Men need the Money more than women (Walker signs bill revoking equal wage law)

once again dune...you really shouldn't get all your information from left wing sites. WI still has an equal wage law.

http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/discrimination_civil_rights/fair_employment_law.htm

the repeal of act 20 was because it was burdensome for people to bring a lawsuit, since act 20 (which this act repeals the damages and most of the act) zero lawsuits have been filed. now, employees will get into court easier and can still get damages under federal law. and it is still against the law in WI to discriminate.
 
Yurt said:
once again dune...you really shouldn't get all your information from left wing sites. WI still has an equal wage law.

http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/discrimination_civil_rights/fair_employment_law.htm

the repeal of act 20 was because it was burdensome for people to bring a lawsuit, since act 20 (which this act repeals the damages and most of the act) zero lawsuits have been filed. now, employees will get into court easier and can still get damages under federal law. and it is still against the law in WI to discriminate.
Click to expand...


The idea that Wisconsin Republicans and Governor Walker signed a bill to make it easier for victims of discrimination to get into court and get damages is laughable on its face.
 
Yurt said:
do tell us how many cases made it to court under the old law?
Click to expand...


I don't know, but I'm not inclined to take the unverified word of an author at the Daily Beast for it. It's also not terribly relevant given the robust administrative process for handling claims of discrimination. How many claims were handled at the administrative level.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I don't know, but I'm not inclined to take the unverified word of an author at the Daily Beast for it. It's also not terribly relevant given the robust administrative process for handling claims of discrimination. How many claims were handled at the administrative level.
Click to expand...
I don't even think the point matters. What matters is the trend by Walker and his Republican alllies to promote the intrest of their corporate financiers over the interest of the people of Wisconsin. The man is unfit for public office. He's Milo Minderbinder from Catch-22.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I don't know, but I'm not inclined to take the unverified word of an author at the Daily Beast for it. It's also not terribly relevant given the robust administrative process for handling claims of discrimination. How many claims were handled at the administrative level.
Click to expand...

there are more sources than just him. the reality of it is, the admin burden was so ludicrous, zero claimants made it to court. this doesn't really effect any rights regarding gender discrimination. it certainly, does not take away the right as the OP claims.
 
Yurt said:
there are more sources than just him. the reality of it is, the admin burden was so ludicrous, zero claimants made it to court. this doesn't really effect any rights regarding gender discrimination. it certainly, does not take away the right as the OP claims.
Click to expand...


Link to the other sources. Frankly, I would be shocked if anyone in Wisconsin kept track of the claims asserted in each lawsuit filed in the trial courts. In fact, I would eat my hat.

The administrative burden isn't ludicrous at all. It's typical of many states with state level anti-discrimination statutes and as similar to the federal system. The whole point of the administrative system is that it is tremendously cheaper for individual employees to prosecute discrimination claims at the administrative level than it is to litigate in court against an opponent with exponentially more available resources. Even assuming that the stats about zero claimants making it to court were true, that is irrelevant given that claimants have the ability to recover in full at the administrative level. It does not mean that the administrative process is burdensome to claimants. In fact, as I said, the administrative process is tremendously cheaper for claimants. Perhaps there are no cases asserted in court because the administrative process works.

And yes, it does take away rights as the OP claims. If the 2009 law is repealed in full, It takes away the right to prosecute various claims of discrimination that are not covered by the federal anti-discrimination statutes. It takes away the right to prosecute a claim through the state administrative process and it takes away the right to pursue a claim in litigation in the state courts as opposed to the federal courts (which are oftentimes slower and more expensive).
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Link to the other sources. Frankly, I would be shocked if anyone in Wisconsin kept track of the claims asserted in each lawsuit filed in the trial courts. In fact, I would eat my hat.

The administrative burden isn't ludicrous at all. It's typical of many states with state level anti-discrimination statutes and as similar to the federal system. The whole point of the administrative system is that it is tremendously cheaper for individual employees to prosecute discrimination claims at the administrative level than it is to litigate in court against an opponent with exponentially more available resources. Even assuming that the stats about zero claimants making it to court were true, that is irrelevant given that claimants have the ability to recover in full at the administrative level. It does not mean that the administrative process is burdensome to claimants. In fact, as I said, the administrative process is tremendously cheaper for claimants. Perhaps there are no cases asserted in court because the administrative process works.

And yes, it does take away rights as the OP claims. If the 2009 law is repealed in full, It takes away the right to prosecute various claims of discrimination that are not covered by the federal anti-discrimination statutes. It takes away the right to prosecute a claim through the state administrative process and it takes away the right to pursue a claim in litigation in the state courts as opposed to the federal courts (which are oftentimes slower and more expensive).
Click to expand...

let see, what do you always say - do your own homework, i'm responsible for you not believing the cited claim.

the only "right" it takes away is the burdensome admin process. they can still pursue claims just like they did before.
 
