|
--by Robert D. $utton Emperor Clinton, in his recent radio address, called for a $14 million initiative to "close the gap between men�s and women�s wages," the money to be used to "triple the number of workers at the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission." Clinton also called on Congress to pass the "Paycheck Fairness Act," which "would allow women to sue their employers for unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, in addition to the limited damages and back-pay awards now available under federal law to remedy pay violations." Such "rights" are already available to the "victims" of wage discrimination based on race and ethnicity. These two announcements come on the heels of a study that shows women making 75% of what men make for "comparable work." What are the implications of Clinton�s plans? (Besides the "jobs" created by sending non-productive bureaucrats to spy on businesses.) First and foremost, this proposal marks yet another stepping stone on the road to fascism. Fascism is a system characterized by private ownership of the means of production�with public USE of those means. Reflect, for a moment, on the absurdity of such a set up. What good is the right to own property without the right to use it as one pleases? What good are all the responsibilities of property without the benefits? If a man owns a business, then�as an extension of property rights�he has the right to RUN that business, in any manner he sees fit. That means he may hire whomever he wants, based on whatever standards he chooses. It means he may sell whatever products he wishes, to whomever he pleases, at whatever prices he wishes. It means he may determine his employees� hours and wages, and that they must either accept his terms or find better ones elsewhere. And if he doesn�t have the right to do all this, then YOU don�t have the right to read this message, or eat, or sell your labor�or anything else that presupposes ownership of property. You can�t be free unless he is, too. Rights are principles. Either they are consistently respected, or they become nothing more than privileges granted by the current ruling clique. We didn�t fight a war two centuries back to gain the "privilege" to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. In order for rights to be consistently respected, they must not conflict with each other. If one person�s alleged "right" deprives another of his rights, then somebody is claiming a false right. Women's "right to equal pay for equal work" is a good example of a false right. A woman�or any individual, for that matter�has no right to any wages except those an employer is willing to provide for services rendered. There are no "unfair wages," only the wages agreed upon through the voluntary consent of two individuals. If employees�male or female�disagree with an employer�s judgment, they are free to seek employment elsewhere. Their right to trade their labor does not impose on others an obligation to provide them with a certain price for it. The practical implications of the proposed measures are also worth noting. Anyone who believes these measures would be a victory for women is mistaken in more ways than one. An example should illustrate the point. Suppose an employer has two applicants for a job (let�s call them "M" and "F"). M and F are both equally skilled, but F has a few strings attached. Thanks to new government mandates, F has the "right" to receive the same salary as M would receive. Furthermore, F has the "right" to sue the employer if she does not think she is being paid enough. (To further complicate things, F can sue the employer if she feels she has been "sexually harassed.") Which of these two, M or F, will a rational employer choose? As this example shows, "pay-equity" legislation (added to other workplace laws) will turn every woman into a lawsuit-waiting-to-happen. How many employers would be willing enough to put themselves in such a compromising position? The time, money and agony involved in preventing lawsuits�and then, in court, trying to prove that a woman is NOT being paid less than her male counterparts because of her gender�far outweigh the skills women could bring to the job. Every woman who applies for work will have to be good enough to justify the risk an employer runs in hiring her. (Or, women will have to sign "I won�t sue" contracts to qualify for jobs.) Pay-equity will actually decrease the demand for female labor�particularly for the low-skilled women who need work most! So much for enlightened government� Seeing the unemployment caused by their policies, the bureaucrats will hastily try to cover it up, by requiring employers to hire a certain percentage of women (as they are required to hire a certain percentage of minorities). And they will employ more bureaucrats to ensure that the hiring process is "fair" and "equitable." There will eventually come a point when businesses will get fed up with the costs, regulations, and bureaucrats literally peeking over their shoulders. When that time comes, businesses will simply move their operations to 3rd world nations, where regulations are not as well enforced, and labor is cheaper. What will be left behind will be a mass of unemployed men and women--all receiving equal pay for equal "work." And people will realize that there is only one type of economic "equality" that government can bring about: the equality of the zero. For those who really want to see men and women paid the same wages for the same labor, the answer is�as always�laissez-faire capitalism. Under capitalism, all employers care about is the profit-motive. That means they DON�T care about race, ethnicity or gender. They care only about performance. Black, white, male, female�it doesn�t matter. If businesses wish to succeed in the competition for high-quality labor (at all skill levels), personal prejudices will have to be brushed aside. There is only one type of equality that government can�and should�guarantee: legal equality. Any other type of government-enforced equality will necessarily involve the granting of special privileges to one group, at the expense of another group, which will perpetuate racism and pressure-group warfare. Before individuals can be judged as equals by others, they must first be judged as equals BY LAW. Notes Notes |
