Rights and Discrimination

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

How does the government actually have power over buisness hiring/firing practices? I know there are anti discrimination laws in place for hiring/firing, but upon what are they justified when dealing with private sector? I thought the constitutional rights and privlidges only applied to what the government couldn't do. How does it actually apply to private groups (if said groups don't recieve funding from government or deal with intra/interstate trade).

[wolveraptor]

If they want to have any business in America, they better damn well follow our rules, one of which is: you can't have discrimination in the work force.

If they don't like it, they can fucking leave, and work in a more eugenically-inclined country.

[General Zod]

How does the government actually have power over buisness hiring/firing practices? I know there are anti discrimination laws in place for hiring/firing, but upon what are they justified when dealing with private sector? I thought the constitutional rights and privlidges only applied to what the government couldn't do. How does it actually apply to private groups (if said groups don't recieve funding from government or deal with intra/interstate trade).

the private sector isn't an autonomous body of government. they still have to obey federal regulations, including laws regarding discrimination. not hiring someone because they're black or asian is a violation of their right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race. not following health guidelines in a restaurant is a violation of someone's right to be healthy, etc.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Corporations and businesses aren't individuals, even if they are owned by an individual. A lot of people can't seem to get this through their head.

[Lord MJ]

Corporations and businesses aren't individuals, even if they are owned by an individual. A lot of people can't seem to get this through their head.

Corporations have the same rights as individuals.

Businesses that aren't corporations (or LLCs, LLPs) are individuals.

If an individual owns a sole proprietorship, there is no distinction between the sole proprietorship and the owner.

The above statement is completely and totally wrong, and has absolutely nothing to do with why discrimination laws legally apply to the private the sector.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Corporations and businesses aren't individuals, even if they are owned by an individual. A lot of people can't seem to get this through their head.

Corporations have the same rights as individuals.

Businesses that aren't corporations (or LLCs, LLPs) are individuals.

If an individual owns a sole proprietorship, there is no distinction between the sole proprietorship and the owner.

The above statement is completely and totally wrong, and has absolutely nothing to do with why discrimination laws legally apply to the private the sector.

Does your random individual have the legal obligations of a business? NO.

[Darth Wong]

Corporations and businesses aren't individuals, even if they are owned by an individual. A lot of people can't seem to get this through their head.

Corporations have the same rights as individuals.

Wrong. An individual has the legal right (if not the moral right) to say "you will never work for me because you're a goddamned nigger" to a black man. A corporation sure as hell does not.

[Lord MJ]

Corporations and businesses aren't individuals, even if they are owned by an individual. A lot of people can't seem to get this through their head.

Corporations have the same rights as individuals.

Wrong. An individual has the legal right (if not the moral right) to say "you will never work for me because you're a goddamned nigger" to a black man. A corporation sure as hell does not.

An individual does not have that right, if he employs people.

A corporation can say that to a black man, provided that the person is not applying for a job.

Suppose I was talking to a manager of company XYZ at the golf course and asked him about positions in his firm, and he said "you will never work for me because you're a goddamned nigger." He would have the legal right to do that (even though his company would fire him). I could not sue his company over that.

On the other hand if I was making formal inquiries into positions at the company about job opportunities, and I was turned away by a manager because of race, then the company would be liable for violating discrimination laws (and the manager would also in this case, probably be fired.)

[Lord MJ]

Does your random individual have the legal obligations of a business? NO.

Irrelevant. Were not talking about obligations. You made the statement that businesses are not individuals, that is totally false.

A business may have obligations, but in the case of a sole proprietorship those are obligations placed on the individual. In the case of a incorporated entity, those are obligations placed on the organization.

The reason those obligations exist is because the individual or corp is involved in an activity. (In this case, employing people.)

[Lord MJ]

How does the government actually have power over buisness hiring/firing practices? I know there are anti discrimination laws in place for hiring/firing, but upon what are they justified when dealing with private sector? I thought the constitutional rights and privlidges only applied to what the government couldn't do. How does it actually apply to private groups (if said groups don't recieve funding from government or deal with intra/interstate trade).

There is some question to the constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws, but frankly the only people that question it are blatant racists, and hardcore libertarians. Both those groups opinions are not worthly of consideration

But the reasoning on a legal basis is that employment is a legal relationship, and the government has the power to regulate that relationship.

[RedImperator]

How does the government actually have power over buisness hiring/firing practices? I know there are anti discrimination laws in place for hiring/firing, but upon what are they justified when dealing with private sector? I thought the constitutional rights and privlidges only applied to what the government couldn't do. How does it actually apply to private groups (if said groups don't recieve funding from government or deal with intra/interstate trade).

Federal labor law is justified through the Commerce Clause.

[wolveraptor]

What if Phil McCrackin decides to hire Simon Crack to do his yard work. Totally informal, no contract, no nothing. Can he still legally fire little Simon for being a black/indian/white/whatever?

[Broomstick]

There are a very limited number of circumstances where someone CAN be discriminated against legally based on religion or gender.

For instance, a private school that accepts no Federal (and probably no State) money whatsoever can discriminate - religion-run insitutions are an example where this is legal. A Bible college can legally require a person to be a Christian (even a Christian of a particular sect) in order to attend or work for the school. Note, however, the complete lack of government support in this case - it's justified as neither supporting nor interfering with religion. Which is why educational vouchers can become controversial, since it can become government money supporting religion.

In other instances, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, barring fertile women might be justified as a protection for potential and future children.

These instances are all rare in the employment/education world, but they do exist.

As to how other businesses are prevented from discriminating... well, government contractors are required to adhere anti-discrimination statutes. If you don't, you lose the contract and suffer severe penalties. And there are a lot of businesses that do business with government at all levels.

Private hotels and various means of transport such as airlines are prohibited from discrimination by way Congress' ability to regulate inter-state commerce, which they are a part of. This clause is used a LOT to justify Federal interferance at state and local levels.

[wolveraptor]

In other instances, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, barring fertile women might be justified as a protection for potential and future children.

That's kind of ridiculous. What if the woman doesn't care if she can no longer give birth? What if she sees that as an asset, even? Shouldn't it be that company X instead just warns women of the possibility of loss of fertility, rather than dictating what a woman wants by barring them all?

[Surlethe]

On a related note, I've heard if the government completely deregulated the work force from all antidiscrimination laws, it would automatically eliminate racist business anyway because racism will hurt a business competitively.

[RedImperator]

Businesses are also allowed to discriminate when that discrimination serves a legitimate business purpose. Acting is one such profession where it's allowed. A production company can discriminate based on race or gender because a character can only be played by a particular type of person (Denzel Washington could not, for example, play Rhett Butler, no matter how well qualified for the roll he might be, and he couldn't sue the studio for race discrimination if they didn't pick him for the part because he's black).

[Broomstick]

In other instances, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, barring fertile women might be justified as a protection for potential and future children.

That's kind of ridiculous. What if the woman doesn't care if she can no longer give birth? What if she sees that as an asset, even? Shouldn't it be that company X instead just warns women of the possibility of loss of fertility, rather than dictating what a woman wants by barring them all?

It's not a matter of loss of fertility, it's a matter of damaging a fetus if she happens to become pregnant.

It's the same reason that certain medications can't be prescribed to a woman of child-bearing age unless she's on birth control. There are even drugs that require a woman to be on two forms of birth control. The rationale is that while she can take the risk herself, she has no right to impose preventable deformity on her children.

The court case I recall for industrial exposure to chemicals involved a battery plant in either Wisconsin or Minnesota (this was 15 or 20 years ago, so my memory isn't 100% on it) that barred women from certain jobs on the assemblyline unless they could provide proof of permanent infertility such a hysterectomy. The reason was that those jobs had the highest exposure to heavy metals such as lead and cadmium which not only are damaging to a fetus but are also retained in the body for long periods of time. It wouldn't be enough for her to stay on birth control during her employment there - she'd have to be on it for years afterward as well. Rather than be exposed liability resulting from a damaged child being born years, even a decade or more, after an employee left the company the company did not want to employ fertile women in those jobs.

