Much like pineapples, I am hardcore. (thisgirliknow) wrote,
Much like pineapples, I am hardcore.

I think people misunderstood my political/job post (posted from my seminar). I didn't necessarily mean democrat/republican or liberal/conservative. More just in the way you see the world.

JP and Sgrok are both SPHRs "Senior Professional in Human Resources." They're both more conservative about things and see the corporate way of things. They are not excited when bills pass like Sarbanes-Oxley (though they understand the need) or like the Fair Pay act that will allow employees to claim 2 years of back wages if they feel like they lost out on a raise because of discrimination.

I was thinking about the Fair Pay Act and YES, it sucks, but it's also great. I toe the line in this case. It means that lots of non-deserving people will sue and likely win (employers rarely have a chance in discrimination lawsuits, regardless). A few years ago I would have not cared, and been solely on the employee's side, but now that I'm in HR, I can see the hassle and craziness of how this could be a problem. Then again, anyone who WAS discriminated against, for any reason, and deserved a larger salary increase than they were given, SHOULD be able to collect from the past.

The law, that will likely be passed soon, talks about how anytime a person feels the effects of the discriminatory wages is when they can sue. There's no statute of limitations, because of a case from many years ago when a woman lost a case years after her unfair salary increase, and she claimed each time she received a paycheck, it was making the case current. You've probably heard of it,Ledbetter vs Goodyear Tire.

Now because of her, you can file a lawsuit at any time. The new law says you can only claim up to two years of back wages, though -- which in my corporate head seems good, so we don't have a billion cases from a billion years ago, and we don't have to pay out lots of money from a mistake in 1975.

And then my employee head says we should. If a person lost out on an increase in 1975, because of discrimination, should we owe them back to that point?

There's lots of other employment law issues that make me ponder politically. Sometimes we'll get into discussions at work about the auto bailout and how California can't discriminate on basis of sexual orientation (here in Florida, we can...). We'll talk about how Kim would never work somewhere where there's paid maternity leave, and how FMLA is used and abused.

So, yeah-- I didn't mean simple terms as you guys kind of took it. I meant the actual job, the actual every-day life of how the job works and what jobs work for which people, where, what times. Not necessarily WHAT you do, but how you do it.

Sorry that this post is a little scatterbrained. Still trying to put my ideas and thoughts in words.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.