What to look for in Round 3

MSierra, SF — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:27:51 GMT

Look for Ignorance, Stupidity, Opportunism......

And a Celebration of Bad Taste !!

Watch for it !!

What to look for in Round 3

Anna Molly — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:31:22 GMT

Secretariat by 31 lengths.

What to look for in Round 3

Richard, Washington State — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:32:58 GMT

Hey, who says there is no good economic news? Exxon's profit dropped by 33% in the fourth quarter.

Their contribution to the government in the form of corporate income taxes will decline proportionately.

What to look for in Round 3

Eric, Salinas, CA — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:38:49 GMT

Hey you're really stretching it to think there is anything to watch for in any round of the clueless ones trying to find a new loser to run their party further into the sewer.

I so enjoyed seeing Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC holding up a "Steele Democrat" sign from back when he tried to fool people in Maryland into thinking he wasn't a repugnant one. Just goes to show to what lengths the repugnant ones will lie cheat and steal to win an election.

I won't be surprised when the white supremacist party of male chauvinist pigs gangs up on Steele and votes dimwitted Duncan back in charge.

Prison for rove!

What to look for in Round 3

nuanced — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:46:08 GMT

"he said he believes there is an impending member versus non-member rift"

We can always hope to promote and benefit from divisiveness he said as he licked his lips. It's us versus them. Keep the outsiders out. Keep the privileged privileged. Elect me and I will spread this mantra throughout the land.

What to look for in Round 3

Don Means — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:47:53 GMT

Great coverage! The suspense is gripping. When has such a race ever been so transparent?

I especially like the point about the new chair being able to shape the next primary calendar.

What to look for in Round 3

Mark Foley(R) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:48:47 GMT

"Corporate income taxes" -That's funny Richard.

What to look for in Round 3

Just Askin' — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:49:12 GMT

How many times do these idiots vote?

What to look for in Round 3

Anna Molly — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:55:03 GMT

C A ~ (from another thread). Wow. Even more good questions.

As for your first question, in any discrimination suit (equal pay being the legal equivalent of a sex discrimination suit), the complainant has to make out an initial “prima facie” case of discrimination. In an equal pay case, this would require producing evidence not only that the employee was paid less than someone else of the opposite gender, but also that they were similarly situated, and doing equal work. This is where the evidence that may have been lost would be especially critical. If the employee meets this burden, it is then up to the employer to produce “evidence” of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for any distinctions. Except where affirmative defenses are involved, the employer’s burden is not “proof” but merely “production." Although you already seem to know that a jury might perceive the burden to be on the employer to prove it hasn't done anything wrong. The evidence the employer can offer might be something easy, such as different market conditions when someone was hired, or something harder, such as that one person was really doing different tasks or performing at a different level. In the absence of hard documentation, like performance evaluations, that probably would have to be testimony. Now we get to the he-said-she-said portion of the program, where memory loss and witness attrition are the main issues. But in any event, the employee -- at least theoretically -- has the ultimate burden of proof to show that the employer acted for discriminatory reasons, rather than legitimate reasons. The further out one gets from the actions themselves, the harder this proof becomes. That’s true in any case, by the way.

As for your second and the third questions, they assume that the personnel file still exists, or that payroll records still exist, or that someone has enough documentation somewhere to prove who got paid what, when, and why, with why ALWAYS being the critical question. And this is the essence of the problem that I foresee.

As a sort of coda to my earlier comment, the Department of Labor can fix the problem through rule-making, but rule-making always takes time, meaning that there will be a window during which employers may take advantage of the opportunity to clean house on personnel documents that have been kept beyond their legal retention periods.

Thanks for the mental exercise. ;) And a big shout-out to Congress for making employee-recordkeeping an interesting topic once again.

What to look for in Round 3

C A, Tuscaloosa, AL — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:10:06 GMT

Anna Molly (Sent Friday, January 30, 2009 1:31 PM)
Secretariat by 31 lengths.

Laughing here. It does sound like a horse race Anna Molly. I was thinking more of a Dog Race. Ever been to one? Those Grey Hounds fall down, run into one another. Some even stop in the middle of a race to take a dump. And the dog who may finally catches that mechanical rabbit (happens sometimes) is immediately turned upon buy the other dogs who are trained to blindly follow a "dummy" rabbit. Now that is how I would picture the RNC's attempt to elect a chairperson. More like a Dog race.

Besides. Those race horses are beautiful creatures and we would not want them to think we are comparing them to the republicans (RNC).

What to look for in Round 3

Barbara C. - Fort Lauderdale, FL — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:10:14 GMT

Is this the new leader for the Republicans? I still feel Steele is going to get it because -- wait for it...he is on Fox News a lot.

What to look for in Round 3

Larry Linn, Los Angeles, CA — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:25:11 GMT

The Republicans need a leader to continue their pursuit to reduce taxes until there is no government. The United States is in a recession. A strong, arrogant, self centered leader, like Rush Limball is needed to enhance the recession, and upgrade it to a full Republican-Bush Depression.

What to look for in Round 3

Anna Molly — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:40:38 GMT

Good point, C A, and thanks for the laugh, although you know I don't like to see dogs hurt, either. I'm still giggling, though. ;)

Richard ~ Yeah, isn't it great that Exxon will pay less in corporate tax? An excellent way to stimulate economic growth in the energy sector and encourage more dependence on non-renewable fuels. I'm all for that.