Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmum.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watmum!cdshaw
From: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: The new equal rights rule
Message-ID: <113@watmum.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-May-85 15:57:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: watmum.113
Posted: Fri May  3 15:57:13 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 4-May-85 00:11:06 EDT
References: <262@looking.UUCP> <610@lsuc.UUCP> <491@mnetor.UUCP> <1043@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1044@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 45

In the referenced article, someone voiced the concern that the equal rights
rule relates to quality/quantity of education, and how kids in the boonies
lose out.

Well, that's all well and good, this concern for the well-being of country
folks versus city folks, but it really has nothing to do with equal rights
legislation.

Equal rights legislation has nothing at all to do with making one's economic
situation on par/better/worse than one's neighbor. It has to do with equality
before the law, and with equal treatment by society in general. 

Thus, no one is seriously suggesting that "discrimination with relation to 
mental handicap" means that you can be sued into hiring an incompetent. What 
it means is that you can't out-of-hand deny a job to someone because of a 
mental handicap.

People claiming otherwise are simply being very knee-jerk in their reactions,
since they seem to think that because of this constitutional change, governments
are going to take their jobs/resources/whatever away. The general fear, of
course, is a radical change in the status quo. I think that people need not
worry, since the status quo in this case can only be changed through court
action, and all of the ridiculous cases won't get very far.

As for things like Equal pay/ Equal work, I see no problem with this in
principle. The problem comes when it is implemented in a stupid manner.
An earlier poster this week mentioned "greater pay for greater value"
(with a :-), I think). This kind of nonsense is what one hears all the time
when EP/EV comes up.. the fear that people will be told what to pay their 
employees. I for one think that an interpretation of that kind has a snowball's
chance in hell of gaining root in this country.

Equal Pay legislation should (and hopefully will) only apply to employees
within the same organization. The chances are extremely close to zero that
legislation can be twisted to mean "Well, there's this one clerk in Woolco 
gets $30/hour, so all clerks across Canada not making that much should get 
a raise". 

I guess my main point is that opposing carefully-written equality legislation
on the basis of bogus pseudo-economic arguments is the heart of silliness.

Sorry for rambling...

Chris Shaw    watmath!watmum!cdshaw
University of Waterloo