Saint Obama Slaps Females and Business
"Declaring that ending pay disparity is not just a women's issue, President Barack Obama signed legislation Thursday that gives workers more time to take their pay discrimination cases to court.
"Lilly Ledbetter, the Alabama woman whose story was the impetus behind the new law, stood alongside Obama as he signed the first bill of his presidency. Also in the East Room of the White House were labor, women's, civil rights advocates and members of Congress for whom the bill was a priority." Seattle Times
Females are already overpaid when they make $.73 cents for every dollar that men make. See $.73 is way overpaid. This new law will cut their value by another $.10 per hour because of the cost of risk that the employer has to pay.
A typical cunt wastes half her “work” day texting her girlfriends, gossiping about boyfriends, pregnancies, and “relationships.” She surfs the Internet to chat and gossip sites. She uses all her sick leave as if it were vacation days. The “full time” cunt put in only abut 2/3 of the time on her job every week that an average man does, even counting her gossip and Internet hours. And all the while she grouses that she is not paid as much as the men who are doing twice as much work as she does.
Lilly Ledbetter knew she was being paid less than the male supervisors at her factory. She claimed that the difference was because of her sex, not because she was doing less work or less effective work. She sat on this information until after she had retired and then tried to sue. The law said that she should have filed a claim when she was made aware of the alleged discrimination. She did not, and for years continued to work there.
When she brought suit, her lieyers argued that she should have been paid the same as the male counterparts, and that the statute of limitations should be set aside. The trial court agreed. However, the appeals court set aside that verdict because it ignored the law: statute of limitations cannot be set aside. The Supreme court upheld the appeals court and affirmed the decision for the rule of law -- statute of limitations was in effect, period. But that has now changed. Females at work can now wait till they retire, and then get a scumbag lieyer to slap their former employer with a massive “Ledbetter” suit demanding half the total value of a small business. The rule of law has become the rule of “women are dangerous.”
Under the new Leadbottom law, the statue of limitations is no longer applies to manipulative scheming cunts. Why should any company employ a female? Across the country today a million employers are looking at their female “workers” and wondering which ones will sue after they retire. A million other employers are looking over resumes and wondering which person to interview and hire. Some of them will wonder if they hire the female, will she sue them out of business in a few years. Many of them will choose to hire the man because he can’t sue.
This is a classic example of "you can't do one thing."
Or, "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
This law greatly increases the risk that employers bear when they hire a female. It greatly increases the hidden cost of risk that employers have to bear to hire a female. The cost of risk has to come right out of the woman's take home pay to keep employers from hiring non-risk men instead. Many employers, especially small business that hires the majority of women, will avoid risk by avoiding women employees. It will make it harder for women to get jobs and good jobs.
Saint Obama and Leadbottom
I hope all you working cunts who are cheering about the special protections you enjoy are doing so while considering all the negative results of paying large sums to trial lieyers and a few showcase women. Saint Obama just made it a lot harder, more risky, and more expensive for employers to hire you.
Anyone who took economics at college instead of “women’s studies” will understand that there is additional cost and risk to employers when (some) women sue for alleged equal pay. The new law allows women/lieyers to sue decades later after the employer no longer has records or evidence for his defense.
You can ask any bean counter about "real wages." Ask about accounting for the total cost to the company of hiring and employee. Ask about the cost of risk and how risk is allocated to compare with other direct costs. Some insurance companies may be wiling to provide risk insurance against such suits, but it will be so expensive that most companies wouldn't be able to afford insurance and still hire any female.
The law may appears to be sex neutral, but the long history of such laws has always only allowed females to sue, and only cost employers for settlements to females. Everyone knows that too.
Every state, every corporation, and every small business will have to have a large budget item for settling claims. State governments will have to double their already expensive “harassment” budgets, already costing millions of dollars per year. And state governments can just rob taxpayers to pay the greedy bitches and their scumbag lieyers. The “hire a cunt” tax gets bigger and bigger. Private businesses who create wealth can’t do that. They have to make a profit of they fold. Private business has to cover the government’s tax and their own cost of risk, or they vanish along with the jobs they once provided.
