The White House - Blog Post - A Wonderful Day
Today, President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This act will counteract the Supreme Court's decision of 2007 to limit the ability of employees to take their company to court for pay discrimination. In 2007, the supreme court ruled that employees had only 180 days from the first day a valid discrimination of pay was instituted by the company the employee was working for to file a suite. This ruling was not a 180 days from the first day you learned of the pay descrimination, but 180 day from the moment of pay descrimination.
Why is this a problem? Because often we do not know if we are being discriminated against, since the culture of silence around discussing issues such as salary is so institutionalized. Indeed, several companies I have worked for has required employees to sign an agreement that specifically states that they will NOT disclose their rate of pay to other employees under the threat of disciplinary action or loosing their job. These clauses often embedded in company "loyalty" oaths statements help corporations and other smaller companies legally practice forms of civil discrimination, and in my book - this does not bode well for labor, minorities, and women.
In Lilly's case, it was years before she knew that she was being paid substantially less for doing the same job as her male counterparts and so it took years before she brought the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. to court. for me, today is a good, as the White House Blog states, but for others it is not such a good day.
The Sunlight Foundation, a fantastic organization that works to promote transparency in government and business using technology and blogging, is worried about this action today by Obama. In a blog post, Paul Blumenthal rightfully questions the "transparency" promises of the White House with this bill. Blumenthal writes:
As Blumenthal points out, this is a huge slip of transparency on the first major act of the Obama Presidency. Yet the truly important point I believe that Mr Blumenthal presents us with, and a critical thinking point at that, is how does the administration and WE define emergency.
Here is the rub!
For me, civil rights violations constitutes an emergency. It continues to be a problem in this country, and a very serious one at that. Being that most of the people I have heard from regarding this issue today are men, I would ask them to take a moment and consider the position of others like Lilly who has been consistently discriminate against because of their race, gender or disability. Further, think of those solders who have served our country who are also being currently discriminated against because of corporations' fear that they will be called back to combat and so they are also being discriminated against. In general, I believe Obama's efforts here constitutes a utilitarian action - the most good for the most amount of people.
For others such as some fellow twitterers (sp?), an emergency equals only war. I understand and emphasize with this position. Regardless, for me, transparency should be really followed in times of war - look at the lack of transparency used to get us into our current war-and how well that came out, right?! So how do we define 1) transparency and 2) emergency. This is the real question and we should be debating this question right now and then relaying our definitions to the current administration. Blumenthal and the Sunlight Foundation is quite right about being concerned here and as was pointed out in his post: "I am not sure what constitutes “emergency” legislation" (para 2), and either am I -this is a problem. As to other "responders" who calls these concerns "retarded" (Para. 11), this is the communication approach most of us were rejecting when we voted for now President Obama.
From a communication/ critical thinking point of view, "That's just retarded" is an example "loaded Language" and an ad baculum fallacy that ends discussion possibilities and potential for transparency, as a result of threating language and/or insults. May I suggest that we all join the conversation and not simply end it.
All thoughts are welcome here.
Rebecca
(Note: I have published this post on both my personal and educational blogs because I think these questions are vital)
Today, President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This act will counteract the Supreme Court's decision of 2007 to limit the ability of employees to take their company to court for pay discrimination. In 2007, the supreme court ruled that employees had only 180 days from the first day a valid discrimination of pay was instituted by the company the employee was working for to file a suite. This ruling was not a 180 days from the first day you learned of the pay descrimination, but 180 day from the moment of pay descrimination.
Why is this a problem? Because often we do not know if we are being discriminated against, since the culture of silence around discussing issues such as salary is so institutionalized. Indeed, several companies I have worked for has required employees to sign an agreement that specifically states that they will NOT disclose their rate of pay to other employees under the threat of disciplinary action or loosing their job. These clauses often embedded in company "loyalty" oaths statements help corporations and other smaller companies legally practice forms of civil discrimination, and in my book - this does not bode well for labor, minorities, and women.
In Lilly's case, it was years before she knew that she was being paid substantially less for doing the same job as her male counterparts and so it took years before she brought the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. to court. for me, today is a good, as the White House Blog states, but for others it is not such a good day.
The Sunlight Foundation, a fantastic organization that works to promote transparency in government and business using technology and blogging, is worried about this action today by Obama. In a blog post, Paul Blumenthal rightfully questions the "transparency" promises of the White House with this bill. Blumenthal writes:
For quite some time President Obama has promised that all non-emergency
legislation will be open for public comment on Whitehouse.gov for 5
days before the President signs it. I am not sure what constitutes
“emergency” legislation; providing emergency appropriations in response
to a disaster or attack would apply. This was supposed to be a major
element to the President’s transparency efforts, even though the effect
of it can be disputed (the bill has already passed and can’t be changed).
As Blumenthal points out, this is a huge slip of transparency on the first major act of the Obama Presidency. Yet the truly important point I believe that Mr Blumenthal presents us with, and a critical thinking point at that, is how does the administration and WE define emergency.
Here is the rub!
For me, civil rights violations constitutes an emergency. It continues to be a problem in this country, and a very serious one at that. Being that most of the people I have heard from regarding this issue today are men, I would ask them to take a moment and consider the position of others like Lilly who has been consistently discriminate against because of their race, gender or disability. Further, think of those solders who have served our country who are also being currently discriminated against because of corporations' fear that they will be called back to combat and so they are also being discriminated against. In general, I believe Obama's efforts here constitutes a utilitarian action - the most good for the most amount of people.
For others such as some fellow twitterers (sp?), an emergency equals only war. I understand and emphasize with this position. Regardless, for me, transparency should be really followed in times of war - look at the lack of transparency used to get us into our current war-and how well that came out, right?! So how do we define 1) transparency and 2) emergency. This is the real question and we should be debating this question right now and then relaying our definitions to the current administration. Blumenthal and the Sunlight Foundation is quite right about being concerned here and as was pointed out in his post: "I am not sure what constitutes “emergency” legislation" (para 2), and either am I -this is a problem. As to other "responders" who calls these concerns "retarded" (Para. 11), this is the communication approach most of us were rejecting when we voted for now President Obama.
From a communication/ critical thinking point of view, "That's just retarded" is an example "loaded Language" and an ad baculum fallacy that ends discussion possibilities and potential for transparency, as a result of threating language and/or insults. May I suggest that we all join the conversation and not simply end it.
All thoughts are welcome here.
Rebecca
(Note: I have published this post on both my personal and educational blogs because I think these questions are vital)
