acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) (05/02/85)
In article <1043@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) writes: >The point of this whole discussion is one I've made before: the intent of >the Charter is to provide equality of opportunity, and to *prevent* >infringing on people's rights. > The concept of equality of opportunity is very nice but probably not something that can be achieved without even greater government involvement in all aspects of our society. As an example consider the equality of opportunity in all levels of education. I personally feel that students from the rural regions (ie the boondocks) of this country are greatly discriminated against when it comes to attending university. The direct costs of attending university for someone from Prince George are quite a bit greater than for someone who can live at home and attend a nearby institution. There is the added cost of moving to and from the University, the extra room and board costs associated with not living at home plus the cost of the trip home at Christmas. All of this weighs heavily on the decision to attend university versus getting a job and equality of opportunity won't even be close to existing until all the extra costs I have outlined are eliminated. But one doesn't even need to look at such a big ticket item like university education. One can find all sorts of inequities between the public schools in the major urban centres versus those in the outlying regions. Many of these smaller schools don't have some of the following facilities: auto mechanics shops, band instructors, wood working shops, metal work shops, home economics labs, proper chemistry labs and/or access to pools and arenas. The high school that I went to had all of these facilities but the one my cousins on Northern Vancouver Island attended had none. Did we really have the same educational opportunities? I think most of us would agree that we didn't. The only two ways my narrow mind can see to provide some degree of equality would be to: 1) Centralize schools and make students like my cousin move away from home. 2) Build all of the above described facilities so that they are easily available to the schools in each school district. To me both of these approaches are unacceptable. The first solution is too dictatorial and limits the freedom of where one my live and the second is too costly and an inefficient use of tax dollars. The intent of the Charter to provide equality of opportunity is one thing, but what really happens in practice is another. I guess we will all have to wait and see what happens. Donald Acton
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) (05/02/85)
In article <1044@ubc-cs.UUCP> acton@ubc-cs.UUCP (Donald Acton) writes: >In article <1043@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vince Manis) writes: >>The point of this whole discussion is one I've made before: the intent of >>the Charter is to provide equality of opportunity, and to *prevent* >>infringing on people's rights. >> > >The concept of equality of opportunity is very nice but probably not >something that can be achieved without even greater government involvement >in all aspects of our society. > >... one doesn't even need to look at such a big ticket item like university >education. One can find all sorts of inequities between the public schools >in the major urban centres versus those in the outlying regions. Many of >these smaller schools don't have some of the following facilities: auto >mechanics shops, band instructors, wood working shops, metal work >shops, home economics labs, proper chemistry labs and/or access to pools and >arenas. The high school that I went to had all of these facilities but >the one my cousins on Northern Vancouver Island attended had none. Did >we really have the same educational opportunities? I think most of us >would agree that we didn't. The only two ways my narrow mind can see to >provide some degree of equality would be to: > > 1) Centralize schools and make students like my cousin > move away from home. > > 2) Build all of the above described facilities so that they > are easily available to the schools in each school district. > >To me both of these approaches are unacceptable. The first solution >is too dictatorial and limits the freedom of where one my live and the >second is too costly and an inefficient use of tax dollars. > >The intent of the Charter to provide equality of opportunity is one thing, >but what really happens in practice is another. I guess we will all have to >wait and see what happens. I guess Donald is confusing what might actually be accomplished with what an ideal world with infinite responses might achieve. Neither of the above approaches sounds sensible, but sane govts (excluding of course BC's) tend to adopt elements of each. They provide school centres where possible, and sometimes build uneconomic schools to serve tiny remote communities. I suspect that what will happen (especially given the stinginess of even the Federal govt) is that some real abuses (kids being bussed 100km each way to school) will be corrected, and other less serious problems will get ad hoc solutions.
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (05/03/85)
> ... The only two ways my narrow mind can see to > provide some degree of equality would be to: > > 1) Centralize schools and make students like my cousin > move away from home. > > 2) Build all of the above described facilities so that they > are easily available to the schools in each school district. > > To me both of these approaches are unacceptable. The first solution > is too dictatorial and limits the freedom of where one my live and the > second is too costly and an inefficient use of tax dollars. Obviously, the way :-) to provide equality is to rip said facilities out of the big-city schools that have them now! And it saves money, too... Yours for greater equality, Be it ever so mediocre, -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (05/03/85)
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
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (05/05/85)
> ...all of the ridiculous cases won't get very far.
Unfortunately, there is precedent for ridiculous cases getting far. The
current court view of product liability is roughly "anytime something bad
happens, somebody *must* be at fault, and should pay heavily for it". The
situation is bad enough that, for example, production of some vaccines is
in serious danger of being shut down completely. (Vaccines are not big
money-makers, and adverse reactions to them are common enough to cause
serious [expensive] lawsuit problems for the manufacturers.)
To pick an example closer to home, if you are an employer and you fire
someone who was once involved in union organizing -- no matter why you
fire him -- you had better pray he won't sue claiming "I was fired for
union activities". Because there is a good chance he will win such a
suit, even if the claim is preposterous.
I fear I have little confidence in the courts' ability to reject silly
lawsuits, particularly in the area of employment discrimination. When
one side is some poor geek who has suffered somehow, and the other
side is a big corporation (or even a small one), the courts are not at
their most unbiased...
--
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henryrobinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (05/05/85)
In article <113@watmum.UUCP> cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: >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. The whole point of "equal pay for work of equal value" ( which is what I assume "Equal pay/ Equal work" refers to ) is that, yes indeedy-do, the omnipotent government will tell people what to pay their employees. Under the proposed changes, if a secretary and groundskeeper, for example, are deemed to perform functions that are "equal in value", then the employer would be required *by law* to equalize their wages. Since *nobody* ever talks about adjusting wages down I can only assume that the equalization process will take the form of wage increases for the "disadvantaged" earner. (Note that in the example I am assuming that the secretary and groundskeeper work for the same organization.) >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". It is true that EPFWOEV ( which, again, is what I assume "Equal Pay" refers to ) legislation currently being tossed about is supposed to apply only to employees within the same organization. However, if one considers that the ( sole, supposed ) merit of EPFWOEV is its fairness, then how can one *not* apply it to employees in different organizations? How can one argue that it is fair that a secretary and a groundskeeper in org. A both should make $15/hr, yet, in org. B where secretaries and groundskeepers do identical work to those in org. A, they only earn $10/hr? Is it not "fair" that they should all make $15/hr? My question is **WHY** do we need EPFWOEV? ( other than that it is the latest and greatest way of appeasing several vocal SIGs ) Are there not unions in this country? If secretaries think they should earn the same as groundskeepers can they not do what any other red blooded unionist would do and strike? (Here in Lotus Land all it takes is a handful of picketers to close a company down.) Why should the government go and do what the secretaries' own union won't do? Also, are groundskeeper jobs not open to women as well as men? J.B. Robinson
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (05/08/85)
In article <5566@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: ||Unfortunately, there is precedent for ridiculous cases getting far. The ||current court view of product liability is roughly "anytime something bad ||happens, somebody *must* be at fault, and should pay heavily for it". || ... ||I fear I have little confidence in the courts' ability to reject silly ||lawsuits, particularly in the area of employment discrimination. I tend to agree with you as far as U.S. courts are concerned, Henry, but on the whole things aren't so bad in Canada. Our courts tend to be quite reasonable, and the fact that costs are awarded against the losing party discourages frivolous (or even likely-to-lose) lawsuits. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave