Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis From: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <1095@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 23:41:32 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.1095 Posted: Mon Jun 3 23:41:32 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 4-Jun-85 12:46:52 EDT References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science Lines: 93 Summary: In article <1094@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >EPFWOEV is *not* supposed to be a voluntary program. > >It is supposed to be *the law*. > >Now, typically when a society has laws there exists some means with >which to enforce these laws. > >The reason that a means of enforcement is necessary is because >no matter what the law is, there is someone, somewhere, who will >break this law. There are lots of kinds of enforcement. Some types of enforcement relies on the complainant; others establish an enforcement arm. In the former variety, the onus is essentially on the complainant to establish that an offence took place (human rights legislation -- in the 9 provinces that still have it -- is of this kind); criminal law generally relies on a police force. Much legislation is enforced by a combination of complaint and official enforcement. >Enter the dreaded "wage police" (actually I suspect in true big gov't >style a "Ministry of Wages" will be created.) Their job would probably >be, at a minimum, to determine whether a complainant is justified in >receiving greater pay on the basis of evidence presented. (In this sense, >I admit, they are more than mere police) The technical term is ``administrative tribunal''. Such tribunals are very common; in BC, we have the Labour Relations Board, the Workers' Compensation Board, and -- in the bad old days before BC got Canada's best human rights legislation -- the Human Rights Branch. The office of the Ombudsman is given the role of ensuring that these tribunals behave fairly. The premise (in the days of the evil socialists) was that a tribunal can foster conciliation, rather than throwing every dispute into the courts. >If they rule in favour of the complainant, they would presumably then >*order* the employer to increase the wages of all the workers in the >affected job classification. In effect, the "wage police", read >government, will be setting wage levels. Depends how broad the ruling is. In any case government sets wage levels anyway (and in my case, I wish they'd do a better job of it). >Undoubtedly, the role of the "wage police" will be much greater than >as described above. They'll probably spend oodles of money and time >attempting to classify every existing job category in the country so >that decisions could be rendered quickly. No evidence. >They would also probably be actively monitoring the wage levels of the >various job classifications in major companies looking for non-compliances >(a ha, they are police after all) with the law. I imagine the NDP >wouldn't have it any other way. You imagine wrong. Read NDP policy on the subject some time. >I've asked this before and nobody nibbled so I'll ask Mr. Shaw >specifically. If EPFWOEV is necessary because it is only "fair" >that two people involved in jobs of "equal value" in the same organization >receive the same remuneration, then how can it be justified that two people >in *different* organizations doing exactly the same work (or work of "equal >value") not be paid exactly the same amount? Is it not "fair" that they >should be paid the same? Is this not the next logical step? Wouldn't this, >coincidentally, make life extremely easy for the unions as they piggy-back >their way to ever increasing wages? The defect of this argument is that there is a large combination of factors which come into play. It is clearly unreasonable to expect the same behaviour of a company which is just hovering above bankruptcy as that of a company which has just reported record profits. Further, very often the responsibility distribution is different in different organisation. In fact, the question of equal pay for work of equal value is a very long term one. Its full implementation will take at least a century. In that time scale, the first step is to ensure that employers treat their employees fairly. We all have to give up some ``rights'' in the process (just as we no longer have the right to own slaves or the right to burgle other peoples' houses). >P.S. If anyone can explain to me how there can exist *effective* EPFWOEV >legislation without a means of enforcement (i.e. "wage police") I'd >love to hear it. There's no way. I'm not an anarchist (which I suspect Jim is), and therefore accept the need to have the State limit my freedoms in order to make our society fairer.