The Leadbottom law crates a large new risk for employers who employ females. Risk is cost, and it is added to the employers total cost to employ females. Any economist can tell you about real wages vs. take home wages, and how the total cost to employ someone affects the employment decision.
Hiring someone, anyone, is no different from buying a new TV, a shirt, or a car. You look at the price and compare that to the next model over. How much I really want the product. Is this purchase worth the cost? You look at the reliability. How long will this purchase last? Will it cost another bunch for repairs next year? When hiring a female you have to look at the price, and the price now includes the cost/risk of lawsuits 20 years later. When hiring a female a sane employer will look at the price of the man who also applied for the job. Does the man's cost less? Will the man sue him out of business in 20 years? Does the employer avoid a significant risk if he hires the man? The Leadbottom law shifts the balance toward hiring men, and will make it more difficult for females to get work.
Any female might decide to sue 20 years later. The man cannot. It will cause some employers to buy the less expensive product, to hire the less expensive employee. So you say that all the employer has to do is to pay the female as much a man. WRONG. A shyster lieyer can sue even if she has been paid more than men doing the same work. Most employers end up settling to keep out of courts. Even when the employer fights it in court the shyster only has to present a crying cunt to a stupid jury and she wins. Even if the employer wins in court, he has to pay for thousands, tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of dollars in lieyer fees and costs. Even when an employer pays females as much or more than men doing the same level of work the employer is still at risk.
For those who want females to gain better jobs and higher pay, you buddy Saint Obama just slapped you across the face. The Leadbottom law can and will make it harder for females to find a job, harder to keep your job, and worth significantly less to the employer who has to offset the risk cost of her employment.
Regardless of the “good intentions” of this stupid law, the actual economic results will include the following:
Leadbottom will add risk and cost to every employer who hires a female. The cost of risk will have to be offset by lower take home pay or the employer will hire a man instead.
The Leadbottom law will encourage employers to hire men at the expense of females.
The Leadbottom law will push many employers into moving their production to foreign nations where labor laws are not so onerous.
The Leadbottom law will cause many businesses to avoid hiring entirely. A lawsuit hanging over their head is to be avoided by not hiring.
Some employers will find a reason to “lay off “ or fire female employees who seem to be bitchy or otherwise likely to sue. Her file will be documented with real or imagined poor performance and violations of company work rules.
The Leadbottom law will bankrupt thousands of small business who are sued out of business by shyster lieyers and greedy cunts. The nation will lose millions of jobs.
Make no mistake. This law is not about “equal pay for equal work despite all the political rhetoric. Women won’t do equal work, never have, never will. This law is about equal pay for less work, easier work, fewer hours of work, and more time wasted gossiping while at work. When females are forced to compete fairly in the workplace they get paid a lot less than men because they do a lot less work than men. When a rare female does equal work she gets paid as much or more than men, but that has never been satisfactory to feminazi and manginas like Saint Obama. They don’t want to force cunts into actually having to do equal work to earn equal pay. They believe that money magically appears in the hands of “rich men.” They want cunts to be paid as if they are working when they are not.
Is the Leadbottom law good for females? No, it is not. Females would be better off, get hired easier, and get paid more take home pay if the law was not passed. That is the basic economics of raising the cost/risk to employers who hire women. You can’t outlaw basic economic any more than you can make Pi equal exactly 3 by passing a law. The Leadbottom law is, in fact, the most misogynist law to be passed in several decades. It makes life harder for hard working females. We will see many more unemployed females.
There is one more problem with this law. Our economy is badly hurting as millions of workers are being laid off. Saint Obama is pushing the most massive pork bill ever to hit the Congress under the guise of economic stimulation to avoid another great depression. He has chosen this time to slap employers with huge lawsuits and prevent hiring. One is tempted to think he is either secretly trying to sabotage the economy or he’s really completely ignorant of even the most basic economics. You can’t stimulate the American economy by slapping employers and driving production to other nations.
LA Times video