Sunday, January 01, 2012

Stupid - Brought to you by bureaucrats

Those fine public servants at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have issued a warning that if you are a prospective employer, requiring that job applicants have a high school diploma may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The EEOC is not a legislative body.  It is not empowered by the Constitution with the ability to make laws, so they hasten to warn us that this is only a "warning," that employers, "may" be liable under the ADA if they refuse employment to someone who hasn't earned a high school diploma.  We'll all just have to wait and see what happens the next time someone decides not to hire an applicant who hasn't finished high school.

Who wants to be the first to test that?

So the burden is once again placed on the prospective employer - as if they didn't have enough to worry about.  Not to mention the fact that, taken to extremes, businesses might find themselves having to prove that they are not discriminating against unable-to-finish-high-school-Americans.  Can you imagine filling a quota for non graduates?  Has the EEOC just created an employment niche for people who couldn't hack high school?

As far as I'm concerned, people should be free to hire and fire as they see fit.  If you are willing to go into business or continue running a business in spite of all the obstacles in your path, more power to you.  If you are silly or short-sighted enough to hire based on unjust criteria, your business will eventually pay the price.  We don't need a crushing bureaucracy to try to impose fairness to the detriment of common sense.


Ran said...

No "good deed" shall go unpunished. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Just a thought on the corruption of our language: One can not impose fairness, by definition. "Impose the appearance of equality" or "impose outcomes" perhaps. Unhindered employee-employer contracts are the only fair, moral standard.

I't like the idea of "redistribution of wealth" - a phenomenon that only occurs in a free market. The forcible takings of Government are more accurately described as "redistribution of debt" where one person is forced to pay the debts of another; it is the antithesis of wealth.

I bring this up because time and again we can see the perversion of the very meanings of our language via the corruption of their moral underpinnings.

"Entitlements." "Fairness." "Social Justice," ad nauseam.

BTW, Happy New Year.

Steven Givler said...

You make a great point about language, Ran. Language is a battlefield, the control over which we have ceded in every theater. We allow others to define essential words like "redistribution of wealth," as you pointed out, and "Jihad." Arguing in an environment where words are allowed to change meaning is pretty much a guarantee that you won't be able to make you point.