So this is last week’s news, but it’s important. As was widely reported, the Senate killed amendments to the Equal Pay Act. I’m only getting to it now because I was away last week.

Here’s some background on the Lebetter case, the horrible U.S. Supreme Court ruling that made this an issue. The gist is that women who get paid less than men must file their discrimination claims within 180 days of the first pay-setting act, or their rights to pursue claims are lost.

Interesting study in Senate conduct. For example, Senator McCain opposed the bill because it would, “open us to lawsuits.”  Sorry, but I have to call you on that one, Senator.  The law requires equal pay for equal work. Lawsuits happen only when employers fail to comply with anti-discrimination laws.  Or to simplify: pay equally, and you get no lawsuit.  So what you really meant was, “This change would mean that all employers who discriminate in their pay practices would have to face the consequences of illegal discrimination.”

Kudos to Oregon Senator Gordon Smith who correctly saw this as a non-partisan issue and broke with his party to vote in favor of the change. I periodically disagree with Senator Smith, but here I think he did the right thing. I would be remiss in failing to recognize his courage in doing so. I suppose some might suggest that Senator Smith voted in favor of the changes only because he faces a tough re-election in a blue state. I don’t particularly care how he got there. He did the right thing here.

My guess is that the opponents, which is to say most of the rest of the Senate Republicans, are playing with fire. The outcome is that women who are paid less than men for the same work have a very short time window for filing claims. Either the Republicans are encouraging people to file claims early on, or they are assuming that women don’t care. Bad message either way.

David Sugerman

This news account of a teenager’s serious injury at a North Portland Junkyard suggests that one or more participants didn’t get their stories straight. Were the teens working for the company, or were they merely operating the yard’s front-end loader and other heavy equipment without being paid on the payroll?

It doesn’t really matter. The account and various quotes provide another reminder that teenagers often fail to appreciate risk. That’s part of the reason why we have child labor laws. Children often can’t understand or fully appreciate the risk of injury from work.
Front-end loaders, car shredders and other large machines do amazing work. But safety isn’t something trusted to a teenager’s common sense. Seems like the owners of the yard have some explaining to do. It looks like these kids were engaged in child labor on the payroll, or they were working under the table. Neither possibility reflects well on the owner and manager of the yard.

Let’s at least hope that the injured teen heals fully and recovers his health.

David Sugerman