Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

smooth · 10-23-2008, 09:04 AM

I'm pretty sure your interpretation of the bill you quoted was incorrect.
"Back pay" is not punitive damages, if that's what caused you to bring up the fact that you felt punitive damages are already addressed adequately in the law.
Back pay is compensatory damages after a plaintiff has already proven that pay should have been rendered that wasn't. So if you and I worked at the same company and, all things proven to be equal, you were payed $200 dollars less than me over our term of employment for no other reason than you were not a liberal, then you would get your $200 dollars in back pay.
Punitive damages would be awarded by proving that the failure to pay non-liberals the correct amount was intentional and egregious and the jury finding that they want to punish the company severely enough to make them never do it again.

You were the one who posted the reasoning behind the new bill, and it wasn't based on rectifying damages.
[quote]The bill sought to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination.[/b]

Whether the market is competitive for employees is irrelevant to what I posted. All the factors you listed obviously have a factor in wage depression, but the point I raised was that wage equalization between the sexes is due to male wage depression rather than female wage increases.

The only assumptions I make are that you are a male poster and not the CEO of a global corporation, so arguing over the benefits of male wages dropping in real value over the past decades strikes me as....well, a dumb argument for two men to engage in.

Female wages were marginally increasing, while male wages were drastically reduced, hence "equality" of wages.
Doesn't seem like anything to be proud of, for either of us.

10-23-2008, 09:04 AM	#43 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I'm pretty sure your interpretation of the bill you quoted was incorrect. "Back pay" is not punitive damages, if that's what caused you to bring up the fact that you felt punitive damages are already addressed adequately in the law. Back pay is compensatory damages after a plaintiff has already proven that pay should have been rendered that wasn't. So if you and I worked at the same company and, all things proven to be equal, you were payed $200 dollars less than me over our term of employment for no other reason than you were not a liberal, then you would get your $200 dollars in back pay. Punitive damages would be awarded by proving that the failure to pay non-liberals the correct amount was intentional and egregious and the jury finding that they want to punish the company severely enough to make them never do it again. You were the one who posted the reasoning behind the new bill, and it wasn't based on rectifying damages. [quote]The bill sought to counteract a Supreme Court decision limiting how long workers can wait before suing for pay discrimination.[/b] Whether the market is competitive for employees is irrelevant to what I posted. All the factors you listed obviously have a factor in wage depression, but the point I raised was that wage equalization between the sexes is due to male wage depression rather than female wage increases. The only assumptions I make are that you are a male poster and not the CEO of a global corporation, so arguing over the benefits of male wages dropping in real value over the past decades strikes me as....well, a dumb argument for two men to engage in. Female wages were marginally increasing, while male wages were drastically reduced, hence "equality" of wages. Doesn't seem like anything to be proud of, for either of us. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 10-23-2008 at 09:17 AM..