thanks, but no thanks

The following post was not written by me, but by the wonderful Janet Wallace, author of the pink-a-licious blog Slice of Pink. (You can already see the blog's appeal to me just by the mention of the word pink.) I'm normally not one to talk politics - I usually avoid it at all costs - but this post struck a chord in my heart, and I wanted to share it with you, regardless of whose name you'll mark on your ballot this fall.

Oh, and also regardless of your party affiliation, or what you think of McCain, Obama, Palin, or Biden - MAKE SURE YOU VOTE. There's still time to register to vote. Do it.

Without further ado, here is the article:


I want to tell you a story.

A friend of mine recently retired from a job she had for 19 years. It was a good job, a job she enjoyed. Her work ethic was strong and her peers respected her. On the day my friend retired she received an anonymous note in her locker.

That unsigned note told her something unbelievable. It told her that she had received less pay than her male counterparts. Less pay by a lot. My friend was being paid $3,727 a month. Her male counterparts were paid between $4,286 and $5,236 per month, even though they had less seniority. Even though she was doing the exact same job.

My friend filed a lawsuit and you know? On her pay discrimination claim, she won. The jury looked at the evidence and they agreed that my friend had been discriminated against based on her gender.

But a jury's decision is not final. Even though she had won on the facts--won on the very merits of her case--there was a long road ahead.

The company appealed the judgement and the lawsuit went all they way to the United States Supreme Court. And when it got there, the Supreme Court looked at the facts and they had a vote. The four liberal justices agreed that my friend deserved her equal pay. But the five conservative justices said "close, but no cigar." My friend got nothing from the company that discriminated against her for nearly two decades. Nothing.

You see, there is this tricky thing in the law called the statute of limitations. It sets forth the maximum number of days after an event occurs that a person can initiate a lawsuit.

My friend only had 180 to call out her company on their shameless pay discrimination. Not 180 days from the day she found out--but 180 days from the time the pay decision was made, way back when she had no idea that she was being discriminated against. The clock started ticking--and, in fact, ran out--years before she even knew that she was worth less to her company because she was a woman.

This is a true story. I've never met Lilly Ledbetter, the woman who was discriminated against by Goodyear Tire Company, but her story speaks to me and I hope it speaks to you, too.

Her story spoke to Congress and they attempted, this year, to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The act would not only protect women, but also people of color, older, and disabled workers from wage discrimination.

In 2008, John McCain said "thanks, but no thanks" to fair pay for women.

Sarah Palin agreed. If she had a vote in a Congress, she, too, would have said "thanks, but no thanks" to equal pay.

They both say that they support fair pay, but how can that be? I suspect they support it in theory, but not in fact, as the facts, in fact, indicate. Who needs facts, anyway, when you can just speak in cliché?

John McCain sets forth two reasons for opposing this bill. First, he says that women need more training and education. And, second, he says that it would open the door to too many lawsuits.

More training? More education? Remember we are talking about women doing equal work "which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which [is] performed under similar working conditions." (That there would be some actual text from the law.)

"I've got plenty of training," Ledbetter said. "What I don't have is the right to fight for what I deserve."

And too many lawsuits? In America, you can sue because your coffee is too hot or because your dry cleaner lost your pants. I can sue you if you take this story and post it on your blog (which I would not do, so post away). But, our conservative Supreme Court Justices, in a narrow vote, have made it so that you cannot sue if your employer secretly paid you less than your male counterparts for years. Except, well, for 180 days worth of pay--if you find out soon enough.

I must ask--whose interests do McCain and Palin have at heart? Not yours, not mine. It is blatantly clear, that the McPalin tickets supports corporations at the expense of hardworking women across America. It is blatantly clear because we have actually seen what happens when corporations are not held accountable for their discriminatory practices. Nothing. Lilly Ledbetter got nothing. Goodyear got away with 19 years of paying Lilly a discriminatory wage.

And McCain and Palin are okay with that.

To John McCain and Sarah Palin, I say, "thanks, but no thanks."