From: XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis)
Newsgroups: ba.politics
Subject: Re: But it is OK to coerce certain groups...
Date: 27 Jan 1993 23:00:21 -0800
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: ba
NNTP-Posting-Host: morrow.stanford.edu

In article <1k6fj9INN1lg@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>In article <1k4tkrINNo5q@morrow.stanford.edu> XA.U20@forsythe.stanford.edu (June Genis) writes:
>>In article <1k1dc2INN8tn@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>,
>>stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU (coram populo) writes:
>>>For instance, it would be acceptable for a business, not to pay one empolyee's
>>>benefits for health insurance, while paying another employees, and give no
>>
>>A contract of any sort comes into existance only when the terms are
>>acceptable to both sides.  Why should anyhone else besides the
>>direct parties to that contract be able to dictate to those parties
>>what acceptable terms are?
>
>That is not my point- if a employer is to have full decision making power over
>his business- then it is quite OK for him/her to discriminate at any given time.
>If for instance he decides that he doesn't like employee A, even though A's
>work is excellent, he can do things like, stop paying their health benefits or
>maybe reduce their salary at any given time.

This is utter nonsense.  Would you go to work for someone who made
it clear that under the terms you were being hired your
compensation package could be changed at any time without advance
notice?  I doubt it.  Ans I doubt that many other would either.
Stability in our job situation is actually sometimes of greater
importance to us than the monetary value of the package.  Note that
unions spend a great deal more of their negotiating time over work
rule issues including the circumstances under which a union member
mnay be terminated.  And, of course, salasry and benefits can only
be changed as part of a newly negotiated contract.  Even exempt
personel are made promises ab out salary and benefits which are
covered in the writing in employer policy manuals.  An employer who
tried to change these policies without the notice promised in the
policies themse4lves would find themselves in court in short order.

>So the point is- if we have non-discrimination laws, then they become part of
>the contract between employee and employer.  And therefore the employer cannot
>simply fire or cause trouble for an employee if at a later date the employer
>discovers that A is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or a mormon.

If an employer hires anyone grounds for termination should be
clearly specified either in a contract or employment policy manual.
If the employer later tries to terminate that employee for any
other reason he or she has grounds for a "wrongful termination"
suit against that employer.  The employer should have the right to
specify strange reasons for terminating people.  The employees
should have the right to say that those terms are unacceptable.
A point of mutual satisfaction must be negotiated.  There are other
ways to discourage employers from discriminating than passing
anti-discrimination laws, in other words without violating the
employer and employees from indepently negotiating terms of mutual
satisfaction to them.

/June