jdh@hou5g.UUCP (Julia Harper) (11/19/84)
to Ross: I suspect there are a lot of people (like you) for whom sexual preference, as well as race, color, creed, etc. are not an issue. They are willing to hire, or recommend such people for a job. But people like you have no recourse but to get rid of a homosexual if you told to by a client or superior. Currently, your client -- or your boss -- or whoever -- can legally tell you to fire or not hire someone because they are gay. If they didn't want a black there, they'd probably have to think up another reason, and who knows, they might end up deciding it's easier just to sit out the 3 months. One of the points of legislation against blantant discrimination is that, hopefully, people will be LESS LIKELY to throw their discriminatory views in your face, and force you to discriminate in turn. They will have to be more subtle. Fewer people will act on their prejudices if they feel it has been dubbed illegal. (This is the hope...) We all know that blacks, women, etc... are discriminated against despite the legislation that has been passed (well, we don't ALL know, but most of us do). But legislation helps deter discrimination. It helps dampen the spread of blatant outright discrimination. I hope you are for civil rights legislation for gays. It may even help you with the placement of your programmer!
greenber@acf4.UUCP (11/23/84)
<> Couldn't have said better myself (I know...I tried :=)). Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/26/84)
In her reply to Ross Greenberg, Julia Harper writes: > But people like you have no recourse but to get rid of a homosexual if you > told to by a client or superior. Currently, your client -- or your boss > -- or whoever -- can legally tell you to fire or not hire someone because > they are gay. Is this actually true? How can clients do this, especially once the ink's dry on the contract, unless it's explicitly written in? Can even superiors do this (there IS recourse: personnel departments, state & federal gov't agencies regulating hiring & firing practices ASIDE from those covered by anti-discrimination legislation, the threat of a suit in courts not neces- sarily hostile to the idea of ability as a criterion for employment)? It may be naivete or ignorance on my part, but I doubt that a contract or even the "chain of command" in a company positively empowers clients or superiors in the ways Julia Harper & Ross Greenberg blithely assume they do. If the only compulsion for caving in to a client's or superior's unjustifiable demand is $$: losing future promotions, fighting attempts to fire you, etc., then the situation has nothing to do with law or company regulations, & the word "legally" in the quote above is a red herring.
greenber@acf4.UUCP (11/27/84)
/***** acf4:net.motss / rrizzo@bbncca / 1:57 pm Nov 26, 1984*/ rrizzo@bbncca asks (in response to Julia's question regarding legal dismissal of an employee due to "gayness")--> > Is this actually true? How can clients do this, especially once the ink's > dry on the contract, unless it's explicitly written in? Yes...And I quote (Ahem...): 6. SUBCONTRACTOR agrees to provide personnel to CLIENT that will adhere to CLIENT work times, work rules, and work standards. In the event that SUBCONTRACTOR personnel do not adhere to CLIENT work times, work rules, and work standards, in the sole opinion of CLIENT, SUBCONTRACTOR agrees to replace such personnel at his own expense or, at the option of CLIENT, to terminate any and all agreements, both written and implied. Such termination shall be considered in effect upon payment by CLIENT to SUBCONTRACTOR for services already rendered by SUBCONTRACTOR personnel. This is the contract that was signed by me and the client. Certainly such clauses could be fought.....who shall volunteer the funds for the court fight, and the lost income??? > It may be naivete or ignorance on my part, but I doubt that a contract or > even the "chain of command" in a company positively empowers clients or > superiors in the ways Julia Harper & Ross Greenberg blithely assume they > do. You're right....it is naivete and ignorance on your part...I assume you are not self-employed??? > ...the word "legally" in the quote above is a red herring. NOPE!! The word legal is defined as : "permitted by law| of or pertaining to the law|established or authorized by law|recognized or enforced by law" Since the client didn't break any law (as of date), then legally is the correct word to use.... Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (11/30/84)
<followup to Ross Greenberg>
1. My question about contract clauses was in response to Julia Harper's
GENERAL claim (ie, that contracts typically allow) clients to refuse
to use/hire contractor employees on any grounds. Quoting only one
contract with no evidence presented that it's typical in the relevant
respect is hardly an answer to my question. Ross' sarcasm is point-
less & unnecessary.
2. Ross' quoting of his (?) contract is embarassing for the case he's
trying to make, & it undercuts his tone of certainty. The clause
he quotes concerns "work times, work rules, & work standards"; these
are the only grounds on which the client can refuse to use/hire people,
although the client acting on such grounds can do so unilaterally
("in the sole opinion of client"). Two points can be made against
"the client can do anything he wants" presumption:
a. The times, rules & standards are those that apply to "work".
This qualification allows the distinction to be made between
appropriate & inappropriate (unrelated to work) criteria.
Even if you narrowly construe work times/rules/standards as
literally those in the client's personnel handbook, whatever
they are, this brings up the second point:
b. Under at least Massachusetts corporation law, the provisions
of a firm's personnel handbook have the force of corporate
rules & regulations, or corporate law. It's clear that such
rules & regulations cannot conflict with existing laws and
remain valid (eg, laws against age & race discirmination).
