From: bschlesinger@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Barry Schlesinger)
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.214739.1488@u.washington.edu>, sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes...
>In article <9S5-sJB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>
>>No, in the original Constitutional sense.  There is no power granted
>>to the Federal government giving it the ability to interfere with
>>such contracts.
> 
			...

Where is there a "right of contract" in the Constitution?  Where is 
the government forbidden to regulate contracts?

Nearly every time I hear the "right of free contract" brought up, in
connection with pending legislation it is by representatives of
organizations with the economic power to dictate the terms of the
contract with those with whom they are negotiating.  In particular... 


>>|> This works fine if you have an employer who is willing
>>|> to negotiate.  If not, there are no options.
> 
>>Then I guess you find another employer.  

If jobs are scarce, this alternative may not be practical.  People 
with families to feed have to take the jobs they can get.  In blue 
collar America the practical choice may be to accept a job where the 
working conditions are unsafe or lead to long term health problems -- 
or not to be able to support one's family.  In the computer industry,
and in a lesser sense in many professions, until recently, changing 
jobs if one finds problems in the current one has been a realistic 
option.  For working class people, it hasn't been.  

Let's look at another situation of "free contract." Right after 
Hurricane Andrew, trucks of ice were being brought in and sold for 
five times the normal price.  Now one might say that such practices
were perfectly legitimate; the hurricane victims had a free choice to 
buy the ice or do without.  Well, maybe so.  But my recollection of 
the news coverage was that the practice was considered low, taking 
unfair advantage of the powerless.


>>After all, it your employers
>>job, its *not* yours.  It would be unreasonable for the government to
>>force a person to accept employment which was unacceptable to the person
>>and it is equally unreasonable for the government to force an employer
>>to make an offer to an individual that is unacceptable to the employer.

Then by this argument, employers are perfectly justified in 
considering employees unacceptable because of their race or religion.  
When that was the practice, whole groups of people were excluded from 
some fields for reasons totally unrelated to their ability to perform 
the work.

>>There is a difference between provision and protection.  I have a
>>right to the fruits of my labor.  In the real world, this requires
>>protection against those who would violate that right.  It 
>>may require some enforcement to ensure that my right is maintained.
>>Family leave is not a right.  It requires that a business pay
>>for your 'right'.  This isn't enforcement, it is theft.
> 
>Your concept of "rights" is not only too abstract,
>it is too mystical for me.
> 

Mr. Howe's conclusions appear to be arrived at by beginning with some 
basic definitions and principles of "rights", and then accepting all 
logical conclusions that are derived from these principles.  But I 
think there is an additional step required in reaching ethical 
standards.  If one begins with a set of principles and then logically 
derives conclusions that appear morally unpalatable, one may either 
accept the conclusions as the natural consequence of logical
principles or reject the conclusions and reformulate the principles so
that they lead to different results. To me a system of principles that
decrees it proper, in the practical world, to force workers to decide
between a job that requires them to risk their life and health or have
no job at all is unacceptable.  If a system leads to the conclusion
that pattern discrimination on the basis of race or religion is
proper, than that system needs to be rethought. 
			my views only

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc