Sunday, March 1, 2009

The Saga of Lilly Ledbetter: Final Post

 Sen. Barbara Miluski of Maryland (who sponsored the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act), Michelle Obama, and Lilly Ledbetter after the signing of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

We have read this week's comments, and they are all fantastic. Everyone has such great insights, and this is the kind of discussion we had in mind when choosing this topic and writing this blog. 

For the most part, everyone agreed that this was a step in the right direction towards equal pay, but not the be-all, end-all. You agreed that these changes may be slow to take place: some companies will follow through, but others will "fall through the cracks" until threatened with a lawsuit or similar action. Some people expressed concerns that companies that are smaller or have lower-paid employees may not follow the law, because their employees do not have the means to sue them. Others are afraid that the dismal economy will hurt this act. Many people mentioned the issue of transparency: we are encouraged to keep our salaries private, which means that we do not know if we're being discriminated against.

The class seems to be in agreement that the courts were just following the laws, but that the laws themselves were flawed. SOmeone had the interesting (and frighteningly enough, probably true) thought that the laws were set up this way intentionally, to provide a loophole for discriminatory practices.

The class was also in agreement that this will advance the cause of feminist, not hurt it. It shows how much we still need to focus on feminism & gender equality. 
We all agree that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will help families, especially single mothers, and we are all glad that it was finally passed.

-Bonnie Bryant, Rhyanna Anderson, Rachel Badger, Mia Bloombecker

1 comment:

  1. Ah, one more last minute response to this blog...

    Response rachel's question, the first question...

    I do beleive that the court was being discriminatory by saying that Ledbetter should have filed within 180 days from her first pay check. There is no reason to expect Ledbetter to have known the pay of her male counterparts when she recieved her first check. It was also siad that she was aware of the pay, but was obtaining the same amount as the men she worked with. As the years went by the men's pay increased more than hers did. It is discriminatory that they said she should have filed suit at that time. Filing 180 days after she finds out the difference in pay seems to be, to be the only thing that makes sense. It is discriminatory to everyone, because it is not allowing anyone to file suit, unless they do it after their first check. It affects everyone, not just ledbetter.