Lilly Ledbetter, the woman who took her employment discrimination case to the U.S. Supreme Court before finally losing, spoke at the Democratic convention in Denver last night. It was a standard convention speech — short, a statement of grievance followed by advocacy of legislation and praise for the candidacy of Sen. Obama. The remarks are here, and CQ Politics notes how other speakers cited her case. 

You can’t expect policy dissection in 90 seconds, and we’ll also just point to yesterday’s post, which lays out the anti-competitive, litigation-encouraging results of legislation that claims to fix Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

Oh, yes, we’ll also take credit for getting the convention to fix the misspelling of Ledbetter’s first name on the convention agenda. Yesterday, the incorrect Lily. Today, correctly, Lilly. Still wrong here, though. More…

From the U.S. Census:

Real median household income in the United States climbed 1.3 percent between 2006 and 2007, reaching $50,233, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the third annual increase in real median household income.

Meanwhile, the nation’s official poverty rate in 2007 was 12.5 percent, not statistically different from 2006. There were 37.3 million people in poverty in 2007, up from 36.5 million in 2006. The number of people without health insurance coverage declined from 47 million (15.8 percent) in 2006 to 45.7 million (15.3 percent) in 2007.*

These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007 [PDF].

Oh, man. What next? Workplace fatalities reach record low?

* The first annual decline in seven years, HealthDay News reports.

Top union officials are on today’s Democratic convention schedule in Denver as well as people who have complaints about employers, the economy and unfairness. The day has been given the theme, “Renewing America’s Promise,” but we’d guess grievances will predominate.

Especially prominent, scheduled right before the keynote address from Virginia Senate candidate Mark Warner:

Lily Ledbetter
Her actions against Goodyear Tire led to the passage of the Fair Pay Restoration Act

Her first name is actually spelled Lilly, and the bill has only passed the House. But accuracy is less important than narrative at big political events.

In any case, it’s important to know that the legislation proposed to rectify the pay discrimination that Ms. Ledbetter alleged would remove ALL statutes of limitations in workplace discrimination complaints. Twenty years after the fact? You could still sue, even if all the other witnesses were dead. (The House passed H.R. 2831, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, by a 225-199 vote on July 31, 2007, but it was stopped in the Senate on the failure to invoke cloture.)

This “solution” actually increases the possibility of employment discrimination, in that there would be an incentive to NOT report complaints, to not bring problems to the attention of the bosses.

We’ve got a lengthier post on the topic at Point of Law.com, and employment lawyer Daniel Schwartz examines the related Fair Pay Act at Overlawyered.com.  We imagine the claims, complaints and supposed solutions will flow freely tonight, so at least we can offer some corrective facts.

More…

• Supreme Court ruling, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
• NAM Key Vote letter to Senate.April 22, 2008
• Business Coalition letter to Senate,
• NAM MANUFAct
• AFL-CIO commentary upon introduction of House bill

Big-picture commentary by Bernie Marcus, founder and first CEO of Home Depot, in today’s Wall Street Journal, “Bad Labor Law Is a Path to Economic Ruin.” And it’s a wake-up call to employers:

I recently said that America “would become France” if a certain bill now in Congress — which would virtually guarantee that every company becomes unionized — ever became law. Deceptively named the Employee Free Choice Act, this bill would in most cases take away an employee’s right to a secret ballot in a union election and give unions the option to have federal arbitrators set the wages, benefits, hours and all other terms and conditions of employment.

And….

To my astonishment, most CEOs in America are unaware of this planned hostile takeover of their human resources. I am retired, so this is not business for me. It’s strictly personal. I care deeply about the competitiveness of American companies and our system of free enterprise.

Coincidently, we caught up with an old a friend over the weekend, a politically attuned person involved in day-to-day operations in the (labor-intensive) wholesale produce business. He had never heard of card check, found it hard to believe the bill had a chance of passing, and after checking with his boss, found that he, too, was unfamiliar with the Employee Free Choice Act.

Marcus concludes:

It’s time to stand up and fight. America’s competitiveness, jobs and right to a secret ballot are at stake. CEOs, employees who want to keep their jobs in America — and those retirees like me who would not be where we are today but for our system of free enterprise — must stop this anti-democratic legislation.

(Note: NAM’s Executive Vice President Jay Timmons is at the National Democratic Convention in Denver this week, and he’ll be blogging events, adding his insights as both a veteran of Senate and campaign politics and as a top representative of the U.S. manufacturing economy.)

Ran into Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa at the “Frosted Pink” reception for breast cancer awareness.  Seeing him reminded me of the NAM’s work with him, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and others on the ADA Amendments Act.

The ADA bill responds to court rulings over the years that have narrowed the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act, making sure that people with disabilities have the full opportunity to work, while ensuring employer flexibility when managing the workforce.

We are hopeful that the Senate will take up this important bipartisan compromise when Congress returns in September. It’s the right thing to do.

This is another example of how non-traditional allies can work together for the good of the country.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

NATIONAL CENSUS OF FATAL OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES IN 2007

A total of 5,488 fatal work injuries were recorded in the United States in 2007, a decrease of 6 percent from the revised total of 5,840 fatal work injuries reported for 2006. While these results are considered preliminary, this figure represents the smallest annual preliminary total since the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) program was first conducted in 1992. Final results for 2007 will be released in April 2009.

Based on these preliminary counts, the rate of fatal injury for U.S. workers in 2007 was 3.7 fatal work injuries per 100,000 workers, down from the final rate of 4.0 per 100,000 workers in 2006, and the lowest annual fatality rate ever reported by the fatality census.

