Re: Equal Employment Op = Unconstitutionally Vague Law?
an716472@anon.penet.fi
Sat, 24 Aug 1996 07:44:24 UTC
Re: Equal Employment Op = Unconstitutionally Vague Law?
Mr. Libby wrote:
> Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender,
> etc. NOT on the basis of job skill. Discrimination on
> the basis of job skill is certainly acceptable. If you
> read the law you would know this.
The Author responds:
If Mr. Libby would read the applicable state and federal
equal employment opportunity (EEO) laws, he would know
that they make no mention of skills. The Americans
with Disabilities Act does make mention of skills,
however it alludes to the absolute minimum skills
necessary to perform just the essential functions of
a job - and who is to be the arbiter of this? The
GOVERNMENT??
The fact of the matter is that for just about any
job category, skills rarely top the list of consider-
ations when making a hiring or promotion decision - and
this applies to any employment market, regulated or other-
wise. Another fact of the matter is that the least pre-
ferred job candidate may be very highly skilled; however,
under EEO, everyone's wage will still be downwardly equal-
ized to the perceived value of that least preferred job
candidate (within job category).
One more note on the subject of skills: I cannot stress
enough that EEO fosters a sociological environment
whereby all the wrong people get ahead, and from there
we see the following axiom come into play: "Second rate
people hire THIRD rate people," and then as a further
consequence, first rate people get squeezed out one way
or another like an unwanted splinter under the skin.
Where do skills fit into this scenario, Mr. Libby?
Mr. Libby wrote:
> Again, I think the answer can be found in the text of
> the law itself. I spells out pretty clearly what kind
> of behaviour is and is not acceptable under the law.
> It doesn't mean you have to give up your bigoted beliefs
> (thought), only that you cannot act on those beliefs in
> such a way as to violate someone else's civil rights
> (behaviour). The law regulates behaviour, not thought.
The Author responds:
Er, what can I say? Oh, I know! Check out the law and
you will see that NOT a heck of a lot is spelled out. An
employer can do nothing, like not pursue the matter with
a job applicant or promotional candidate, but this "nothing"
will not serve as a defense to a discrimination charge. (It
was my understanding that the burden of proof in discri-
mination cases was on the defendant in the earlier days of
equal employment opportunity, but now, I do believe, this
burden has been shifted more to the plaintiff.) The EEO
laws purport to regulate thought, NOT behavior!
The term "civil rights" has been tossed around so much, so
carelessly that it has lost a lot of its originally intended
meaning. Does an employer owe anyone a living as a civil
right? What about an employer's civil right to decide how
he is going to spend his own money? How about an employer's
civil right to freedom of association?
Mr. Libby wrote:
> One of the fundamental cornerstones of our society (I'm
> assuming that you are a citizen of the United States,
> although I can't really tell since you hide behind anon-
> ymity) is equal protection under the law. The EEO law
> protects white males from racial and sexual discrimination -
> the white male is a "protected candidate" as you put it.
The Author responds:
The law does nothing to protect the white male (or anyone
else for that matter) from downwardly equalized wages;
to the contrary, the law forces the white male into a
situation which precludes him from commanding the compen-
sation which would be offered to him in an unregulated
market. And the best way to effectuate "equal protection"
under the law is to have LESS law, thus allowing less
issue to arise regarding "equal protection!"
Mr. Libby wrote:
> If you personally believe that you have been discri-
> minated against in a hiring action on the basis of your
> race or sex, you have the right to challenge the
> employer in a court of law - the law is on your side.
> God bless America!
The Author responds:
The swiftness and perfection of the downward wage equalizing
process of EEO are a direct function of the perfection of
the enforcement of EEO laws, so why in the world would I
want to contribute to the oiling of that mechanism more
than it already is by filing a discrimination claim against
an employer? Even claims which are dismissed against the
claimant cause labor to lose value in the eyes of employers.
Yes, we sure do need the blessings of God! I don't know
what your Bible says, but my Bible says that the Evil One
is in control of this world.
Mr. Libby wrote:
> Resting a debate on personal prejudice is a poor
> substitute for knowledge.
The Author responds:
What do we say about someone who off-the-cuff dismisses
tons of empirical evidence and who totally discounts long
established Economic theory?
Mr. Libby wrote:
> ...your bigoted beliefs...fueled by ignorance...for
> the lazy...personal prejudice...
The Author responds:
Gee, isn't Mr. Libby glib when it comes to tossing around
emotion-packed buzz words and phrases as weapons to further
his cause by disparaging his opponent? But, then again,
when one considers all of Mr. Libby's argumentation, one
has to agree that Mr. Libby is just doing the best that he
can.
