We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Equality in Employment Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Jakanian Liberal Socialists
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2119
Description[?]:
| This bill states that all employment should be obtained based solely on an individual's own merit and ability. Hiring should not be influenced by race, gender, sexuality, or any other similar criteria. This bill recognises the hypocracy of positive discrimination programs, and disallows both the government and private companies from pursuing such policies. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Positive discrimination.
Old value:: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Current: The government does not regulate hiring policies.
Proposed: No form of positive discrimination is permitted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:39:44, October 01, 2005 CET | From |   Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Equality in Employment Bill |
| Message | The LP asserts that there is no need for anti-discrimination laws for employment. First of all, any form of anti-discrimination legislation is an infringement of individual rights because it punishes individuals on the basis of holding certain beliefs (however incorrect) and acting upon them. The often cited counter argument here (I'm not trying to strawman here, I'm just anticipating an argument I've heard before) is that, according to that reasoning, racists murders should not be punished because they were acting upon their beliefs. In thsi case, however, we punish racists murders for violating someone's right to life, not for being racist. To tac on an additional punishment due to the *motivation* behind the crime is punishing the person for thinking a certain way (beating up protestors for expressing anti-war sentiments is similarly punishing a certain way of thinking). We acknowledge an employer's right to reject applicants. To punish an employer for the motivation behind rejecting an applicant is punishing the employer for thinking in a certain way. Secondly, while well-intentioned, anti-discirimination legislation can often have undesirable effects. There is little evidence to show that an applicant was rejected on the basis of his race, sex or other attribute -- the true motivation is only known by the employer himself. The only proof is therefore the applicant's particular attribute. In this case, either very few anti-discrimination cases will pass as they will be judged as having insufficient evidence, or most cases that include a "minority" applicant will pass. In the former scenario, the legislation is useless. In the latter scenario, employers can be prosecuted for discrimination simply for rejecting minority applicants, which would lead to a disproportional hiring of those minorities, as well as a lowered standard of worker performance. Furthermore, an employer might be racist and not hire or fire a certain worker for reasons not related to the worker's sex or race, but that employer would then be unfairly charged with discrimination anyway. Thirdly, in a society that values civil rights highly, like United Jakania, discrimination simply does not pay. Companies have a public image to uphold, unless they want to suffer the wrath of disgruntled consumers and, consequently, lower sales and stock prices. If the media hears of discriminatory hiring practices exercised by a certain company, they will gladly inform the civil-right-conscious public (bad news sells), who will then fiercely boycott the company's products or services (or urge other companies to do so). |
| Date | 05:06:17, October 01, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Equality in Employment Bill |
| Message | We seem to disagree here. I concede on the point that discrimination is unlikely to be proven, but that doesn't neccesarily mean courts will be encouraged to side with minorities by default; indeed, that's the kind of attitude this bill seeks to address. If the bill asserts "this is the government's position; this is wrong", and prevents discrimination of finding its way into offical 'how to employ' booklets for companies, then it's had a positive impact and is worth voting for. Just because it'll secure ten people's freedoms instead of 100 doesn't mean its not worth having. We both seem to believe in personal freedom, but that should include freedom from society and not simply freedom from government. Each can be equally oppressive and each needs to be guarded against. Allowing discrimination based on qualities an individual has no ability to change will not promote freedom or any kind of civil right. It takes the right of employers to discriminate, correct, but as with actions like murder, theft, and so on, this is a freedom we should be willing to oppose for greater, more far reaching freedoms. We can't allow people to be discriminated against based on something they can never address, or we'll create sub-classes of unemplyed individuals, no matter how many traits they have beneficial to themselves or Jakania. Indeed, you mentioned that counter point already, but it is valid. United Jakania may value civil rights now, but this can change. Perception of nations and ethnicities is very volatile. People generalise, and they rarely do it of their own volition either. Rarely does one decide they disapprove of superficial characters such much they will act on such opinions without pressure to do so from the people around them. This is not simply about individual employers disliking people from another continent. One war, one international threat, one angry televangelist, one historical misconception that People from Lemmingland are undereducated antisocial hicks, and suddenly the majority will be clamouring for the removal of rights from a minority group. Freedoms should be assured for -all- people, whether it's freedom of speech, employment, anything. Otherwise we'll be reduced to a society not of civil rights, but civil privilidges. |
