martha roby, my rock-a-bye baby.by sam enderby |
5/8/13
 |
| Rep. Roby R-Alabama-She's in the middle next to Capt. America and his lovely bride, Ralph. |
Back
in July, 2012, we babbled something about the Supreme Court's recent
decision upholding, that is barely upholding, the Affordable Healthcare
Act, derisively referred to as Obamacare, even by President Obama, and
its so-called public mandate, lamented that there was even such an act
to begin with but it was better than nothing - which seems to be our
government's mantra of late- and while a paean to our great insurance
companies and republican think-tanks throughout our green and growing
land it is rather disgraceful when you think of what might have been
and, well, anyway we mentioned at the time an upcoming young Republican
congresswoman from Alabama, the Hon. Martha Roby, whose outrageous (to
us) comments on the floor of the Congress at the time deserved
condemnation and it appears she - true to her DNA and her daddy's love -
is once again trying to lift her wings and show the world what a fine
example of southern republican womanhood she intends to be. We find it
fitting and proper that at a time of still great hardship for so many of
our unemployed and for so many of our lowly-wage workers young Martha
is boasting about a new bill she will introduce today that may give our
holy job creators just what they need to take away a workers overtime
pay and offer instead something called "comp-time", time away from work.
This is what's been reported and 'though we have not yet read this
tactless document we cannot imagine a more cynical and manipulative and
mean-spirited and just down-right rotten piece of legislation directed
against the working poor. But coming from the mouth and mind of Martha
Roby we are not surprised. It is also ironic that at a time when yet
another Black man was to be executed -this time the night before Ms.
Roby's noble gesture, we find ourselves confronted with a true daughter
of the south. To blow our own horn ( its an old Besson) we wrote then:
"IT
IS PRECISELY THIS COLLISION OF IMMORAL POWER WITH POWERLESS MORALITY
WHICH CONSTITUTES THE MAJOR CRISIS OF OUR TIME." - Rev.Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr.
When young and white (yes I know but its for a reason) Martha Roby rose to speak in Congress on behalf of her 2nd Congressional District in Alabama expressing her "Deep" disappointment with the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Affordable HealthCare Act you might have expected that a young woman with a Music Degree from NYU (!!) and a Law Degree from her father's alma mater would be more understanding and at least intellectually inquisitive as to the meaning of what had transpired- perhaps empathetic toward what the Law was at least trying to do-instead of twisting the ruling around to fit her uninformed notions about what is good for Amercia; instead she blurts out the usual scare bites heard from every Republican and Murdoch-paid stooge: "the American people have already weighed in and overwhelmingly rejected the law," (Overwhelmingly?) "It will result in as many as 20 Million Amercians losing their existing health coverage;" "it will Suffocate small businesses"; "overbearing regulations"; "hampering job creation"; "estimates indicate that the law will actually cost 800,000 Amercian jobs"; and she would replace it with some type of "free-market" reform.(The Republicans don't have a plan really ) I guess in Amercia in 2012 with all our freedoms (disassembling) its perfectly proper and fitting to stand up in the House of Representatives and Lie one's ass off for sake of political expediency. By the way the reference here is the Congressional Record of June 29, 2012. It is not just Rep. Roby's remarks alone of course - there were and will be others just like hers but what I'm trying to get a handle on is how does someone that young - she's a bicentennial baby - and that-seemingly - educated (NYU for goshsakes!) can be so dismissive of facts. Is it because she's now a politician so what do you expect? Is it Republican trope to misrepresent the healthcare law? Why are they so dead set against it anyway? It was their "plan". Now its Obama's ? And therein lies a Mitch McConnell. "From their lips pure puffs of plain crap crowd out the atmosphere-until the mark of authenticity is murk and fetor". But to be that young and unquestioning in her own mendacity. Raised in Reagan Amercia? Comes of age in the Bush-Clinton era; matures(?) in the Bush-Cheney years where she learns hate is a virtue? Born in Montgomery, Alabama, the First capital of the Confederacy, center of civil rights struggles, her parents' child like everyone else; her father,
lets
see, is currently
THE Chief Judge down in Alabama, a Reagan nominee and
later Bush, who was recently quoted in the L.A. Times of all places,
just before the Supreme Court decision, as so concerned that "If we
uphold this are there any limits on the powers of the federal
government?" So worried is he that his freedom will be swept away like a
bad margaret mitchell novel. This is the very same judge who sat on one
of the appeals courts that denied a petition presented on behalf of Troy Davis seeking
a new hearing. It was rejected 2-1 because according to the ruling it
had already been rejected before. Such intellectual gravitas; such human
understanding. And I wonder why the daughter turned out the way she
has.(I can't help but think of a Tom Lehrer lyric - and yes I'm exposing
my prejudice again but nevertheless-" I wanna talk with southern
gentlemen and put my white sheet on again.")
 |
| Martha's daddy-The Judge |
 |
| Troy Davis. Executed Sept 21, 2011 |
Why
should this country and its poor and indigent have a reasonable
healthcare plan, its limitations aside, and why give a reasonable doubt
to a condemned man who may have had a decent shot at freedom?
