Unions. Of No Use Anymore.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

So the church must hire the known, convicted pedophile who is out on parole to work in the church? Really?

That's incredibly stupid.

Yes indeed, an incredibly stupid post. Someone with a criminal record like that would be legally prohibited from working with children in any context in Australian schools or child care centres, and I imagine there would be similar laws in any civilised country..

Also highly ironic given the large number of pedophile priests who preyed on their flocks without let or hindrance...

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

So the church must hire the known, convicted pedophile who is out on parole to work in the church? Really?

That's incredibly stupid.

Yes indeed, an incredibly stupid post. Someone with a criminal record like that would be legally prohibited from working with children in any context in Australian schools or child care centres, and I imagine there would be similar laws in any civilised country..

Also highly ironic given the large number of pedophile priests who preyed on their flocks without let or hindrance...

Evasion. And what if the pedophile doesn't have a criminal record? What if he's just an outspoken NAMBLA member who vigorously and unashamedly advocates "sex before eight, or it's too late"?

Do you know how they got there? They got there thanks to Vatican II and the liberalization of the rules for entry into the priesthood, which allowed an entire generation of pedophiles to become priests because somebody thought it was too restrictive to carefully vet candidates for the priesthood to weed out the undesirables.

And that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws do. They prevent employers from weeding out undesirables on the premise that people have some "right" to work for a particular employer no matter what their actions and beliefs are.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

And that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws do. They prevent employers from weeding out undesirables on the premise that people have some "right" to work for a particular employer no matter what their actions and beliefs are.

Yet again you miss the point. There are ample grounds for "weeding out undesirables", particularly in any job involving contact with children. In our state, to maintain registration as a teacher, one has to pass a regular police check, for example.

(luckily my arrests at various demonstrations in the 70s don't count against me... )

The anti-discrimination provisions are there to stop employers refusing to employ on the basis of race, sex, religion beliefs or sexual orientation. None of those aspects of one's life interfere with one's ability to do a given job (with the odd exception, like a specific job of being a religious education teacher in a catholic school - perfectly reasonable that you need to be a catholic in good standing...)

And no-one has a "right" to a particular job, of course. If 2 people are interviewed for a job, and the more highly qualified or competent one is chosen, then the failed candidate hasn't had his rights breached. However, it is a different story if 2 are interviewed, and both are equally well qualified, and the employer deliberately picks a white person over an asian, or straight vs gay, or any number of other forms of discrimination based on a personal bias.

It is possible for things to go too far, of course. I have my doubts about the practice of positive discrimination to fill quotas for a certain number of women, or blacks, for example...

[Rum]

Edit: Oops - wrong thread. Deleted.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

And that's exactly what anti-discrimination laws do. They prevent employers from weeding out undesirables on the premise that people have some "right" to work for a particular employer no matter what their actions and beliefs are.

Yet again you miss the point. There are ample grounds for "weeding out undesirables", particularly in any job involving contact with children. In our state, to maintain registration as a teacher, one has to pass a regular police check, for example.

(luckily my arrests at various demonstrations in the 70s don't count against me... )

The anti-discrimination provisions are there to stop employers refusing to employ on the basis of race, sex, religion beliefs or sexual orientation. None of those aspects of one's life interfere with one's ability to do a given job (with the odd exception, like a specific job of being a religious education teacher in a catholic school - perfectly reasonable that you need to be a catholic in good standing...)

But they may interfere with the employer's ability to make a profit.

And no-one has a "right" to a particular job, of course. If 2 people are interviewed for a job, and the more highly qualified or competent one is chosen, then the failed candidate hasn't had his rights breached. However, it is a different story if 2 are interviewed, and both are equally well qualified, and the employer deliberately picks a white person over an asian, or straight vs gay, or any number of other forms of discrimination based on a personal bias.

Why is the owner of a business not allowed to let his personal biases be reflected in his business decisions. If he wants to tattoo swastikas on his face and shout "Heil Hitler" to everyone that comes in, that's his right. So if he doesn't want to hire a Jew to work for him, why should he be disallowed from doing so? Wouldn't that be infringing on his right to freedom of (dis)association?

It is possible for things to go too far, of course. I have my doubts about the practice of positive discrimination to fill quotas for a certain number of women, or blacks, for example...

What about the holocaust survivor being forced to employ a skinhead Neo-Nazi?

What about a black business owner being forced to hire an outspoken KKK member?

Are there no legitimate reasons why an employer might wish to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, political affiliation or sexual preference? None at all?

[JimC]

Seth, you are in a tiny, impotent minority here (as often is the case). The vast majority of people in civilised countries see discrimination based on race or sex as a hangover from a less civilised past, and fully support legislation that makes such discrimination illegal.

No one is ever "forced" to hire any specific individual; that is simply an urban myth.

Seth wrote:

Are there no legitimate reasons why an employer might wish to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, political affiliation or sexual preference? None at all?

Very, very few. I mentioned the example of a religious education teacher before. No one would be too concerned if a cleaning company were to hire female cleaners for the specific job of cleaning a female shower block, I suppose. A job that requires a great deal of physical strength may reasonably have a much higher proportion of males, as long as the small number of women with the requisite strength were hired as well. A political party would not be faulted if it employed advisers who belonged to that party, but they would be in the wrong if they made it a requirement for the office cleaning staff.

