Stabenow Shows Once Again She’s More Focused On Saving Her Own Job, Than Helping To Grow Michigan Jobs

Just four days after the U.S. Department of Labor announced that the national unemployment rate climbed to 8.2 percent in April and on the same day the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that “the long-term outlook for the national debt is increasingly dire,” Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow cast her lot with America’s trial lawyers today ahead of her state’s small business owners.

Stabenow joined with her liberal Democrat party leaders today in support of the so-called “Paycheck Fairness Act,” a bill that is opposed by virtually every major small business organization in the country – see below – and even the liberal Washington Post editorial board warned that it represents “a flawed approach to job bias…[and] could make employers vulnerable to attack for responding to market forces.”

And as the Wall Street Journal opined today, “The bill ought to be called the ‘Trial Lawyer Paycheck Act,’ since it is a recipe for a class-action boom….It’s a walking advertisement for gridlock, a partisan stunt that would hurt the economy for no other reason than to pay off the Democratic donors in the tort bar.”

“It speaks volumes about Debbie Stabenow’s misplaced, liberal priorities that while unemployment rises and our federal debt climbs, she’s more concerned with scoring political points and helping her trial lawyer friends,” National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) spokesman Lance Trover said today.  “Michigan small business owners and families deserve a Senator who will put their values first, and someone who is more focused on growing jobs, rather than just saving her own.” 

BACKGROUND….

Also note what the Wall Street Journal wrote this morning:

• “The U.S. already has two broad federal laws—the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1963 Equal Pay Act—that prohibit gender-based pay discrimination. In case that wasn’t enough, Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Act in 2009 that as recently as March Mr. Obama said ‘ensures equal pay for equal work.’ What changed in the last three months?”

In fact, Senator Stabenow has yet to address how she squares her rhetoric today with what she claimed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would accomplish when it was signed into law three years ago….

• Stabenow Said Passing The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Sought “To End Pay Discrimination And Inequality In The Workplace.” “‘Last November, Americans cried out for change and a new era in Washington – an era of bipartisanship and equality,’ said Stabenow. ‘The American people deserve nothing less from their elected officials, and I am proud to have joined with my Senate colleagues to pass critical legislation that seeks to end pay discrimination and inequality in the workplace.’” (Sen. Debbie Stabenow, Sen. Stabenow, Colleagues Pass Legislation To Combat Pay Discrimination,” Press Release, 1/22/09)

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND….

Jobs Groups, Top Newspaper Editorial Boards Have All Blasted The Democrats’ Bill, Warning It ‘Would Spawn Frivolous Lawsuits’

JOBS GROUPS LETTER: “The provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act would harm employers of all sizes, as the bill would apply to employers with as few as two employees. The threat the bill poses to small business is particularly troubling given the draconian penalties found in this legislation, which include unlimited damages regardless of whether a pay discrepancy was unintentional.” (Letter To Sens. Reid And McConnell, 22 Jobs Groups, 5/24/12)

• “This flawed legislation could outlaw many legitimate practices that employers currently use to set employee pay rates, even where there is no evidence of intentional discrimination. Common practices that a court could find unlawful under S. 3220 include providing premium pay for professional experience, education, shift differentials or hazardous work, as well as pay differentials based on local labor market rates or an organization’s profitability.” (Letter To Sens. Reid And McConnell, 22 Jobs Groups, 5/24/12)

• “A number of federal laws already specifically protect employees from pay discrimination, including the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.” (Letter To Sens. Reid And McConnell, 22 Jobs Groups, 5/24/12) 

• Letter Signed By: U.S. Chamber of Commerce; American Bakers Association; American Bankers Association; American Hotel & Lodging Association; Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc.; College and University Professional Association for Human Resources; Food Marketing Institute; HR Policy Association; International Public Management Association for Human Resources; National Association of Manufacturers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Council of Chain Restaurants; National Council of Textile Organizations; National Federation of Independent Business; National Public Employer Labor Relations Association; National Restaurant Association; National Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors Association; Printing Industries of America; Retail Industry Leaders Association; Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; Society for Human Resource Management

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE:  “Unlawful pay discrimination is abhorrent, but this bill is not a responsible way to address it.” (“Mikulski Plan For Women’s Pay Gets New Push,” The Baltimore Sun, 5/23/12) 

• “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is opposing the legislation and will send a letter later this week urging senators to defeat it, arguing it would spawn frivolous lawsuits.” (“Equal Pay Bill Puts Romney On The Line On Women,” The Washington Times, 5/29/12)
•  “…As a practical matter it is just one more thing that creates a disincentive to do business here in the United States. If you are looking at where to open a new business, it is going to be a factor…” (“Business Community Opposes Paycheck Fairness Act,” The Daily Caller, 11/13/10) 

SOCIETY FOR HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT:  “…SHRM opposes Federal government efforts to second-guess employers in making pay decisions…” (“HR Alert! Oppose The Paycheck Fairness Act,” SHRM Statement, 5/30/12) 

• SHRM: “The bill would also have a negative impact on employee privacy by encouraging employees to publicize their colleagues’ wages.” (“HR Alert! Oppose The Paycheck Fairness Act,” SHRM Statement, 5/30/12)

EDITORIALS: ‘A Flawed Approach,’ ‘Grossly Intrusive’

CHICAGO TRIBUNE: “…grossly intrusive on decision-making by private businesses. At least one group would get a fatter paycheck from the Paycheck Fairness Act: trial lawyers.” (Editorial, “Paycheck Fairness?,” The Chicago Tribune, 11/12/10) 

WASHINGTON POST: “Paycheck Fairness Act: A flawed approach to job bias… could make employers vulnerable to attack for responding to market forces… not the right fix.” (Editorial, “Paycheck Fairness Act: A Flawed Approach To Job Bias,” The Washington Post, 9/28/10) 

• “…risks tilting the scales too far against employers and would remove, rather than restore, a sense of balance.” (Editorial, “Two Sides Of Fair Pay In Bills Before The Senate,” The Washington Post, 1/15/09) 

BOSTON GLOBE: “…the measure as a whole is too broad a solution to a complex, nuanced problem… The bill would create too strong a presumption in favor of discrimination over other, equally plausible explanations…” (Editorial, “Bill Takes On Disturbing Pay Gap — But Offers Flawed Remedies,” The Boston Globe, 11/17/10) 

• “… the controversial meat of the bill is the changes it would make to the legal process… companies are right to be concerned that this bill, as written, is too deep an intrusion.” (Editorial, “Bill Takes On Disturbing Pay Gap — But Offers Flawed Remedies,” The Boston Globe, 11/17/10)