In responding to my original posting, allan <allan@allan.org>
got things just a wee bit discombobulated.
The Author previously wrote:
>> A law is unconstitutionally vague when a typical citizen
>> cannot figure out how to conform his behavior in order
>> to be in full compliance with that law.
Allan wrote:
> umm...isn't the constitution intentionally vague, os that
> it is open to interpretation?
The Author now responds:
Allen, please see the distinction between laws to which
I was referring and the constitution to which you are
referring!
Allan wrote:
> a vague law is often better suited to a democracy, because
> it allows interpretation to change with the times.
The Author now responds:
Allan, how in the world do you figure this? When it comes
to criminal law (and EEO laws have certain criminal-like
penalties associated with them) don't you think it's best
to have definiteness so that you will know with certainty
what will cause you to run afoul of the law and what won't?
Here's an example. Street signs at the corners of inter-
sections of certain towns read: "No turn on red when
children are present." What the h--l does this mean?? If
it means within a radius of 25 feet of the sign, why doesn't
it say so? Does it mean "present in school", and if so
where? Somewhere, at any time, children are going to be
present in school. How about present in the car? Which
car? Do you as a driver appreciate such vagueness in a law?
What is expected of you to comply? If the law is left
vague, then you are left to the mercy of the Thought Police.
(See _1984_.)
Allan wrote:
> as has already been excellently demonstrated by mr libby
> your judgement in this matter is at best suspect, and at
> its worse intentionally misleading.
The Author responds:
Allan, I think you have your players mixed up. I am not
the one out to obfuscate and exploit people whose intel-
lectual level is lower than mine. I am not foisting
sophistry to promote self-serving interests. My argumen-
tation is not running counter to tons of empirical evi-
dence, and I am not attempting to rewrite long established
Economic theory.
If anything, I am the best friend of the lesser preferred
job candidates in this economy, because equal employment
opportunity is working to their detriment by chasing
their jobs out of this country and reducing them to coolie
wages or no wages at all when they should be able to seek
out better terms of employment and living standards.
I refer you and all other members of the reading audience
of this forum to the cover story of the August 18, 1996
issue of the Sunday New York Times Magazine, entitled
"Work." The intro/abstract for this article is: "What
explains the catastrophic descent of America's ghettos
into ever-deeper poverty and misery? The disappearance
of jobs, says a leading scholar. What's the remedy?"
The magazine's cover stated: "The issue is NOT welfare
but the disappearance of work in the ghetto. The problem
has now reached catastrophic proportions, and if it isn't
addressed it will have lasting and harmful consequences
for the quality of life in the cities and, eventually,
for the lives of all Americans. _WHEN WORK DISAPPEARS_,"
the book from which the article was derived by Alfred A.
Knopf to be published soon.
Why is work in the ghetto disappearing? Because if an em-
ployer is willing to hire lesser preferred job candidates,
then he is required by EEO to hire the very least preferred
job candidates which he most likely will not wish to do.
Each employer has his own concept of what constitutes the
least desirable traits for his least preferred job candidate,
and, as was already explained, each employer will, according
to the mechanism of EEO, cross equalize wages to the lowest
concept of value of the other employers. One employer may
have an aversion to hiring dwarfs, another may have an aver-
sion to hiring acne victims, BUT if the first employer were
free to hire the acne victims and the second one were free
to hire the dwarfs, then these employers would not be eager
to drive down wages to nothing and/or send work overseas.
What's the remedy? This is simple! Have a little mercy
on ghetto dwellers, eliminate equal employment opportunity,
bring jobs back to the U.S., give employers freedom to
deal with traits which they can tolerate and to reject
traits which they cannot, give job candidates the opportu-
nity to seek out the highest bidder in the marketplace
instead of being equalized to the lowest concept of value
per the lowest bidding employer for his least preferred
job candidate.
If anyone would like a free email copy of the multipart
treatise on the downward wage equalizing effects of
equal employment opportunity, send a brief request to:
na716472@anon.penet.fi DO NOT USE THE REPLY feature
of your software! Please compose a new, ONE LINE request
and send to: na716472@anon.penet.fi
"Government enforced wage equalization will work only in the
downward direction" - despite any initial appearance to the
contrary! And the most shocking thing of all is that the least
preferred job candidate doesn't even have to be awarded a job
for many phenomena to take place!
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to abuse@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to admin@anon.penet.fi
|