Not to mention the obvious point that an incorporated firm
would seek to keep out of its personnel handbook when drawing
it up or revising it any provision that actually (or nearly
or possibly?) conflicted with existing (or likely future?)
state & federal laws.
Let's consider gay people: do they lack legal recourse or
protection at all from job discrimination short of enacting
gay rights legislation? There are laws & gov't agencies in
Massachusetts (Dept. of Employment Security & others) that
prevent, discourage or move against frivolous, invidious,
or irrelevant criteria being used in matters of hiring,
firing, benefits, job review, etc. (I'd have to read the
statutes to give any more detailed information on this.)
My employer BBN includes antidiscrimination clauses in its
personnel handbook that explicitly mention only those groups
protected under existing lawsd (ie, not gays). Yet BBN
officially construes their clauses to include gays and to
prohibit INVIDIOUS discrimination of any kind: they sent
out a company-wide memo to that effect months ago. Further
indication that existing does prohibit anti-gay discrimina-
tion at least in some circumstances is a recent court rul-
ing in Maasachusetts (Steve Dyer, can you provide details?).
I don't know what local conditions & laws are where Ross works, but
he does not have the watertight case he thinks.
This debate is really getting tedious while not being particularly
productive.
Yawn........!
Ron Rizzosdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (12/01/84)
>=Ron Rizzo >Further indication that existing [statutes?] ... prohibit anti-gay >discrimination at least in some circumstances is a recent court >ruling in Massachusetts (Steve Dyer, can you provide details?). Actually, it was in New York, home base of Ross M. Greenberg himself! Here are excerpts from a report in the Dec 1 issue of Boston's Gay Community News: "...On November 15, Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Judge David Saxe ruled that a version of Mayor Ed Koch's Executive Order 50 passed by the city's advisory Board of Estimates was constitutional. Further, the justice stated that the state and federal constitutions already prohibited discrimination against homosexuals, and that the Board of Estimates resolution simply 'stated the law as it presently is.'" "...In the ruling, Saxe found not only that the Board of Estimate was within its jurisdiction in issuing the anti-discrimination resolution, but interpreted the equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions to mean that homosexuals are currently protected from employment discrimination." "'This is particularly necessary with regard to these plaintiffs,' the judge noted, referring to the Archdiocese [of New York], the Salvation Army, and several other agencies, 'who have explicitly stated an intention to discriminate in their hiring on the basis of one's sexual orientation.'" "Judge Saxe also pointed out that 'apparently the prior leadership of the Archdiocese of New York did not object to this mayoral order and, at present, the Brooklyn Diocese finds no conflict between agreeing to the order and providing secular services on behalf of the city.'" I should mention that an injunction obtained by the Archdiocese of New York, and granted by the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court, barring enforcement of Executive Order 50 is still in effect, and will remain until the Appellate Division hears the appeal of the original decision against Koch's Order in December. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA
greenber@acf4.UUCP (12/02/84)
<> net.motss / rrizzo@bbncca--> > <followup to Ross Greenberg> > 1. My question about contract clauses was in response to Julia Harper's > GENERAL claim (ie, that contracts typically allow) clients to refuse > to use/hire contractor employees on any grounds. Quoting only one > contract with no evidence presented that it's typical in the relevant > respect is hardly an answer to my question. Ross' sarcasm is point- > less & unnecessary. Who made you the judge here??? Since I brought up ONE particular case (happened to be mine), I would think that the contract under which the assignment in question must adhere to would be relevant. Evidence....what would you suggest....a virtual tome of similiar contracts that I've signed in the past?? Almost all contracts in consulting that I've seen allow the client to get rid of the consultant at almost anytime, for any reason, simply by stating : "He wasn't doing the job in a workmanlike manner!". Sure...I could have fought it but (look out ----pointless and unnescessary sarcasm follow:) but you weren't offering to pay for the expenses or the lost income. > 2. Ross' quoting of his (?) contract is embarassing for the case he's > trying to make, & it undercuts his tone of certainty. I'm not embarrassed about the contract and I don't see how it undercuts any tone of certainty: > The clause > he quotes concerns "work times, work rules, & work standards"; these > are the only grounds on which the client can refuse to use/hire people, > although the client acting on such grounds can do so unilaterally > ("in the sole opinion of client"). Exactly....the client has these rights, or will you deny that??? So it is written, so it shall be done! That is what contracts are for! [What then follows is a mid-length discourse on standards in the client handbook, and how they can not "conflict with existing law"] > I don't know what local conditions & laws are where Ross works, but > he does not have the watertight case he thinks. Well, the laws in this case really weren't under discussion...although we seem to be getting to the legal aspect of it. I had asked what the feeling about this situation was in the gay community and received a number of replies that indicated that my viewpoint (at least within THIS gay community) is a minority viewpoint. I never claimed a "watertight" case, or any case at all. I merely was requesting the views of others. > This debate is really getting tedious while not being particularly > productive. That's what the 'n' key is for, Ron. (Oh no...more sarcasm??) Ross M. Greenberg @ NYU ----> allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber <----