Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!OHIO-STATE.ARPA!testa-j%osu-20 From: testa-j%osu-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Discriminatory hiring Message-ID: <12253989373.33.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Tue, 11-Nov-86 01:14:03 EST Article-I.D.: RED.12253989373.33.MCGREW Posted: Tue Nov 11 01:14:03 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 11-Nov-86 18:36:07 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: testa-j%osu-20@ohio-state.arpa Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 21 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu From: "Keith F. Lynch" > You think there is a benefit? Well, if women work just as hard as >men, and are willing to work for a lower salary than men, then a >company which discriminates against women is at a strong competitive >disadvantage. We don't NEED anti-discrimination laws, even if we >could somehow have them without violating more fundamental rights. Not true, depending on what you're defining "discriminates" as. In fact, the OPPOSITE is true in reality, if "discrimination" == "lower pay for the same work". How 'bout putting it another way: "if women work just as hard as men, and must settle for jobs at a lower salary than men, then a company which will not hire women is at a strong competitive disadvantage." I think this more accurately reflects what really happens. ~joe testa~ -------