Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 20, 2019, 05:28:31 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
  SB 9108: Paycheck Fairness Act (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: SB 9108: Paycheck Fairness Act (Passed)  (Read 624 times)
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,361


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 23, 2019, 06:26:26 pm »
« edited: March 30, 2019, 04:47:19 pm by Chairman YE »

Quote
A HOUSE BILL
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted in both Houses of Congress
Quote
Section 1; Title
1. This bill may be cited as the "Paycheck Fairness Act"
Section 2; Findings
Congress finds the following:
1. Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
2. Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination.
3. The existence of such pay disparities—
a) depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet;
b) undermines women's retirement security, which is often based on earnings while in the workforce;
c) prevents the optimum utilization of available labor resources;
d) has been spread and perpetuated, through commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the workers of the several States;
e) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
f) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
g) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
h) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce; and
i) in many instances, may deprive workers of equal protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
4. a) Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.).
b) These barriers have resulted, in significant part, because the Equal Pay Act of 1963 has not worked as Congress originally intended. Improvements and modifications to the law are necessary to ensure that the Act provides effective protection to those subject to pay discrimination on the basis of their sex.
c) Elimination of such barriers would have positive effects, including—
i) providing a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities;
ii) substantially reducing the number of working women earning unfairly low wages, thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance;
iii) promoting stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay;
iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and
v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to Congress’ power to enforce the 5th and 14th Amendments.
5) The Department of Internal Affairs and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
6) The Department of Internal Affairs is responsible for—
a) collecting and making publicly available information about women’s pay;
b) ensuring that companies receiving Federal contracts comply with anti-discrimination affirmative action requirements of Executive Order 11246 (relating to equal employment opportunity);
c) disseminating information about women’s rights in the workplace;
d)helping women who have been victims of pay discrimination obtain a remedy; and
e) being proactive in investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
7.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and issues regulations and guidance on appropriate interpretations of the law.
8.With a stronger commitment by the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to their responsibilities, increased information as a result of the amendments made by this Act to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, wage data, and more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
9. Certain employers have already made great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized.
Section 3; Enhanced Enforcement of Equal Pay Requirements
1. Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1))link is amended—
a) by striking “No employer having” and inserting “(A) No employer having”;
b) by striking “any other factor other than sex” and inserting “a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience”; and
c) by inserting at the end the following:
Quote
(B) The bona fide factor defense described in subparagraph (A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor (i) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii) is job-related with respect to the position in question; (iii) is consistent with business necessity; and (iv) accounts for the entire differential in compensation at issue. Such defense shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential and that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.
“(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be deemed to work in the same establishment if the employees work for the same employer at workplaces located in the same county or similar political subdivision of a State. The preceding sentence shall not be construed as limiting broader applications of the term ‘establishment’ consistent with rules prescribed or guidance issued by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission..
2. Section 15 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215)link is amended—
a) in subsection (a)—
i) in paragraph (3), by striking “employee has filed” and all that follows and inserting “employee—
Quote
(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action under or related to this Act, including an investigation conducted by the employer, or has testified or is planning to testify or has assisted or participated in any manner in any such investigation, proceeding, hearing or action, or has served or is planning to serve on an industry committee; or
(B) has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the wages of the employee or another employee;
;
b) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; or”; and
c) by adding at the end the following:
Quote
(6) to require an employee to sign a contract or waiver that would prohibit the employee from disclosing information about the employee’s wages.;
and
d) by adding at the end the following:
Quote
(c) Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply to instances in which an employee who has access to the wage information of other employees as a part of such employee’s essential job functions discloses the wages of such other employees to individuals who do not otherwise have access to such information, unless such disclosure is in response to a complaint or charge or in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d), including an investigation conducted by the employer. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of an employee provided under any other provision of law..
3. Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b))link is amended—
a) by inserting after the first sentence the following: “Any employer who violates section 6(d) shall additionally be liable for such compensatory damages, or, where the employee demonstrates that the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference, punitive damages as may be appropriate, except that the United States shall not be liable for punitive damages.”;
b) in the sentence beginning “An action to”, by striking “either of the preceding sentences” and inserting “any of the preceding sentences of this subsection”;
c) in the sentence beginning “No employees shall”, by striking “No employees” and inserting “Except with respect to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no employee”;
d) by inserting after the sentence referred to in paragraph (3), the following: “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, any action brought to enforce section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”; and
e) in the sentence beginning “The court in”—
i) by striking “in such action” and inserting “in any action brought to recover the liability prescribed in any of the preceding sentences of this subsection”; and
ii) by inserting before the period the following: “, including expert fees”.
4. Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c))link is amended—
a) in the first sentence—
i) by inserting “or, in the case of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as described in subsection (b),” before “and the agreement”; and
ii) by inserting before the period the following: “, or such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate”;
b) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period the following: “and, in the case of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as described in subsection (b)”;
c) in the third sentence, by striking “the first sentence” and inserting “the first or second sentence”; and
d) in the last sentence—
i) by striking “commenced in the case” and inserting “commenced—
“(1) in the case”;
ii) by striking the period and inserting “; or”; and
iii) by adding at the end the following:
“(2) in the case of a class action brought to enforce section 6(d), on the date on which the individual becomes a party plaintiff to the class action.”.
Section 4; Implementation
1. All provisions that do not have a specified date of implementation in this Act shall be implemented 6 months after the passage of this legislation into law.
2. The Secretary of Internal Affairs and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall jointly develop technical assistance material to assist small businesses in complying with the requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
3. A small business shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, to the same extent that such business is exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii) of section 3(s)(1)(A) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(A)).
Section 5; Rule of Construction
1. Nothing in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall affect the obligation of employers and employees to fully comply with all applicable immigration laws, including any penalties, fines, or other sanctions.

