Quote:
Originally Posted by smooth
I'm pretty sure your interpretation of the bill you quoted was incorrect.
"Back pay" is not punitive damages, ...
|
There is the legal definition of punitive damages and then there is legislation that imposes punitive costs or damages. If a person is damaged while employed with an employer and they leave by choice not related to discrimination but then they are allowed to recover nominal damages and on top of that back wages for up to 2 years while not employed with that employer, I call that punitive.
Quote:
|
Whether the market is competitive for employees is irrelevant to what I posted.
|
It is relavant to the issue of resolving the problem. Isn't that the goal of the law and at the base of the dispute between Obama and McCain. I see McCain's response as one wanting to solve the problem - I am not sure what Obama's goal is. The legal system is not the answer.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I don't agree and I am not sure why my sex would be relevant to the discussion.
Quote:
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.
|
I ignored this once. Nominal wages have not dropped. Real wages have not dropped. Our standard of living has not dropped. I am not sure where you get this information or what it is based on.