[Seth]

Seth, you are in a tiny, impotent minority here (as often is the case).

And that makes my interlocutory questions invalid how, exactly?

The vast majority of people in civilised countries see discrimination based on race or sex as a hangover from a less civilised past, and fully support legislation that makes such discrimination illegal.

And their feelings should outweigh the rights of individuals to speak and associate freely why, exactly?

No one is ever "forced" to hire any specific individual; that is simply an urban myth.

No it's not.

Seth wrote:

Are there no legitimate reasons why an employer might wish to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, political affiliation or sexual preference? None at all?

Very, very few. I mentioned the example of a religious education teacher before. No one would be too concerned if a cleaning company were to hire female cleaners for the specific job of cleaning a female shower block, I suppose. A job that requires a great deal of physical strength may reasonably have a much higher proportion of males, as long as the small number of women with the requisite strength were hired as well. A political party would not be faulted if it employed advisers who belonged to that party, but they would be in the wrong if they made it a requirement for the office cleaning staff.

So, there are valid reasons, which means that what you consider to be invalid reasons are little more than your personal opinion, right?

So why should your personal opinion, or the personal opinions of anyone (or everyone) else outweigh the right of the individual to speak freely and associate with whom he pleases?

Why should women object to a male custodian working in a female shower block? That's blatant sexual discrimination. In fact, the whole notion of segregated male and female shower facilities is inherently sexist and, according to your argument, cannot be permitted.

So why are those exceptions you state exceptions and not violations?

[pErvinalia]

Seth, you are in a tiny, impotent minority here (as often is the case). The vast majority of people in civilised countries see discrimination based on race or sex as a hangover from a less civilised past, and fully support legislation that makes such discrimination illegal.

No one is ever "forced" to hire any specific individual; that is simply an urban myth.

Seth wrote:

Are there no legitimate reasons why an employer might wish to discriminate based on sex, race, religion, political affiliation or sexual preference? None at all?

Very, very few. I mentioned the example of a religious education teacher before. No one would be too concerned if a cleaning company were to hire female cleaners for the specific job of cleaning a female shower block, I suppose. A job that requires a great deal of physical strength may reasonably have a much higher proportion of males, as long as the small number of women with the requisite strength were hired as well. A political party would not be faulted if it employed advisers who belonged to that party, but they would be in the wrong if they made it a requirement for the office cleaning staff.

A mate of mine was an advisor in the Howard conservative government. At the time he was a Labor supporter (but not a member of the ALP).

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

So, there are valid reasons, which means that what you consider to be invalid reasons are little more than your personal opinion, right?

So why should your personal opinion, or the personal opinions of anyone (or everyone) else outweigh the right of the individual to speak freely and associate with whom he pleases?

Why should women object to a male custodian working in a female shower block? That's blatant sexual discrimination. In fact, the whole notion of segregated male and female shower facilities is inherently sexist and, according to your argument, cannot be permitted.

So why are those exceptions you state exceptions and not violations?

You do realise we are dealing with the real world of functioning countries, not the fantasy world of a make-believe libertarian state?

Anti-discrimination legislation will always have provisions for reasonable exceptions to be argued for; it is not my personal opinion that counts, it is up to a court to decide whether a given exception is reasonable.

Segregated shower rooms are not "inherently sexist" by any reasonable definition of sexism. What would be discriminatory is providing facilities for one sex, and not the other.

At heart, anti-discrimination legislation will always be about whether a person's rights to equal treatment are being infringed on the basis of race, religion or gender where such factors have no reasonable effect on their ability to do a given job, which is true in the vast number of cases. In no case does this threaten the ability of an employer to make choices based on ability, competence or suitability for a job.

[Seth]

You do realise we are dealing with the real world of functioning countries, not the fantasy world of a make-believe libertarian state?

I'm asking you questions about your beliefs with respect to anti-discrimination laws, and I'm examining the inherent hypocrisies in such laws.

Anti-discrimination legislation will always have provisions for reasonable exceptions to be argued for; it is not my personal opinion that counts, it is up to a court to decide whether a given exception is reasonable.

So, you have no personal opinions and you rely on courts to do your thinking for you? I see.

Segregated shower rooms are not "inherently sexist" by any reasonable definition of sexism.

What's your "reasonable definition of sexism?"

What would be discriminatory is providing facilities for one sex, and not the other.

We're not talking about providing facilities, we're talking about discrimination in the employment market. Therefore we may presume a priori that facilities are provided for body cleansing, dressing and undressing and elimination, among other assorted tasks associated with such facilities.

Two questions arise with respect to discrimination: Why are there separate facilities for men and women, and why are members of the opposite sex prohibited from being employed in one or another of the facilities? To deny me the right to work in the women's locker room clearly discriminates against me on the basis of sex, which is prohibited, is it not?

At heart, anti-discrimination legislation will always be about whether a person's rights to equal treatment are being infringed on the basis of race, religion or gender where such factors have no reasonable effect on their ability to do a given job, which is true in the vast number of cases. In no case does this threaten the ability of an employer to make choices based on ability, competence or suitability for a job.

You've neatly evaded the specific examples I've given of situations where "ability, competence or suitability" are, or may be less important that the free speech, religion and free association rights of the employer. Care to address any of them?

[rainbow]

We in Africa are very fond of Catholics.