People's House of Representatives
Passed in the House of Representatives 8-1-0-0

Img


Sponsor Needed
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2019, 08:29:26 pm »

I will move to sponsor.

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2019, 04:25:48 am »

Senators have 24 hours to object to my assumption of sponsorship.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2019, 12:17:55 am »

The Motion has been approved.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2019, 12:27:41 am »

Can we discuss the differences between the two versions? There's been a whole lot of nothing in this thread...

Some companies include gag orders in their contracts prohibiting employees from revealing/discussing their salaries. The argument goes that some of the "pay gap" between women and men employees results from these clauses since women employees dont get to see what their men coworkers are making, and resultingly dont realize they are being underpaid for the same work. Banning these types of gag orders is a policy I have heard some democrats discuss in campaign speeches. Both versions of the bill repeal these gag orders.

The main difference comes down to bloat and whether or not this bill should have a budgetary impact. The Senate bill (which is unfortunately where most of this bills language also comes from) was just a copy/pasted version of a real life bill and so it included a bunch of junk attached to it which has been removed in the above version. The junk is either useless or totally unrelated and unnecessary. Spoiler alert, only $15 Million would be appropriated to fund the entirety of this bill:

Sec 4 of the Senate bill would create a program to spend money educating corporations "on matters involving discrimination in the payment of wages." That is a very vague criterion and would have very little impact even if it had the full $15 Million budgeted, but remember that money is split between this and the below stuff.

Section 5 of the Senate bill is the segregation stuff I keep pointing out. It would spend federal money on grants for "negotiation skills training programs for girls and women." With such little money it is probable that most women will never get to sit through what basically sounds like a glorified powerpoint presentation on being assertive. And you know, its also segregation. At this funding level a few well-connected activists would get paid to read powerpoints to a group, maybe even do a roleplaying game for a minute or 2, and that would be it without providing any real tangible benefit or change in the "pay gap".

Section 6 of the Senate Bill is pretty much exactly Section 4 except it lists more groups that can be eligible for the useless grants and also calls for spending money on "recognizing and promoting the achievements of employers, labor organizations, and professional associations that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities" I.E. an awards program for the NEA and other unions, as well as "convening a national summit" which is again really laughable considering how little money is appropriated. Remember only $15 Million to convene a super important and effective National Summit, a labor union awards program, 2 grant programs for telling corporations not to discriminate in pay, and 1 grant program for training women and only women in salary negotiation, plus the stuff below.

Section 7 of the Senate Bill would create the "National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace" which would be an awards program for " a corporations ... partnerships ... professional associations ... [and TA DA] labor organizations." So both Section 6 and Section 7 of this bill create redundant awards programs for labor unions. Why create such an awards program? According to the Senate bill "to encourage proactive efforts to comply with [the law]". The Senate bill is literally spending money and creating another permanent appendage of the bureaucracy to give awards to corporations and labor unions for obeying the law.

Section 8 of the Senate Bill imposes a record keeping requirement on businesses requiring them to make a list divided by race (for some unexplained reason) and sex of any person the business ever hires, promotes or fires. This isnt just burdensome and intrusive, it doesn't really prove anything about actual pay discrimination. If a company fires 5 male and 1 female employee does that show that the company isnt discriminating? The race topic wasnt brought up a single time by Pericles so Im not sure why he kept that in a bill about the gap between the unweighted average of male and female incomes.

Section 9 of the Senate Bill is basically just a policy statement that the super important bureaucrat that is the "Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect data on women workers", something it currently already does, and also requests that half of all non-construction employers be responsible for even more federal recordkeeping by completing a survey with no current questions and which may be off no benefit to anyone, since there are no questions, and also tries to sneak through changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence that basically let in some wage discrimination cases even if there is no direct or statistical evidence.

Section 10 of the Senate Bill imposes a $5,000 fine on any employers who "rely on the wage history of a prospective employee in determining the wages for such prospective employee." If the goal of this bill is fair bargaining rights, it is certainly not fair for only 1 side to be armed with knowledge of what the other side if willing to offer. Eliminating the gag orders (which both the Senate Bill and the above House Bill do) allows employees to know what the employer is willing to offer. This aides them in salary negotiation. Section 10 of the Senate Bill however then removes that same knowledge from the employer (I.E. what the employee is willing to work for). Considering this bill literally has the word "fairness" in its name, how is it in anyway fair to extend a tactic unfairly denied to one side while simultaneously unfairly denying the same tactic to the other side?

Section 11 of the Senate Bill is the stupid stealth tax increase. The House bill eliminates unfair gag orders in contracts and costs nothing. The Senate bill was hastily copy/pasted and so stuff that really doesnt apply in Atlasia got left in, unnecessarily bringing paygo into the mix. So Section 11 appropriates a negligible amount of money to grossly underfund useless programs that would likely have not been effective at doing anything to remedy a "paygap" and therefore requires funding of its own. And so buried at the bottom of an unnecessarily long, 2 post copy/pasted bill is a tax increase. Putting aside the fact that in other circumstances I might be amenable to increasing the estate tax, this is a really dumb way to do it. In case anyone missed it, Pericles "wrote" a missing alzheimers alert bill I never saw until I was doing the audit as GM and it had already passed. The purpose of the bill was to fund a $6 Million grant program for missing alzheimers patients. Pericles tacked on an estate tax increase of $23 Billion. So like 99.97% of that tax increase had nothing to do with the cost of the bill. While the discrepancy wont be AS huge in the Senate bill, it cheapens the meaning of this bill to hide a large tax increase in it when its unnecessary. Again, Im not saying an estate tax increase might not be necessary in the future (even if it was just increased by a third a few months ago by Pericles), but that should be a separate debate.