[tharkûn]

How does the government actually have power over buisness hiring/firing practices?

In the US it falls under the commerce clause or something similar in the state constitution.

In general the corporation arose as an entity which sheilded the owners from liability in excess of the assets of the business. In exchange for this protection, the company had to seek charters or other legal devices which the government controlled. If you want to have all the rights of a idiosyncratic individual then you had better damn well accept all obligations - like being able to be sued for your total networth if you are negligent. Orginally corporations existed solely because there was some service or goods which was to the public betterment if a corporation could provide it without individuals having to assume full liability. Early on these were far flung trading companies, road bulding corporations, waterworks, etc. To this day your right to create an entity to shelter yourself from direct consequences is alleged to be based upon its utility to the pulic.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Here's a question: By what ethical right does the government have to dictate the rules of businesses regarding hiring practices? A friend of mine from BC always bitches about how his father's business has to hire natives or else he would be discriminating. He bitches about this only because the majority of natives happen to be demographically lazy and that the government shouldn't have a say in the way businesses run.

[SirNitram]

Here's a question: By what ethical right does the government have to dictate the rules of businesses regarding hiring practices? A friend of mine from BC always bitches about how his father's business has to hire natives or else he would be discriminating. He bitches about this only because the majority of natives happen to be demographically lazy and that the government shouldn't have a say in the way businesses run.

Democracy and rule of law.

[General Zod]

Here's a question: By what ethical right does the government have to dictate the rules of businesses regarding hiring practices? A friend of mine from BC always bitches about how his father's business has to hire natives or else he would be discriminating. He bitches about this only because the majority of natives happen to be demographically lazy and that the government shouldn't have a say in the way businesses run.

see my post above. corporations and businesses are not given carte blanche to violate federal regulations. if a company puts out public ads that they're hiring, then they're obligated to follow federal hiring practices. if they go exclusively by selective recruiting (which is rare), then they might be able to get away with it. otherwise, they've got to follow federal laws like anyone.

[Glocksman]

How does the government actually have power over buisness hiring/firing practices?

In the US it falls under the commerce clause or something similar in the state constitution.

In general the corporation arose as an entity which sheilded the owners from liability in excess of the assets of the business. In exchange for this protection, the company had to seek charters or other legal devices which the government controlled. If you want to have all the rights of a idiosyncratic individual then you had better damn well accept all obligations - like being able to be sued for your total networth if you are negligent. Orginally corporations existed solely because there was some service or goods which was to the public betterment if a corporation could provide it without individuals having to assume full liability. Early on these were far flung trading companies, road bulding corporations, waterworks, etc. To this day your right to create an entity to shelter yourself from direct consequences is alleged to be based upon its utility to the pulic.

Exactly.
Also, most state laws are at least as strict as Federal laws (some are much stricter), and the state laws cover most of those few employers that aren't covered by the Federal statutes under the Commerce Clause.

Very few employers are exempt from civil rights laws.

[General Brock]

Corporations and businesses aren't individuals, even if they are owned by an individual. A lot of people can't seem to get this through their head.

They are recognized as individuals under the law. It was a major victory for corporate capitalism, because it grants owners and executives more protections and gives the business itself more stability. My knowledge is a little shaky beyind this; I read about this years ago.

[General Brock]

Businesses are subject to fines and other penalties for ignoring regulatory law. Any company at least needs a license, or several of them, to run, and there are any number of unofficial methods of harassment that can be used to keep a business in line, such as auditing them and tying them in the courts for years with grey charges. When the government decides to act, it can be devastating to a private enterprise, which is why guys like Bill Gates will cozy up to Bush and the Communist Party of China, and why corporations like Monsanto developed such a huge international government lobbying forces.