- Congresswoman Touts Worker Protections That Her Bill Would Weaken
By Bryce Covert on May 7, 2013
Today,
the House is set to vote on the Working Families Flexibility Act,
legislation that would weaken rules requiring businesses to pay
employees overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a given
week and instead give employers the option of providing their workers
with “comp time,” or time off from work. The bill is being touted as a
Republican response to the need for today’s working parents to balance
work and family by allowing them to accrue unpaid overtime hours.
A big worry of opponents of the bill is that employers will have the power to coerce employees into taking comp time instead of having to pay them overtime wages. When confronted with this possibility, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL), told the Sirius radio show The Morning Briefing with Tim Farley that employees will be able to turn to existing worker protections against coercion under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
The employee absolutely can pick up the phone and call the Department of Labor and report their employer because that is not allowed. The anti-coercion and discrimination provisions in this bill are very clear, that an employer cannot not use compensatory time in any way to coerce or discriminate or force an employee to take compensatory time… All of the protections that are currently under the Fair Labor Standards Act exist under this bill as well for the employee to make sure the employer does not take advantage of the employee.
But workers may not be as well protected as Roby indicated. While the bill does give workers the right to sue, George Zornick reports at The Nation that they are denied the use of a faster and cheaper avenue through the Department of Labor. On top of this, it doesn’t give the Department of Labor any extra funds to investigate or enforce the anti-coercion provisions. This means that workers who experience intimidation may have to hire their own lawyer and shell out lots of money to bring a case.
Meanwhile, the balance of power often rests with employers. Workers are fighting wage theft, or employers violating FLSA overtime laws, at huge rates. A 2009 survey reported that two-thirds of low-income employees had experienced a wage law violation in the previous week alone. The problem has been on the rise, with actions filed in federal court alleging wage and hour violations increasing by 400% between 2000 and 2011. Many employers are already failing to follow the FLSA’s rules.
Opponents have other concerns with the legislation. The FLSA requires overtime pay for work over 40 hours a week, which provides a big disincentive to ask employees to work long hours. That could diminish if employers can offer comp time instead. Employers may also be able to deny requests to use the comp time if they can claim it “unduly disrupts the operations of the employer” or that the request didn’t come in “within a reasonable period.”
In the radio interview, Roby also pointed to the fact that public sector workers have had this arrangement since 1985. But as Alex Seitz-Wald reports at Salon, “that move was to cut costs for government, not provide workers with more freedom,” plus government employees generally have a union to help them fight employer violations.
In fact, this is an old idea that has had trouble gaining traction over the years. Seitz-Wald points out that Republicans introduced similar legislation in 1996, 1997, and 2003. If Republicans are looking for policies that can help today’s working families, they could consider paid family and medical leave, paid sick days, and protections for workers who request flexible working conditions.
A big worry of opponents of the bill is that employers will have the power to coerce employees into taking comp time instead of having to pay them overtime wages. When confronted with this possibility, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL), told the Sirius radio show The Morning Briefing with Tim Farley that employees will be able to turn to existing worker protections against coercion under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):
The employee absolutely can pick up the phone and call the Department of Labor and report their employer because that is not allowed. The anti-coercion and discrimination provisions in this bill are very clear, that an employer cannot not use compensatory time in any way to coerce or discriminate or force an employee to take compensatory time… All of the protections that are currently under the Fair Labor Standards Act exist under this bill as well for the employee to make sure the employer does not take advantage of the employee.
But workers may not be as well protected as Roby indicated. While the bill does give workers the right to sue, George Zornick reports at The Nation that they are denied the use of a faster and cheaper avenue through the Department of Labor. On top of this, it doesn’t give the Department of Labor any extra funds to investigate or enforce the anti-coercion provisions. This means that workers who experience intimidation may have to hire their own lawyer and shell out lots of money to bring a case.
Meanwhile, the balance of power often rests with employers. Workers are fighting wage theft, or employers violating FLSA overtime laws, at huge rates. A 2009 survey reported that two-thirds of low-income employees had experienced a wage law violation in the previous week alone. The problem has been on the rise, with actions filed in federal court alleging wage and hour violations increasing by 400% between 2000 and 2011. Many employers are already failing to follow the FLSA’s rules.
Opponents have other concerns with the legislation. The FLSA requires overtime pay for work over 40 hours a week, which provides a big disincentive to ask employees to work long hours. That could diminish if employers can offer comp time instead. Employers may also be able to deny requests to use the comp time if they can claim it “unduly disrupts the operations of the employer” or that the request didn’t come in “within a reasonable period.”
In the radio interview, Roby also pointed to the fact that public sector workers have had this arrangement since 1985. But as Alex Seitz-Wald reports at Salon, “that move was to cut costs for government, not provide workers with more freedom,” plus government employees generally have a union to help them fight employer violations.
In fact, this is an old idea that has had trouble gaining traction over the years. Seitz-Wald points out that Republicans introduced similar legislation in 1996, 1997, and 2003. If Republicans are looking for policies that can help today’s working families, they could consider paid family and medical leave, paid sick days, and protections for workers who request flexible working conditions.
No comments:
Post a Comment
The Joyful Moocher welcomes and encourages all comments.