In conclusion, a Paycheck Fairness Act that prohibits employer contracts with gag orders on sharing salary information and doesn't impact that budget would garner broad, bipartisan support and would not purposefully create disharmony. Instead, the Senate Bill rejects that premise without ever addressing any of the above points despite repeated requests to the supposed supporters who I can only imagine must be too embarrassed to defend the bad ideas. No evidence was ever offered as to how redundant, useless, underfunded grant programs, segregated classes, awards for unions and corporations and unions that obey the law, a work conference, requiring businesses to keep separate lists of black and white employees, a survey without questions that will never be simulated in-game, a stimulus for trial lawyers, or unfair fines on employers who do homework will realistically diminish the "paygap" between men and women. Several persons asked Pericles what evidence he had that these useful programs would actually do what he claimed they'd do. His evidence was to state that "The bill works best when taken as a full package." ... "the different components of the bill are important." ... "The steps in this bill are appropriate, and a gutted bill would be less effective." Those comments were the closest he even came to acknowledging the specific policies of concern. It appears that he didnt even know they were in there and didnt care to research. That they were in there was enough that they SHOULD be in there without any need for explanation or justification. Instead of debate on the specific sections identified we got 2 rushed show votes where no one in support of the unamended Senate Bill was willing to say a single thing in support of those polices at issue.

This above House Bill is a good bill that everyone can support and it contains only the parts that people are actually willing to expressly defend. If you are too scared to defend your crappy bill, it probably shouldnt pass. But that is exactly what is happening with the Senate Bill. I'd even be only somewhat annoyed about this if the Senate Bill passed but at least the parts I think are stupid and pointless had someone try and explain why those stupid pointless parts are needed. Instead we just get treated to rushed votes along party lines without any discussion so as not to appear stupid in advocating for stupid policies.

Logged
Pericles
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2019, 12:36:24 am »

If I can fit it in in the remainder of my term I can try amend this to satisfy some(but not all) concerns(I suppose I could introduce an amendment as a citizen too but ofc doing it sooner is preferable).
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 28, 2019, 01:56:27 am »

If I can fit it in in the remainder of my term I can try amend this to satisfy some(but not all) concerns(I suppose I could introduce an amendment as a citizen too but ofc doing it sooner is preferable).


I will sponsor any amendments you might have but I cannot guarantee I would vote for them sight unseen.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2019, 06:14:08 pm »

With no amendments seeming to be on the way, I motion for a final vote.
Logged
Pericles
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,050
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2019, 09:56:40 pm »

