Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: news item
Message-ID: <1340072@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 21:50:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.1340072
Posted: Thu May  9 21:50:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 00:05:50 EDT
References: <3630005@csd2.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 48


>/* dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) / 11:20 am  May  9, 1985 */
[]
>
>>
>>If coercion is used to get an employer to hire someone, and the ostensible
>>reason for the use of force is that the employer is unwilling to hire
>>that person because of his/her membership in some group (organized or
>>unorganized) of people, then you and all others in that group are members of
>>a "protected class."

>What if the *real* reason for the use of force is that the employer is
>unwilling to hire that person, etc. ?
>
>By the way, I don't see how force is being used except in an economic sense.

Let's say that the city gov't. is deciding whether to contract with
employer A, who dicriminates against group X, and employer B, who doesn't.
Theoretically, the problem only arises when employer A charges less than
employer B (under the probably ludicrous assumption that the city gov't.
tries to use its funds most efficiently).

In order to contract with employer A as opposed to employer B, all other
things (revenues/spending) being equal, the city must collect more taxes,
hence apply more coercion to the taxpayers.  Thus, the city is using coercion
in order to raise the level of employment of group X, thereby making
the members of group X a protected class.

Note, that if a private company were to contract with employer A rather than
with employer B, whether because of the discrimination or anything else,
there would be no coercion involved, since the private company
(ostensibly) obtains its profits through non-coercive means.

>Now, if a private company wants to discriminate against a group, I guess
>that's their business, just as it could then be the business of the group
>to raise hell about it and thus damage the companies business in return.
>But I don't think the government has any business with such companies.
>
>Isaac Dimitrovsky

I agree.

Note also, that I am not advocating that the city contract with firms that
dicriminate.  Personally, I do not believe that the city should be involved
in most of the activities with which it is in fact involved in.


					Michael Sykora