[overflow] Bigotry etc.

[Chris Croughton <keris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In rec.music.filk, Gerry Tyra wrote:

>Chris Croughton wrote:
>
>> >If you're employing people at all, you'd better be fair about it and
>> >hire for straight ability or else...see above.
>> 
>> Or else what?  You're going to use force?  The staff are free to leave
>> if they don't like te way I treat them, customers are free to boycott my
>> business, but it's all down to whether they like what I produce more
>> than they dislike other things I do.
>
>There are a series of US federal and state laws that give employees a
>large number of options on what they can sue for that in years gone by
>would have been considered a joke.  But the juries are making
>significant awards now.

No laws which apply in the case I was addressing, only Leslie's "no
bigotry" one which I am showing is unworkable.

>The scariest one on the books right now is "The Americans with
>Disabilities Act."  In the beginning, the idea was if you ran a business
>and the job didn't require (literally) walking, there is no reason that
>you should preclude someone from working for you who was in a wheel
>chair.  This includes removing any physical barriers (install wheel
>chair ramps, etc.).  And you can not fire an employee for developing
>this disability after they've been hired.

Same sort of thing in the UK (except they have to be able to do the job,
you don't have to keep employing a colour designer who goes blind).

>I don't have a major problem with this per se.

I do.  An example I saw:

A small company (about 20 producing employees, plus managers etc.), a
disabled (wheelchair) person applied and we were told that we had to
accept him, even though it meant installing ramps, a small lift, etc.
(and getting planning permission, it was a 'listed' building and
everything has to be approved before you can make changes).  The cost
was comparable to that of employing him for a couple of years before he
even started.  Then, he started and decided after a month that he didn't
like it and left.  The company was out several tens of thousands of
pounds, plus disruption to productivity to make the changes, for a
person who wouldn't have repaid that cost even if they had stayed.

>It is the door that it opens that scares me.  The disability list has
>been extended to include psychological disabilities.  Now, think about
>any behavior that would cause an employer to want to fire an employee.
>Suddenly the employee argues that it isn't his fault, s/he has a
>psychological disability.  Rather than removing the person, you have to
>keep them on the payroll and pay for the treatment.  Someone
>insubordinate, they have a problem with authority.  Chronically late,
>low self-esteem.  And so forth.

On the other hand, those with real psychological (and other things the
medics don't accept, like for a long time RSI) can get left out.  It
works both ways.  "Positive discrimination" is still discrimination.

>> As for 'fair', how about if I pay my male workers $200k per year (at
>> current rates, well over what anyone else is paying) and my female ones
>> $300k a year?  They're all far better off than they would be working for
>> a competitor, what cause do they have for complaint?  If the men don't
>> like it, they can leave and go to work for someone else for less; I
>> don't see how it benefits them or anyone else, but that's their problem.
>
>What you say is sane and rational.  But we're talking about the law.  I

No, I'm not.  I'm talking about Leslie's scenario where she only had 6
'rules', one of which was "no bigotry".

>can see the suit now, you're accused of sexual discrimination.  And
>heaven help you if you ever slept with one of the women, your entire
>female staff will be labeled as prostitutes.

By whom?  They'd better be able to back that up or they'd be in hot
water themselves.

>You are correct here.  The law, at least on this side of the pond, is
>about patterns of discrimination.  If you have 100 employees, none of
>them are black, and 15% of the local population is black, you could be
>in trouble.  On the other hand, if all 100 of your employees are PhDs in
>quantum mechanics, and the only blacks in the world who are qualified
>have never applied and are happily employed elsewhere, you don't have a
>problem.

The trouble is that governments tend to not bother about "reasonable",
they prefer measurable things like quotas.  "In this community 1 in 10
is blonde so 10% of your workforce must be blonde".

>In a quick summation for most of your other comments on the rights of
>the employer: Yes, I see where you are coming from, I agree with you,
>but US law just doesn't work that way anymore.

Nor does British law.  It's irrelevant, though, because what I was
talking about was the unworkableness of /Leslie's/ laws...

Chris C