I hope a Senator can sponsor this amendment. I think that the original bill is more effective at rectifying the gender pay gap and am disappointed that the Senate has not moved to stand up for the bill it passed. I have not included the entire bill here but hopefully this can stimulate further debate on this issue and make the current Senate reckon more clearly with the problem of the gender pay gap. I'm not sure whether this will need to be further amended in terms of how it is implemented in game. I'll try answer specific questions later if need be.
Quote
A HOUSE BILL
To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted in both Houses of Congress
Quote
Section 1; Title
1. This bill may be cited as the "Paycheck Fairness Act"
Section 2; Findings
Congress finds the following:
1. Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over the past 50 years.
2. Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay disparities can only be due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering effects of past discrimination.
3. The existence of such pay disparities—
a) depresses the wages of working families who rely on the wages of all members of the family to make ends meet;
b) undermines women's retirement security, which is often based on earnings while in the workforce;
c) prevents the optimum utilization of available labor resources;
d) has been spread and perpetuated, through commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the workers of the several States;
e) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
f) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
g) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
h) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce; and
i) in many instances, may deprive workers of equal protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments.
4. a) Artificial barriers to the elimination of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.).
b) These barriers have resulted, in significant part, because the Equal Pay Act of 1963 has not worked as Congress originally intended. Improvements and modifications to the law are necessary to ensure that the Act provides effective protection to those subject to pay discrimination on the basis of their sex.
c) Elimination of such barriers would have positive effects, including—
i) providing a solution to problems in the economy created by unfair pay disparities;
ii) substantially reducing the number of working women earning unfairly low wages, thereby reducing the dependence on public assistance;
iii) promoting stable families by enabling all family members to earn a fair rate of pay;
iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and
v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to Congress’ power to enforce the 5th and 14th Amendments.
5) The Department of Internal Affairs and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have important and unique responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work.
6) The Department of Internal Affairs is responsible for—
a) collecting and making publicly available information about women’s pay;
b) ensuring that companies receiving Federal contracts comply with anti-discrimination affirmative action requirements of Executive Order 11246 (relating to equal employment opportunity);
c) disseminating information about women’s rights in the workplace;
d)helping women who have been victims of pay discrimination obtain a remedy; and
e) being proactive in investigating and prosecuting equal pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in enforcing all of its mandates.
7.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and issues regulations and guidance on appropriate interpretations of the law.
8.With a stronger commitment by the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to their responsibilities, increased information as a result of the amendments made by this Act to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, wage data, and more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their rights.
9. Certain employers have already made great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized.
Section 3; Enhanced Enforcement of Equal Pay Requirements
1. Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1))link is amended—
a) by striking “No employer having” and inserting “(A) No employer having”;
b) by striking “any other factor other than sex” and inserting “a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience”; and
c) by inserting at the end the following:
Quote
(B) The bona fide factor defense described in subparagraph (A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer demonstrates that such factor (i) is not based upon or derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii) is job-related with respect to the position in question; (iii) is consistent with business necessity; and (iv) accounts for the entire differential in compensation at issue. Such defense shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an alternative employment practice exists that would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential and that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice.
“(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be deemed to work in the same establishment if the employees work for the same employer at workplaces located in the same county or similar political subdivision of a State. The preceding sentence shall not be construed as limiting broader applications of the term ‘establishment’ consistent with rules prescribed or guidance issued by the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission..
2. Section 15 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215)link is amended—
a) in subsection (a)—
i) in paragraph (3), by striking “employee has filed” and all that follows and inserting “employee—
Quote
(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action under or related to this Act, including an investigation conducted by the employer, or has testified or is planning to testify or has assisted or participated in any manner in any such investigation, proceeding, hearing or action, or has served or is planning to serve on an industry committee; or
(B) has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed the wages of the employee or another employee;
;
b) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; or”; and
c) by adding at the end the following:
Quote
(6) to require an employee to sign a contract or waiver that would prohibit the employee from disclosing information about the employee’s wages.;
and
d) by adding at the end the following:
Quote
(c) Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply to instances in which an employee who has access to the wage information of other employees as a part of such employee’s essential job functions discloses the wages of such other employees to individuals who do not otherwise have access to such information, unless such disclosure is in response to a complaint or charge or in furtherance of an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d), including an investigation conducted by the employer. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of an employee provided under any other provision of law..
3. Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b))link is amended—
a) by inserting after the first sentence the following: “Any employer who violates section 6(d) shall additionally be liable for such compensatory damages, or, where the employee demonstrates that the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference, punitive damages as may be appropriate, except that the United States shall not be liable for punitive damages.”;
b) in the sentence beginning “An action to”, by striking “either of the preceding sentences” and inserting “any of the preceding sentences of this subsection”;
c) in the sentence beginning “No employees shall”, by striking “No employees” and inserting “Except with respect to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no employee”;
d) by inserting after the sentence referred to in paragraph (3), the following: “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, any action brought to enforce section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”; and
e) in the sentence beginning “The court in”—
i) by striking “in such action” and inserting “in any action brought to recover the liability prescribed in any of the preceding sentences of this subsection”; and
ii) by inserting before the period the following: “, including expert fees”.
4. Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c))link is amended—
a) in the first sentence—
i) by inserting “or, in the case of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as described in subsection (b),” before “and the agreement”; and
ii) by inserting before the period the following: “, or such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate”;
b) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period the following: “and, in the case of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as described in subsection (b)”;
c) in the third sentence, by striking “the first sentence” and inserting “the first or second sentence”; and
d) in the last sentence—
i) by striking “commenced in the case” and inserting “commenced—
“(1) in the case”;
ii) by striking the period and inserting “; or”; and
iii) by adding at the end the following:
“(2) in the case of a class action brought to enforce section 6(d), on the date on which the individual becomes a party plaintiff to the class action.”.
Section 4; Research, Education and Outreach
1. The Secretary of Internal Affairs shall conduct studies and provide information to employers, labor organizations, and the general public concerning the means available to eliminate pay disparities between men and women, including—
a) conducting and promoting research to develop the means to correct expeditiously the conditions leading to the pay disparities;
b) publishing and otherwise making available to employers, labor organizations, professional associations, educational institutions, the media, and the general public the findings resulting from studies and other materials, relating to eliminating the pay disparities;
c) sponsoring and assisting State and community informational and educational programs;
d) providing information to employers, labor organizations, professional associations, and other interested persons on the means of eliminating the pay disparities;
e) recognizing and promoting the achievements of employers, labor organizations, and professional associations that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities; and
f) convening a national summit to discuss, and consider approaches for rectifying, the pay disparities.
Section 5; Collection of Pay Information
1. Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–8) is amended by adding at the end the following:
Quote
(f) (1) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall issue regulations to provide for the collection from employers of compensation data and other employment-related data (including hiring, termination, and promotion data) disaggregated by the sex, race, and national origin of employees.
(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Commission shall have as its primary consideration the most effective and efficient means for enhancing the enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination. For this purpose, the Commission shall consider factors including the imposition of burdens on employers, the frequency of required reports (including which employers should be required to prepare reports), appropriate protections for maintaining data confidentiality, and the most effective format for reports containing such data..
Section 6; Prohibitions relating to prospective employees' salary and benefit history
1. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 7 the following new section:
Quote
SEC. 8. REQUIREMENTS AND PROHIBITIONS RELATING TO WAGE, SALARY, AND BENEFIT HISTORY.
“(a) In General.—It shall be an unlawful practice for an employer to—
“(1) rely on the wage history of a prospective employee in considering the prospective employee for employment, including requiring that a prospective employee’s prior wages satisfy minimum or maximum criteria as a condition of being considered for employment;
“(2) rely on the wage history of a prospective employee in determining the wages for such prospective employee, except that an employer may rely on wage history if it is voluntarily provided by a prospective employee, after the employer makes an offer of employment with an offer of compensation to the prospective employee, to support a wage higher than the wage offered by the employer;
“(3) seek from a prospective employee or any current or former employer the wage history of the prospective employee, except that an employer may seek to confirm prior wage information only after an offer of employment with compensation has been made to the prospective employee and the prospective employee responds to the offer by providing prior wage information to support a wage higher than that offered by the employer; or
“(4) discharge or in any other manner retaliate against any employee or prospective employee because the employee or prospective employee—
“(A) opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this section; or
“(B) took an action for which discrimination is forbidden under section 15(3).
“(b) Definitions.—In this section:
“(1) WAGES; COMPENSATION.—The term ‘wages’ or ‘compensation’ has the meaning given the term ‘wages’ in section 6(d).
“(2) WAGE HISTORY.—The term ‘wage history’ means the wages paid to the prospective employee by the prospective employee’s current employer or previous employer.”.
(b) Penalties.—Section 16 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 216) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
“(f) (1) Any person who violates the provisions of section 8 shall—
“(A) be subject to a civil penalty of $5,000 for a first offense, increased by an additional $1,000 for each subsequent offense, not to exceed $10,000; and
“(B) be liable to each employee or prospective employee who was the subject of the violation for special damages not to exceed $10,000 plus attorneys' fees, and shall be subject to such injunctive relief as may be appropriate.
“(2) An action to recover the liability described in paragraph (1)(B) may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees or prospective employees for and on behalf of—
“(A) the employees or prospective employees; and
“(B) other employees or prospective employees similarly situated."
Section 7; Implementation
1. All provisions that do not have a specified date of implementation in this Act shall be implemented 6 months after the passage of this legislation into law.
2. The Secretary of Internal Affairs and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall jointly develop technical assistance material to assist small businesses in complying with the requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
3. A small business shall be exempt from the provisions of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, to the same extent that such business is exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 pursuant to clauses (i) and (ii) of section 3(s)(1)(A) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 203(s)(1)(A)).
Section 8; Rule of Construction
1. Nothing in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, shall affect the obligation of employers and employees to fully comply with all applicable immigration laws, including any penalties, fines, or other sanctions.

Logged
Senator LouisvilleThunder
LouisvilleThunder
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,445
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: 0.70

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2019, 10:48:06 pm »

lol Pericles. The House is going to kill your version of this bill anyway.
Logged
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,361


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2019, 11:00:58 pm »

From House version:

Can we discuss the differences between the two versions? There's been a whole lot of nothing in this thread...

Some companies include gag orders in their contracts prohibiting employees from revealing/discussing their salaries. The argument goes that some of the "pay gap" between women and men employees results from these clauses since women employees dont get to see what their men coworkers are making, and resultingly dont realize they are being underpaid for the same work. Banning these types of gag orders is a policy I have heard some democrats discuss in campaign speeches. Both versions of the bill repeal these gag orders.

The main difference comes down to bloat and whether or not this bill should have a budgetary impact. The Senate bill (which is unfortunately where most of this bills language also comes from) was just a copy/pasted version of a real life bill and so it included a bunch of junk attached to it which has been removed in the above version. The junk is either useless or totally unrelated and unnecessary. Spoiler alert, only $15 Million would be appropriated to fund the entirety of this bill:

Sec 4 of the Senate bill would create a program to spend money educating corporations "on matters involving discrimination in the payment of wages." That is a very vague criterion and would have very little impact even if it had the full $15 Million budgeted, but remember that money is split between this and the below stuff.

Section 5 of the Senate bill is the segregation stuff I keep pointing out. It would spend federal money on grants for "negotiation skills training programs for girls and women." With such little money it is probable that most women will never get to sit through what basically sounds like a glorified powerpoint presentation on being assertive. And you know, its also segregation. At this funding level a few well-connected activists would get paid to read powerpoints to a group, maybe even do a roleplaying game for a minute or 2, and that would be it without providing any real tangible benefit or change in the "pay gap".

Section 6 of the Senate Bill is pretty much exactly Section 4 except it lists more groups that can be eligible for the useless grants and also calls for spending money on "recognizing and promoting the achievements of employers, labor organizations, and professional associations that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities" I.E. an awards program for the NEA and other unions, as well as "convening a national summit" which is again really laughable considering how little money is appropriated. Remember only $15 Million to convene a super important and effective National Summit, a labor union awards program, 2 grant programs for telling corporations not to discriminate in pay, and 1 grant program for training women and only women in salary negotiation, plus the stuff below.

Section 7 of the Senate Bill would create the "National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace" which would be an awards program for " a corporations ... partnerships ... professional associations ... [and TA DA] labor organizations." So both Section 6 and Section 7 of this bill create redundant awards programs for labor unions. Why create such an awards program? According to the Senate bill "to encourage proactive efforts to comply with [the law]". The Senate bill is literally spending money and creating another permanent appendage of the bureaucracy to give awards to corporations and labor unions for obeying the law.

Section 8 of the Senate Bill imposes a record keeping requirement on businesses requiring them to make a list divided by race (for some unexplained reason) and sex of any person the business ever hires, promotes or fires. This isnt just burdensome and intrusive, it doesn't really prove anything about actual pay discrimination. If a company fires 5 male and 1 female employee does that show that the company isnt discriminating? The race topic wasnt brought up a single time by Pericles so Im not sure why he kept that in a bill about the gap between the unweighted average of male and female incomes.

Section 9 of the Senate Bill is basically just a policy statement that the super important bureaucrat that is the "Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect data on women workers", something it currently already does, and also requests that half of all non-construction employers be responsible for even more federal recordkeeping by completing a survey with no current questions and which may be off no benefit to anyone, since there are no questions, and also tries to sneak through changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence that basically let in some wage discrimination cases even if there is no direct or statistical evidence.

Section 10 of the Senate Bill imposes a $5,000 fine on any employers who "rely on the wage history of a prospective employee in determining the wages for such prospective employee." If the goal of this bill is fair bargaining rights, it is certainly not fair for only 1 side to be armed with knowledge of what the other side if willing to offer. Eliminating the gag orders (which both the Senate Bill and the above House Bill do) allows employees to know what the employer is willing to offer. This aides them in salary negotiation. Section 10 of the Senate Bill however then removes that same knowledge from the employer (I.E. what the employee is willing to work for). Considering this bill literally has the word "fairness" in its name, how is it in anyway fair to extend a tactic unfairly denied to one side while simultaneously unfairly denying the same tactic to the other side?