From Labor Secretary Chao’s statement:

“This is continued evidence that the initiatives and programs to protect workers’ safety and health, designed by and implemented in this administration, are indeed working. In addition to a decline in the overall number of fatalities, the rate for 2007 declined to 3.7 fatalities per 100,000 workers. This is the lowest fatality rate in recorded OSHA history.”

From The New York Times story, “Fatalities in the Workplace Declined in 2007“:

Eric Frumin, health and safety coordinator for Change to Win, a federation of seven unions, said Ms. Chao’s take was misleading because the sharp drop in workplace transportation deaths, one of the causes of the overall drop in fatalities, largely fell under the jurisdiction of state and federal transportation agencies, not OSHA.

Moreover, Mr. Frumin pointed to a series of fatal construction accidents in Las Vegas and a death at an industrial laundry plant in Tulsa, all of which occurred in 2007, as evidence that OSHA was still not adequately enforcing its own regulations.

So attacking the Administration is more important to this top union official than is acknowledging progress. Frumin’s reaction tells you that politics and power drive organized labor, more so than concern for the employees.

The Times story, by the way, appeared on page A16 of the New York print edition; we didn’t find it in the edition that comes to the Washington area. But how about Page A1, or lead of the business page? You can bet that a story reporting a record high of workplace fatalities would be a top story.

Hans Bader at the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Open Market blog comments on H.R. 1338 and also  points us to an effective, tough editorial in today’s Examiner taking down the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act. That’s the bill the House passed on your basic partyline vote right before the August recess, an effort to allow lawyers to sue somebody’s way to “gender equity” in the workforce.

From “Paycheck fairness — or plaintiff’s payoff?”

The bill pretends to promote “gender equity.” Fat chance. Two laws, the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, already prohibit workplace discrimination against women and do so quite comprehensively.

But in the name of “equal pay for equal work,” the PFA would promote equal pay for grossly unequal experience. For instance, it would put the burden of proof on a business to show that it was impossible to pay equal wages to its male and female workers. Without such proof, as James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation points out, a newly hired woman could sue for the same wages as a man with 10 years of experience. She would need only claim that the employer should “provide her with intensive training to make up for the experience gap, and then pay her identical wages.”

Worse, the bill would for the first time make employers liable not just for intentional discriminatory pay practices, but for unintentional violations, too. It also would make it vastly easier to file “class action” lawsuits.

And the legislation would remove the Equal Pay Act’s limits compensatory and punitive damages available through litigation. Good incentive for somebody.

H.R. 1338 passed by a vote of 247-178. Voting yes: 233 Democrats, 14 Republicans. Voting no: 178 Republican, 0 Democrats.

Basic argument by the opposition: You know, it’s already against the law to discriminate on the basis of gender.

AP story hits the highlights.

The House Majority Leader’s floor schedule for the day includes H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. (For previous Shopfloor posts, go here.)

The Statement of Administration Policy, which promises a veto, hits upon a recurring theme from opponents, that the legislation really just makes more money for lawyers suing businesses.

The bill’s provision for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages without even a showing of intent is especially troubling. Other employment statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, provide for limited compensatory and punitive
damages of up to $300,000 (but unlimited backpay). These statutes only provide for such
damages after a showing that the discrimination was intentional and, for punitive damages, that
the employer “engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or
with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.” To
permit punitive damages in the absence of intent or reckless indifference would be wrong.
Moreover, there is no need to add punitive damages to the EPA, since such damages are already
available under Title VII for pay discrimination. 

Another problem: The bill does not allow a company to account for geographical pay disparities. If you have an office in Beulah, Boston or Biloxi employees doing similar work must all be paid the same.
 
The NAM’s Key Vote letter in opposition is here.

Carrie Lukas, Independent Women’s Forum, “Feminists Meddle with the Market“: “[A] bill that is the equivalent of throwing sand into the wheels of our economic machine.
 

The Statement of Administration Policy on H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, has now been posted. First paragraph:

The Administration strongly supports and aggressively enforces our Nation’s anti-discrimination laws and is firmly committed to the principle of equal pay for equal work. But rather than contributing to that cause, H.R. 1338 would make enforcement of these laws more difficult and error-prone and invite a surge of litigation. Therefore, the Administration strongly opposes the “Paycheck Fairness Act.” The bill would unjustifiably amend the Equal Pay Act (EPA) to allow for, among other things, unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, even when a disparity in pay was unintentional. It also would encourage discrimination claims to be made based on factors unrelated to actual pay discrimination by allowing pay comparisons between potentially different labor markets. In addition, it would require the Department of Labor (DOL) to replace its successful approach to detecting pay discrimination with a failed methodology that was abandoned because it had a 93 percent false positive rate. Thus, if H.R. 1338 were presented to the President, his senior advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

The NAM’s key Vote letter on H.R. 1338 is here. We oppose it.

UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation has just issued a new web memo on the legislation, “Paycheck Fairness Act Unfairly Burdens Employees and Employers.” Written by Heritage’s labor expert, James Sherk, the memo makes the case against this bill clearly:

In the name of protecting women from discrimination, the Act permits the government and the courts to micromanage employers, tying them up in a sea of red tape. The Act gives a windfall to trial lawyers, exposing employers to unlimited punitive damages for unintentional mistakes. Any financial benefits reaped by trial lawyers, however, will come at the expense of workers, whose wages will fall in order to cover the increased cost of legal liability insurance. The Act also obliges the government to adopt junk science by requiring the use of a highly flawed survey while declaring the best scientific practices for assessing discrimination superfluous. The PFA will hurt the very workers it is meant to help.