Yurt said:
let see, what do you always say - do your own homework, i'm responsible for you not believing the cited claim.
Click to expand...

You said there were multiple sources. I am aware of one that I don't find terribly compelling. If there are others, please provide them.


Yurt said:
the only "right" it takes away is the burdensome admin process. they can still pursue claims just like they did before.
Click to expand...

That simply isn't so. And, frankly, it isn't remotely believable that Walker and this fella that sponsored the bill enacted this law to benefit victims of discrimination. It's laughable. HA.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
You said there were multiple sources. I am aware of one that I don't find terribly compelling. If there are others, please provide them.




That simply isn't so. And, frankly, it isn't remotely believable that Walker and this fella that sponsored the bill enacted this law to benefit victims of discrimination. It's laughable. HA.
Click to expand...

right...because you're not biased at all. when you stop telling others to do their own homework, i'll get you links.

:rolleyes:
 
Yurt said:
right...because you're not biased at all. when you stop telling others to do their own homework, i'll get you links.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Dear others,

Your homework obligations are hereby relieved.

Yours,

General Buck Turgidson f/k/a Nigel Tufnel f/k/a Turd Ferguson f/k/a Dungheap


Now, about those links.
 
I will also say with 98.5% certainty that by "no cases filed" whomever is saying that really means that there are no reported appellate decisions from cases filed pursuant to the statute, which are two very different things and not all that exceptional given the statute is only a few years old, cases take a while to wend through the system from administrative complaint to trial court to appellate court to appellate decision, and appellate decisions aren't always reported.
 
Yurt said:
perhaps nigel can now link up to a single case filed.....
Click to expand...


I said that I find it highly implausible that the assertion that no cases were filed is true, particularly because I very seriously doubt that it is possible to know whether any cases were filed pursuant to the statute because no one keeps track of such information. So, I can't disprove the statement for the same reasons that I think it is not a well-sources or verified statement: the information on which the claim is based isn't available.
 
Opponents of SB 202 Continue to Receive False Ratings for Misstatements of the Law
April 10th, 2012
Opponents of Senate Bill 202 (2011 Wisconsin Act 219), which repeals punitive and compensatory damages under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, continue to make claims that the law has taken away employees’ rights to sue for employment discrimination.

For the second time, PolitiFact (which is part of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) has determined that this argument is false. The latest PolitiFact false rating was given to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Falk, who said that the Republican Legislature passed a bill that doesn’t allow women to “do something about” pay discrimination.

PolitiFact recently gave Rep. Cory Mason (D-Racine) a “mostly false” rating for saying that SB 202 “repeals a law that ensures men and women get equal pay.”

Apparently opponents of SB 202 believe that if you say something enough times it eventually will come true.

...

Contrary to claims being made by SB 202’s opponents, this legislation does NOT take away equal pay for women or any other protected class. Once the new law goes into effect, employees alleging workplace discrimination can still sue at the state level and seek the following remedies:

Reinstatement;
Back pay up to two years;
Attorney fees and reasonable court costs.
Moreover, employees can elect to sue in federal court, where they can still seek punitive and compensatory damages.

http://www.wisciviljusticecouncil.org/wcjc-blog/
 
Yurt said:
Opponents of SB 202 Continue to Receive False Ratings for Misstatements of the Law
April 10th, 2012
Opponents of Senate Bill 202 (2011 Wisconsin Act 219), which repeals punitive and compensatory damages under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, continue to make claims that the law has taken away employees’ rights to sue for employment discrimination.

For the second time, PolitiFact (which is part of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) has determined that this argument is false. The latest PolitiFact false rating was given to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Kathleen Falk, who said that the Republican Legislature passed a bill that doesn’t allow women to “do something about” pay discrimination.

PolitiFact recently gave Rep. Cory Mason (D-Racine) a “mostly false” rating for saying that SB 202 “repeals a law that ensures men and women get equal pay.”

Apparently opponents of SB 202 believe that if you say something enough times it eventually will come true.

...

Contrary to claims being made by SB 202’s opponents, this legislation does NOT take away equal pay for women or any other protected class. Once the new law goes into effect, employees alleging workplace discrimination can still sue at the state level and seek the following remedies:

Reinstatement;
Back pay up to two years;
Attorney fees and reasonable court costs.
Moreover, employees can elect to sue in federal court, where they can still seek punitive and compensatory damages.

http://www.wisciviljusticecouncil.org/wcjc-blog/
Click to expand...


So it takes away the right to a state court forum, which is typically less expensive and faster moving than the federal courts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top