Section 11 of the Senate Bill is the stupid stealth tax increase. The House bill eliminates unfair gag orders in contracts and costs nothing. The Senate bill was hastily copy/pasted and so stuff that really doesnt apply in Atlasia got left in, unnecessarily bringing paygo into the mix. So Section 11 appropriates a negligible amount of money to grossly underfund useless programs that would likely have not been effective at doing anything to remedy a "paygap" and therefore requires funding of its own. And so buried at the bottom of an unnecessarily long, 2 post copy/pasted bill is a tax increase. Putting aside the fact that in other circumstances I might be amenable to increasing the estate tax, this is a really dumb way to do it. In case anyone missed it, Pericles "wrote" a missing alzheimers alert bill I never saw until I was doing the audit as GM and it had already passed. The purpose of the bill was to fund a $6 Million grant program for missing alzheimers patients. Pericles tacked on an estate tax increase of $23 Billion. So like 99.97% of that tax increase had nothing to do with the cost of the bill. While the discrepancy wont be AS huge in the Senate bill, it cheapens the meaning of this bill to hide a large tax increase in it when its unnecessary. Again, Im not saying an estate tax increase might not be necessary in the future (even if it was just increased by a third a few months ago by Pericles), but that should be a separate debate.

In conclusion, a Paycheck Fairness Act that prohibits employer contracts with gag orders on sharing salary information and doesn't impact that budget would garner broad, bipartisan support and would not purposefully create disharmony. Instead, the Senate Bill rejects that premise without ever addressing any of the above points despite repeated requests to the supposed supporters who I can only imagine must be too embarrassed to defend the bad ideas. No evidence was ever offered as to how redundant, useless, underfunded grant programs, segregated classes, awards for unions and corporations and unions that obey the law, a work conference, requiring businesses to keep separate lists of black and white employees, a survey without questions that will never be simulated in-game, a stimulus for trial lawyers, or unfair fines on employers who do homework will realistically diminish the "paygap" between men and women. Several persons asked Pericles what evidence he had that these useful programs would actually do what he claimed they'd do. His evidence was to state that "The bill works best when taken as a full package." ... "the different components of the bill are important." ... "The steps in this bill are appropriate, and a gutted bill would be less effective." Those comments were the closest he even came to acknowledging the specific policies of concern. It appears that he didnt even know they were in there and didnt care to research. That they were in there was enough that they SHOULD be in there without any need for explanation or justification. Instead of debate on the specific sections identified we got 2 rushed show votes where no one in support of the unamended Senate Bill was willing to say a single thing in support of those polices at issue.

This above House Bill is a good bill that everyone can support and it contains only the parts that people are actually willing to expressly defend. If you are too scared to defend your crappy bill, it probably shouldnt pass. But that is exactly what is happening with the Senate Bill. I'd even be only somewhat annoyed about this if the Senate Bill passed but at least the parts I think are stupid and pointless had someone try and explain why those stupid pointless parts are needed. Instead we just get treated to rushed votes along party lines without any discussion so as not to appear stupid in advocating for stupid policies.


Okay, first of all thanks for replying Reactionary. The past few days hasn’t been easy for the game, in which we saw a Fremont MP resign, resulting in a SOS opening while we had while the senator who sponsored this bill is getting BTFO in a Labor primary while there was an unexpected change in the Fed nominee for president and all these take time and energy and require sufficient attention even if for a short while. So I appreciate that someone spent a sufficient amount of time and energy for many players and I’d be surprised if Reactionary wasn’t one of them to a certain extent.

So, with that aside let’s get to the bill. People in this game don’t have high attention spans so I’m not really a fan of long bills that are complex or have many parts to it that some here may not fully understand. So, on principle bills like this even if the substance is good is something I’m weary of. I’d point out that IRL corporate Democrats love to talk about equal pay for equal work because it sounds good yet doesn’t piss their Wall Street donors off.

Principles about the process aside, let me give my thoughts on the changes.

Section 4 - seems kind of vague but it’s not the end of the world if that gets included in the final bill.
Section 5 - tend to agree with Reactionary but I’d see why someone would be in favor of some broad training of sorts for disadvantaged woman to at least make them aware of the current pay problems.
Section 6 - Considering it’s not a lot of money I’m not personally opposed to it per se but it’s more the kind of thing I’d expect to debate on the Fremont Parliament floor and not in Congress.
Section 7 - see Section 6
Section 8 - useless, at least for small businesses, but I can see why someone would favor making large corporations do this although fairness can be challenged.
Section 9 - useless except for maybe the wage discrimination cases bit but let’s just say it risks opening the doors to abuse as well
Section 10 - probably doesn’t belong in this bill but given the tax system is in limbo in a bill in the Senate I’d be okay if we kept that in the House version.

Now, there’s a number of ways to move forward we this. We could have a principle vote or a formal vote on each section except maybe the last. Or we could just scrap the Senate version although by honoring the earlier principle listed in my second paragraph. Or we can continue further debate. What I don’t want to see is another 5-3 vote; it’s just not good for the game to blindly ram stuff through on party line votes. There’s enough of that IRL; I play this game as an escape from IRL politics after all. Now to be fair, this isn’t all of Labor fault and I’d argue the attempt to introduce an amendment of the failed Senate amendment to not be ideal because the sponsor and honestly introducing a separate bill just creates confusion with the headers that will just create more work for me. Or for that matter the useless attempt to table a bill after an honest mistake from the sponsor that he‘s already fixed.
Logged
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,361


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2019, 11:05:13 pm »

From House version:

Can we discuss the differences between the two versions? There's been a whole lot of nothing in this thread...

Some companies include gag orders in their contracts prohibiting employees from revealing/discussing their salaries. The argument goes that some of the "pay gap" between women and men employees results from these clauses since women employees dont get to see what their men coworkers are making, and resultingly dont realize they are being underpaid for the same work. Banning these types of gag orders is a policy I have heard some democrats discuss in campaign speeches. Both versions of the bill repeal these gag orders.