| Date | 06:35:03, October 01, 2005 CET | From | Islamic Nationalist Front | To | Debating the Equality in Employment Bill |
| Message | I'm too tired; I'm just going to argue OOC. I apologize for the bit of confusion on my part, I forgot that positive discrimination = affirmative action and did not read the bill description carefully :P Still, the bulk of my arguments hold true. I applaud your effort at creating a colorblind (and genderblind?). On a side note: the wonders of affrimative action! Some elite American colleges treat Asian students as though they had scored 50 less points on their SATs in terms of preference for being accepted. Back to the argument. Your bill does not say "this is the government's position; this is wrong," rather it, "disallows both the government and private companies from pursuing such policies." I would be fine with this if it applied only to government -- as the representation of the people, the government can be however socially progressive or regressive as the majority of the people desire. However, not letting private companies initiate such policies still infringes upon the employer's freedom of thought. "Just because it'll secure ten people's freedoms instead of 100 doesn't mean its not worth having." I hate to be a utilitarian, but if it comes to a dichotomy of violating 10 people's freedoms or violating 100 people's freedoms, I would go with the former. "We both seem to believe in personal freedom, but that should include freedom from society and not simply freedom from government. Each can be equally oppressive and each needs to be guarded against." There's a significant difference between society and government. Within society, you have the freedom to associate or not associate. You can work for a certain company or not. You have the freedom to do as you wish within a society, so long as you do not abridge others' freedoms. (This is not without consequence, of course. You have the freedom to not take a shower, but others have the freedom of not associating with you.) Government, however, is different because government has the sole monopoly on force. Oppression by government is unavoidable because ignoring it lands you in jail. Government can force you to do somethign under the threat of a fine, a jail term, or a firing squad. The most a society can do is shun you. "Allowing discrimination based on qualities an individual has no ability to change will not promote freedom or any kind of civil right. It takes the right of employers to discriminate, correct..." I disagree. Like I said already, it promotes freedom of thought by not preventing individuals, including employers, from thinking in certain ways. It is not so much the right or freedom of employers to discriminate, it is their right to think. Let me put it this way. You have the freedom of thought and the freedom of speech, put em together and you can say what you think. You have the freedom of thought and the freedom of the press, put em together and you can write a letter to the editor describing what you think and the newspaper can publish it. You have the freedom of thought and the freedom to live your life, put em together adn you can live your life however you think best (so long as it doesn't abridge the liberties of others). You have the freedom of thought and the freedom to employ or not employ someone, put em together and you have the freedom to employ whoever you want, regardless of what you exactly think. This does not abridge the applicant's freedom because 1) it's a mutal, voluntary agreement and 2) the applicant can always apply for a job elsewhere. "...as with actions like murder, theft, and so on, this is a freedom we should be willing to oppose for greater, more far reaching freedoms." More far reaching freedoms like...what? The freedom to have a job? That sound nice, but is in direct violation of other, more grounded liberties. Employment is a voluntary agreement between two parties. Coercing one party to accept the terms of that agreement when it does not want to for the benefit of the other party... If we're talking about employment and the coerced party is the employee, this is called slavery. If we're talking about employment and the coerced part is the employer, this is "anti-descrimination" legislation. "United Jakania may value civil rights now, but this can change....the majority will be clamouring for the removal of rights from a minority group." Then you have to make a choice: democracy or liberty. Note that if an anti-descrimination law passes, then it is only so because the people's representatives (and therefore indrectly the people themselves) want it so. If the people turned into racist bigots, like in your scenario, then they would simply elect officials that would repeal the anti-discrimination law. The minority still suffers. What you fail to realize here is the potential for a free market solution. In the racist majority scenario, most people want discrimination so they repeal the anti-discrimination law. They can also further oppress the minority by taking away their other rights, deporting them, what have you (think Palmer raids). But, if the government's power is limited and it cannot ban or enofrce discrimination, then the most the majority can do is shun the majority (oppression by society). That includes the minority not being able to find jobs. BUT WAIT! We said majority. Well, the majority wins in a democracy, but not necessarily so in a free market situation. In a free market, the majority of employers might want to descriminate against the minority, but not all. That means you and I could own a business and we would be free to employ all the minority workers we want. In fact, we could go one step further and make it our policy to employ only minorities (unless there are positive discrimination laws in palce). The same goes for anyone who is not a bigot, including the minority workers themselves (the Nation of Islam at one point, for example, promoted economic activity solely within the black community) Not to mention that all those unemployed minority workers (increase supply of labor) would mean companies could pay lower wages than for non-minority workers, which would be enough of an incentive for some moderately racist employers to hire the minority workers anyway. |
| Date | 07:40:21, October 01, 2005 CET | From | Jakanian Liberal Socialists | To | Debating the Equality in Employment Bill |
| Message | Touché! Valid points, indeed. I think from what we've both posted, we both believe that a non-discriminatory society would be superior to the alternative. We just disagree as to which situation would be better in bringing that about. Employers realising it in the future, due to the free market, at the expense of qualified applicants now; or the government disallowing it now, restricting in a minor way the freedom of choice of the employers but not breaching any right of fair consideration to the applicant. I just realised I actually talked myself off on a tangent in my original post. (Duhhh...) The first three quaters of it should still apply to positive discrimination, the latter bit mainly just to discrimination in general. The last paragraph you posted swayed me most, actually. I would have thought that a constitutional republic (of which modern day governments tend to be) would be protected from tyranny of the majority, and so positive discrimination would never be neccesary. But particracy is much closer to a democracy than anything RL, so the rights of anyone can easily be lost at the voters' discretion. That said, if a tyrant majority began calling the shots, whether we vote yes or no now won't make a difference. I'll keep my vote as 'yes', for now, but less vehemently. Whether I vote yes or no, I feel we'll lose something. Whether it's the ability for hard work and ability to always be rewarded over something like place of birth, or the rights of an employee to include certain (however irrelevantly seeming to us) terms of a mututal agreement. We'll see what the other parties think. Thanks for the discussion. ^^ |
| Date | 17:25:51, October 01, 2005 CET | From | Nudist Party of United Jakania | To | Debating the Equality in Employment Bill |
| Message | The NP believes a person should neither be fired nor hired based on any criteria other than their skills and qualifications. If a man and woman both apply for the job, the job goes to the person who is most qualified, rather than to the person whose gender fulfills a quota. Also, a person cannot be fired "at will". A person must have shown a consistent failure to meet the qualification/skills requirements to complete the job. However, in work of a religious nature, the NP recognizes a need for hiring persons who will adhere to the religious beliefs of the relgious organization. It would create a conflict of interest to hire a Buddhist monk to be a youth pastor for a Baptist church, or vice versa. This would ONLY apply if the work were directly religious in nature, and would not prevent said Baptist church from hiring the Buddhist monk to be a gardner/maintenance personnel. Otherwise, qualification alone is the standard practice of employment. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 25 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 29 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 46 |
| Random fact: In your Message Centre there is a really useful feature which allows you to subscribe to all of the bill debates in your nation. If you use that, then the "Watched Discussions" section will show you every time a new message has been posted on a bill. You can also subscribe to other pages you want to follow, such as your nation message-board, party organisations or bills outside your nation which you are interested in. |
| Random quote: "The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant." - Maximilien Robespierre |