the cows come home about whether that's the takeaway here.

 

This is one of those instances. It seems like a bit of a stretch to make each paycheck a discriminatory act. Usually, the market is pretty clear about what a proper salary is in a particular field, so six months after the salary is established seems like enough time to discern whether it's fair.

 

Ok, this is your opinion, and I can respect it. But I also think it's reasonable to think that someone who is employed at an unfair salary for 3 years is discriminated against that whole time. I dont think there's anything wrong with triggering the statute of limitations from when the employment ends. Again, the issue here is more delicate than simply what a proper salary is in the field (as you say). This is often a company-specific issue not an industry specific one -- what are your peers in the cube next to you making? That generally takes some time to figure out. I don't talk about how much I make at work. Certainly not within 6 mos of my starting date.

 

I just don't see this debate as evidence of the Dems being in the pocket of lawyers. I see this debate as Dems being in the pocket of victims of workplace discrimination.

[John Smith]

People complain about lobbyists and big money interests in government, without realizing how the trial lawyers in this country have the Democratic Party in their back pocket.

 

That's all this is, dressed up as something else.

 

And is this worse than big business being the masters of the republican party? Stupid f*&king argument that keeps getting put forth with little support or evidence ever offered to back it up. Not saying that they are not tied together, but never is there evidence tossed out to support the allegation. For instance to support my allegation of big business owning the republican party look no further than how the white house handled the first batch of TARP payments, lots of cash little accountability.

 

 

Does this legislation mean I can sue my employers for compensating me differently for being a single dude in comparison to other employees who are married with children?

 

I would think that if you can show the company your work for systematically paid one class of workers, single males for instance, less than they paid another class, married males, that yes, you would have a case. If the fact pattern fits then the cases are similar.

 

 

So, what then, all people along with their heirs should have 500 years to bring up a case in which they might have been wronged? How is 180 days not enough or not fair? What is enough time?

 

What does this have to do with the Bill of Rights and why would I blame anyone for it?

 

For the most part people frequently do not know that payroll discrimination has taken place until years after the original infraction occurred. The SC case that this law addresses was such an instant. As an example at the last job I worked I was there for 5 years before I found out that I was earning less than someone who was hired long after me. It was not discrimination, but there was a problem. In my case I had dual job offers and the one I took was significantly higher paying with a more flexible work schedule and better benefits, it was a no-brainer for me. What I didn

[bleedorange]

And is this worse than big business being the masters of the republican party? Stupid f*&king argument that keeps getting put forth with little support or evidence ever offered to back it up. Not saying that they are not tied together, but never is there evidence tossed out to support the allegation. For instance to support my allegation of big business owning the republican party look no further than how the white house handled the first batch of TARP payments, lots of cash little accountability.

 

I don't have time to look it up right now, but I remember in one of the many election threads, someone posting or posting a link to a list of campaign contributions broken down by party. The discrepancy between republicans and democrats regarding the amount of money they had received from attorneys and attorney groups was more disproportionate than any other special interest.

 

I'm not sure how I see it is stupid argument to make when Dems are always strongly in favor of bills like this or staunchly against any serious tort reform.

[MattZ]

To my mind this has nothing to do with the bill of rights as they, according to how I understand them, are a contract between us and the government. But beyond the bill of rights there are other rules and regulations out there that really should be applied equally.

 

I was just being a wiseass about the Bill of Rights. Since lawyers bring cases on behalf of plaintiffs under the constit... wait a second, I think it was lawyers that drafted the constitution!!

 

(ok, i am going to stop being a wiseass, I really was just joking about the Bill of Rights)

[MattZ]

I'm not sure how I see it is stupid argument to make when Dems are always strongly in favor of bills like this or staunchly against any serious tort reform.

 

I guess this is just a classic case of being on different sides of the same issue, but yes, while tort reform is necessary, we need tort lawyers. Fuckers that dump shit in the drinking water need to sued. Its not so easy to have tort reform that is smart and sensible and doesn't swing too far the other way. I agree that tort lawyers stifle companies and innovation, but tort lawyers also recover money for people whose lives are turned upside down because a company decides it is cheaper to dump their waste in the river than the dump. And yes, lawyers are enriched, but so are the people who suffer.

 

Lawyers may donate money to the Dems, but I still don't see how this isn't a case of the Dems being in the pocket of people who drive cars with faulty design as opposed to being in the pockets of lawyers. How many average citizens donate to Dems? Aren't they the beneficiaries of tort cases too?