The main difference comes down to bloat and whether or not this bill should have a budgetary impact. The Senate bill (which is unfortunately where most of this bills language also comes from) was just a copy/pasted version of a real life bill and so it included a bunch of junk attached to it which has been removed in the above version. The junk is either useless or totally unrelated and unnecessary. Spoiler alert, only $15 Million would be appropriated to fund the entirety of this bill:

Sec 4 of the Senate bill would create a program to spend money educating corporations "on matters involving discrimination in the payment of wages." That is a very vague criterion and would have very little impact even if it had the full $15 Million budgeted, but remember that money is split between this and the below stuff.

Section 5 of the Senate bill is the segregation stuff I keep pointing out. It would spend federal money on grants for "negotiation skills training programs for girls and women." With such little money it is probable that most women will never get to sit through what basically sounds like a glorified powerpoint presentation on being assertive. And you know, its also segregation. At this funding level a few well-connected activists would get paid to read powerpoints to a group, maybe even do a roleplaying game for a minute or 2, and that would be it without providing any real tangible benefit or change in the "pay gap".

Section 6 of the Senate Bill is pretty much exactly Section 4 except it lists more groups that can be eligible for the useless grants and also calls for spending money on "recognizing and promoting the achievements of employers, labor organizations, and professional associations that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities" I.E. an awards program for the NEA and other unions, as well as "convening a national summit" which is again really laughable considering how little money is appropriated. Remember only $15 Million to convene a super important and effective National Summit, a labor union awards program, 2 grant programs for telling corporations not to discriminate in pay, and 1 grant program for training women and only women in salary negotiation, plus the stuff below.

Section 7 of the Senate Bill would create the "National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace" which would be an awards program for " a corporations ... partnerships ... professional associations ... [and TA DA] labor organizations." So both Section 6 and Section 7 of this bill create redundant awards programs for labor unions. Why create such an awards program? According to the Senate bill "to encourage proactive efforts to comply with [the law]". The Senate bill is literally spending money and creating another permanent appendage of the bureaucracy to give awards to corporations and labor unions for obeying the law.

Section 8 of the Senate Bill imposes a record keeping requirement on businesses requiring them to make a list divided by race (for some unexplained reason) and sex of any person the business ever hires, promotes or fires. This isnt just burdensome and intrusive, it doesn't really prove anything about actual pay discrimination. If a company fires 5 male and 1 female employee does that show that the company isnt discriminating? The race topic wasnt brought up a single time by Pericles so Im not sure why he kept that in a bill about the gap between the unweighted average of male and female incomes.

Section 9 of the Senate Bill is basically just a policy statement that the super important bureaucrat that is the "Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect data on women workers", something it currently already does, and also requests that half of all non-construction employers be responsible for even more federal recordkeeping by completing a survey with no current questions and which may be off no benefit to anyone, since there are no questions, and also tries to sneak through changes to the Federal Rules of Evidence that basically let in some wage discrimination cases even if there is no direct or statistical evidence.

Section 10 of the Senate Bill imposes a $5,000 fine on any employers who "rely on the wage history of a prospective employee in determining the wages for such prospective employee." If the goal of this bill is fair bargaining rights, it is certainly not fair for only 1 side to be armed with knowledge of what the other side if willing to offer. Eliminating the gag orders (which both the Senate Bill and the above House Bill do) allows employees to know what the employer is willing to offer. This aides them in salary negotiation. Section 10 of the Senate Bill however then removes that same knowledge from the employer (I.E. what the employee is willing to work for). Considering this bill literally has the word "fairness" in its name, how is it in anyway fair to extend a tactic unfairly denied to one side while simultaneously unfairly denying the same tactic to the other side?

Section 11 of the Senate Bill is the stupid stealth tax increase. The House bill eliminates unfair gag orders in contracts and costs nothing. The Senate bill was hastily copy/pasted and so stuff that really doesnt apply in Atlasia got left in, unnecessarily bringing paygo into the mix. So Section 11 appropriates a negligible amount of money to grossly underfund useless programs that would likely have not been effective at doing anything to remedy a "paygap" and therefore requires funding of its own. And so buried at the bottom of an unnecessarily long, 2 post copy/pasted bill is a tax increase. Putting aside the fact that in other circumstances I might be amenable to increasing the estate tax, this is a really dumb way to do it. In case anyone missed it, Pericles "wrote" a missing alzheimers alert bill I never saw until I was doing the audit as GM and it had already passed. The purpose of the bill was to fund a $6 Million grant program for missing alzheimers patients. Pericles tacked on an estate tax increase of $23 Billion. So like 99.97% of that tax increase had nothing to do with the cost of the bill. While the discrepancy wont be AS huge in the Senate bill, it cheapens the meaning of this bill to hide a large tax increase in it when its unnecessary. Again, Im not saying an estate tax increase might not be necessary in the future (even if it was just increased by a third a few months ago by Pericles), but that should be a separate debate.

In conclusion, a Paycheck Fairness Act that prohibits employer contracts with gag orders on sharing salary information and doesn't impact that budget would garner broad, bipartisan support and would not purposefully create disharmony. Instead, the Senate Bill rejects that premise without ever addressing any of the above points despite repeated requests to the supposed supporters who I can only imagine must be too embarrassed to defend the bad ideas. No evidence was ever offered as to how redundant, useless, underfunded grant programs, segregated classes, awards for unions and corporations and unions that obey the law, a work conference, requiring businesses to keep separate lists of black and white employees, a survey without questions that will never be simulated in-game, a stimulus for trial lawyers, or unfair fines on employers who do homework will realistically diminish the "paygap" between men and women. Several persons asked Pericles what evidence he had that these useful programs would actually do what he claimed they'd do. His evidence was to state that "The bill works best when taken as a full package." ... "the different components of the bill are important." ... "The steps in this bill are appropriate, and a gutted bill would be less effective." Those comments were the closest he even came to acknowledging the specific policies of concern. It appears that he didnt even know they were in there and didnt care to research. That they were in there was enough that they SHOULD be in there without any need for explanation or justification. Instead of debate on the specific sections identified we got 2 rushed show votes where no one in support of the unamended Senate Bill was willing to say a single thing in support of those polices at issue.

This above House Bill is a good bill that everyone can support and it contains only the parts that people are actually willing to expressly defend. If you are too scared to defend your crappy bill, it probably shouldnt pass. But that is exactly what is happening with the Senate Bill. I'd even be only somewhat annoyed about this if the Senate Bill passed but at least the parts I think are stupid and pointless had someone try and explain why those stupid pointless parts are needed. Instead we just get treated to rushed votes along party lines without any discussion so as not to appear stupid in advocating for stupid policies.


Okay, first of all thanks for replying Reactionary. The past few days hasn’t been easy for the game, in which we saw a Fremont MP resign, resulting in a SOS opening while we had while the senator who sponsored this bill is getting BTFO in a Labor primary while there was an unexpected change in the Fed nominee for president and all these take time and energy and require sufficient attention even if for a short while. So I appreciate that someone spent a sufficient amount of time and energy for many players and I’d be surprised if Reactionary wasn’t one of them to a certain extent.

So, with that aside let’s get to the bill. People in this game don’t have high attention spans so I’m not really a fan of long bills that are complex or have many parts to it that some here may not fully understand. So, on principle bills like this even if the substance is good is something I’m weary of. I’d point out that IRL corporate Democrats love to talk about equal pay for equal work because it sounds good yet doesn’t piss their Wall Street donors off.

Principles about the process aside, let me give my thoughts on the changes.

Section 4 - seems kind of vague but it’s not the end of the world if that gets included in the final bill.
Section 5 - tend to agree with Reactionary but I’d see why someone would be in favor of some broad training of sorts for disadvantaged woman to at least make them aware of the current pay problems.
Section 6 - Considering it’s not a lot of money I’m not personally opposed to it per se but it’s more the kind of thing I’d expect to debate on the Fremont Parliament floor and not in Congress.
Section 7 - see Section 6
Section 8 - useless, at least for small businesses, but I can see why someone would favor making large corporations do this although fairness can be challenged.
Section 9 - useless except for maybe the wage discrimination cases bit but let’s just say it risks opening the doors to abuse as well
Section 10 - probably doesn’t belong in this bill but given the tax system is in limbo in a bill in the Senate I’d be okay if we kept that in the House version.

Now, there’s a number of ways to move forward we this. We could have a principle vote or a formal vote on each section except maybe the last. Or we could just scrap the Senate version although by honoring the earlier principle listed in my second paragraph. Or we can continue further debate. What I don’t want to see is another 5-3 vote; it’s just not good for the game to blindly ram stuff through on party line votes. There’s enough of that IRL; I play this game as an escape from IRL politics after all. Now to be fair, this isn’t all of Labor fault and I’d argue the attempt to introduce an amendment of the failed Senate amendment to not be ideal because the sponsor and honestly introducing a separate bill just creates confusion with the headers that will just create more work for me. Or for that matter the useless attempt to table a bill after an honest mistake from the sponsor that he‘s already fixed.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2019, 05:35:09 am »

There is a strong chance this could end up like tennis match with bill getting hit back and forth until it dies.

Now while we don't have formal conferences for bills, there is nothing stopping us from doing an informal conference of sorts with like a couple people from each chamber, Pericles and then working out some kind of deal that is agreeable to both chambers.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2019, 05:33:49 pm »

Nothing?

Well in the absence of some kind of an accord, I think our best bet is to pass the House version rather than the end result being nothing getting done. You can always pass a subsequent bill when the situation changes.


Also, I cannot tell what in Pericles' text above is being changed from the bill in the OP as I am not seeing any bold text indicating changes.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 22, 2019, 12:46:19 am »

I motion for a final vote.

It may not be perfect in some people's eyes, but it is better than doing nothing. Another bill can always be used to address further concerns with this issue.
Logged
tack50
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,948
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 22, 2019, 10:34:07 am »

Before we move to a final vote, what happened to the version that was in the House?
Logged
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,361


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2019, 10:45:08 am »

Before we move to a final vote, what happened to the version that was in the House?

The Pericles version was tabled a while back.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2019, 07:47:36 pm »

Again the House has killed the Pericles version. What harm is caused by moving forward with this, which has passed the house and can make it to the President's desk? I urge my colleagues not to make what they see as "the perfect" the enemy of the good in this case.
Logged
tack50
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,948
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2019, 09:53:13 pm »

No objection to a vote here then
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,670
Chile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2019, 02:17:59 am »

Apologies, I'm just catching up to the backlog caused by my absence. A final vote is now open, please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.
Logged
tack50
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,948
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2019, 04:39:47 am »

Aye
Logged
Sen. Vern
vern1988
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,430
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -2.43

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2019, 07:51:19 am »

Aye
Logged
Sentor MAINEiac4434 of Lincoln
MAINEiac4434
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,333
France


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -8.78

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 24, 2019, 09:03:58 pm »

aye
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 41,824
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2019, 02:50:17 am »

AYE
Logged
Senator ON Progressive
OntarioProgressive
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,731
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -8.70

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2019, 09:01:20 am »

Aye
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC