Language discrimination in Australia, when permitted, when not
Raymond S. Wise
soc.culture.esperanto . It appears that in some cases, Australian employers
who order their employees to refrain from talking their mother tongue at
work are practicing illegal discrimination, but in other cases, as in the
one discussed in the article, it is not illegal to prohibit employees from
talking their mother tongue.
See
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/22/1050777256449.html
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
CyberCypher
news:vaqfq1g...@corp.supernews.com:
> I learned of the following court case via the newsgroup
> soc.culture.esperanto . It appears that in some cases, Australian
> employers who order their employees to refrain from talking their
> mother tongue at work are practicing illegal discrimination, but
> in other cases, as in the one discussed in the article, it is not
> illegal to prohibit employees from talking their mother tongue.
>
> See
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/22/1050777256449.html
From the very few facts of the case presented in the article, I would
have to agree that the order was fair for all concerned. The
complaining English speaker was a bit paranoid about having the other
two ream her out in Thai, but because neither she nor her boss
understand Thai, they don't really know if that was what the other two
were doing. A better solution might have been to split up the trio and
thereby finesse the language issue altogether.
This little case just goes to prove that is is not possible to always
call something that looks like a duck a duck, just like a noun that
functions as an adjective may be a noun in most contexts, but when it
serves as a modifier, it is an adjective and not a noun.
--
Franke: "Quack!"
Robert Bannister
> I learned of the following court case via the newsgroup
> soc.culture.esperanto . It appears that in some cases, Australian employers
> who order their employees to refrain from talking their mother tongue at
> work are practicing illegal discrimination, but in other cases, as in the
> one discussed in the article, it is not illegal to prohibit employees from
> talking their mother tongue.
>
> See
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/22/1050777256449.html
What exactly was the point you were trying to make? I didn't check the
url, but I did read about this case in the newspaper and I thought the
judge made a good compromise in a difficult situation.
--
Rob Bannister
Raymond S. Wise
news:3EADD071...@it.net.au...
I thought the subject might be of interest to the members of this newsgroup.
I don't at present have strong feelings one way or the other about the
decision.
It seems to me that in speaking of this case, "discrimination" must be used
in both a neutral and a negative sense, as I did in my subject line.
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate gives as one definition of "discrimination," "3
a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather
than individually." Presumably, the employers would have discriminated (in
this sense) not just against Chinese, but against any language other than
English.
Strictly speaking, it's not a question of "language discrimination" but of
possibly "indirect racial discrimination." That is, it was upon the basis of
racial discrimination that the suit was brought.
CyberCypher
The language was Thai, not Chinese [1,2].
> but against any language other than English.
The court's ruling was that the order was *not* discriminatory [1],
which means that it is improper to call this a case of discrimination
against the Thai language or any other language and in favor of
English. The only common language for the three women involved in the
suit was English, and the order to speak only English was an attempt to
resolve a dispute. There was no general "Speak English only" order in
the plant [2].
> Strictly speaking, it's not a question of "language
> discrimination" but of possibly "indirect racial discrimination."
> That is, it was upon the basis of racial discrimination that the
> suit was brought.
The court found that it was not direct or indirect racial
discrimination, because it was not based on the race of the women
involved [1].
It was, IMHO, a reasonable decision, given the facts stated in the
newspaper.
[1]
[quote]
Mr Dharmananda ruled in the mint case that Mr Crowden's direction for
the women not to speak Thai was not discriminatory because it was not
based on the ground of the employees' race. He found the reason for Mr
Crowden's direction was to resolve disputes in the workplace, not
because of the race of the women.
The tribunal also found the order to speak English in the workplace was
not indirect discrimination, because the three women could speak
English and could comply with the decision.
[/quote]
[2] W3NID: "discrimination"
[quote]
4 : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically
rather than individually *waged a lifelong campaign to end
discrimination against women* *relieved the working class of economic
and political discriminations found in other countries T.S.Barclay*: as
a : the according of differential treatment to persons of an alien race
or religion (as by formal or informal restrictions imposed in regard to
housing, employment, or use of public community facilities) b : the
act or practice on the part of a common carrier of discriminating (as
in the imposition of tariffs) between persons, localities, or
commodities in respect to substantially the same service.
[/quote]
Raymond S. Wise
news:Xns936C7DF37...@130.133.1.4...
I remembered the people who had brought the suit as having been from
*Taiwan*, which would have made the language Chinese. They were instead from
Thailand, and the language was, as you say, Thai.
I was aware of all of the above. Are you disputing my assumptions that (1)
the case was brought under statutes forbidding racial discrimination, and
(2) the employers in the current case would, under the circumstances, have
had the legal right to forbid the two employees in question to speak any
other non-English language, such as Esperanto or Yiddish? Both of these
assumptions seem to me very likely to be true.
"Discrimination" is used in the article as a shorthand for "racial
discrimination" and racial discrimination in employment in Australia is
illegal. To conclude from that that the word "discrimination" applies only
to illegal conduct is to commit a non sequitur. Clearly, the definition I
quoted from *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate,* which you snipped, does not
refer to illegal conduct only[1].
I would say, for example, that employers were allowed to discriminate
against job-seekers on the basis of religion at the beginning of the 20th
century, and it was "discrimination" even though it was not illegal[2].
Furthermore, in the United States churches are allowed even today to
discriminate in employment on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, or
race. So that is another example of when discrimination is legal[3].
I presume that this might also become a legal question, if it has not
already. That is, if a newspaper were to say that a given church which fully
admitted that they refused to hire homosexuals "discriminated against
homosexuals," could the newspaper be successfully sued for libel on the
grounds that the church's actions were completely legal? I am certain that
in the US the newspaper could not be successfully sued. I would be surprised
is something similar was not the case in Australia.
Notes:
[1] From the Collegiate: "discrimination [...] 3 a : the act, practice, or
an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually."
[2] There was an interesting article which mentioned this, which was on the
subject of how classified ads have changed over the years, written by
Cynthia Crossen for the*Wall Street Journal,* which I read in the *St. Paul
Pioneer Press,* an online version of which is at
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/living/5709264.htm
[3] See
http://www.interfaithalliance.org/News/News.cfm?ID=4826&c=37
which contains the following sentence (emphasis added): "social service
programs of houses of worship despite the fact that [S]uch entities [social
service programs of houses of worship] *are permitted by law to discriminate
in hiring based on religious adherence.*"
CyberCypher
Many people make that mistake, so you don't have to be embarrased about
it.
> which would have made the language Chinese.
More than likely, but there are now 11 officially recognized Taiwanese
aborinal languages in addition to Hakka, Taiwanese, and Chinese (ie,
Mandarin). And plenty of Taiwanese who speak Tagalog as a mother tongue
as well.
Not at all. It was ruled "not discrimination based on race".
> and (2) the employers in the current case would,
> under the circumstances, have had the legal right to forbid the
> two employees in question to speak any other non-English language,
> such as Esperanto or Yiddish?
Not at all. The employher would have had the right to require the two
employees from speaking any language other than English under two
conditions only, though: a) that the only language all three shared was
English and b) that the two women in question could communicate well
enough in English to comply with the employer's order
> Both of these assumptions seem to me very likely to be true.
>
> "Discrimination" is used in the article as a shorthand for "racial
> discrimination" and racial discrimination in employment in
> Australia is illegal. To conclude from that that the word
> "discrimination" applies only to illegal conduct is to commit a
> non sequitur.
Yes, I know that people equate "discrimination" almost exclusively with
"racial discrimination", but that is nonsense. Not only was there no
racial discrimination, according to the judge, but there was no
linguistic discrimination either. English-only was ordered not because
the employer felt that it was a better language than Thai (and there
are certainly ethnic Thais who speak only English and not Thai in
places like Australia, so that linguistic discrimination does not have
to involve race, ethnicity, religion, or sex discrimination), but
because it was the only common language the three women who worked to
gether had. That's not discriminatory in this case.
> Clearly, the definition I quoted from
> *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate,* which you snipped,
I snipt it only because the W3NID definition that I provided in a
footnote was substantially the same, which you would have realized had
you bothered to read it, which you obviously didn't.
> does not refer to illegal conduct only[1].
Nor would I call discrimination always illegal conduct. Nor would I say
that the employer was discriminating against one language in favor of
another in this case, as he was not expressing his personal preference
based on any standard of value important to him. Nor did he forbid any
other workers in the plant from speaking any other language but
English.
> I would say, for example, that employers were allowed to
> discriminate against job-seekers on the basis of religion at the
> beginning of the 20th century, and it was "discrimination" even
> though it was not illegal[2].
Of course it was. But why are you being such a schoolmarm here?
> Furthermore, in the United States
> churches are allowed even today to discriminate in employment on
> the basis of religion, sexual orientation, or race. So that is
> another example of when discrimination is legal[3].
Yes, these are examples of employers expressing personal preferences
based upon their religions.
> I presume that this might also become a legal question, if it has
> not already. That is, if a newspaper were to say that a given
> church which fully admitted that they refused to hire homosexuals
> "discriminated against homosexuals," could the newspaper be
> successfully sued for libel on the grounds that the church's
> actions were completely legal?
I doubt it. As you say, the law explicitly allows that type of
discrimination, and I think it does not enforce anti-discrimination
laws on employers that have fewer than 4 employees, but that might be
wrong.
R F
> "Discrimination" is used in the article as a shorthand for "racial
> discrimination" and racial discrimination in employment in Australia is
> illegal. To conclude from that that the word "discrimination" applies only
> to illegal conduct is to commit a non sequitur. Clearly, the definition I
> quoted from *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate,* which you snipped, does not
> refer to illegal conduct only[1].
>
> I would say, for example, that employers were allowed to discriminate
> against job-seekers on the basis of religion at the beginning of the 20th
> century, and it was "discrimination" even though it was not illegal[2].
I'm not sure what the history of legislation regarding employment
discrimination on the basis of religion was, but that may be correct.
ISTR reading that New York state didn't have employment discrimination
laws till the 1920s, or maybe it was later.
There are several other complications but to some degree they go off
the topic at hand.
First, there's some question, and this goes to language usage, whether
what we often call "illegal discrimination" is really "illegal". Only
in rare cases does such discrimination lead to criminal liability
being imposed on the discriminator. Ordinarily, "bad" discrimination
is a statutory tort; the discriminated-against person can recover
damages from the discriminator. (To the extent that punitive damages
are available, and to the extent that a government agency can civilly
sue the discriminator, as is often the case, you might say it can
become quasi-criminal.)
So, issue one, though a bit off-topic, is, is the existence of a legal
regime that imposes civil tort-style liability on someone who commits a
wrong enough to make that wrong "illegal" or "against the law"? We
don't (or I don't) think of, say, it being "against the law" to leave a
banana peel lying on the floor in a supermarket aisle. Does it have
something to do with the tort being statutorily defined rather than
defined by common law (which I think has to be a bogus distinction)?
Basically, is it just sloppy usage to say "racial discrimination is
illegal", or is it legitimate?
Second issue: "Discrimination" *really* just means "choosing A rather
than B". It has come to have the dominant sense of "bad"
discrimination, but I would assume that this wasn't established till
the US civil rights movement. I remember _The Economist_ used to
explain affirmative action as "positive discrimination" for the
hypothetical non-US reader, but it doesn't do that anymore.
Third, there's an important distinction between public (governmental,
state) and private discrimination. State discrimination of certain
"bad" sorts is unconstitutional. A lot of controversy exists over what
should be included in the "bad", and whether there are any exceptions
even when something is included in the "bad" (for example, everyone
agrees that state racial discrimination is in the "bad", but some
believe that state affirmative action is permissible and sometimes even
necessary (sometimes even to enforce the provisions which place racial
discrimination in the "bad")). There aren't (at the federal
constitutional level) any constitutional prohibitions on private
discrimination, other than a narrow range of circumstances where
private activity constitutes "state action".
> Furthermore, in the United States churches are allowed even today to
> discriminate in employment on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, or
> race. So that is another example of when discrimination is legal[3].
Yes. One question is whether the state *could* prohibit that sort of
discrimination. It almost certainly *couldn't* because of the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
> I presume that this might also become a legal question, if it has not
> already. That is, if a newspaper were to say that a given church which fully
> admitted that they refused to hire homosexuals "discriminated against
> homosexuals," could the newspaper be successfully sued for libel on the
> grounds that the church's actions were completely legal? I am certain that
> in the US the newspaper could not be successfully sued.
I'm dead sure you're right. It's not the *legality*, but the *truth*
of their discrimination against homosexuals. It's just that people
don't like to use "discrimination" to describe activity that they don't
consider "bad". Affirmative action is discrimination, but supporters
of affirmative action consider it "good", so they don't call it
"discrimination".
Assuming that it's legitimate to call racial discrimination in
employment "illegal" for the moment, if a newspaper reported that a
business refused as a matter of policy to hire black persons, and the
business sued the newspaper for libel, the newspaper could submit
evidence supporting what it had reported to defeat the libel action,
if I'm not mistaken.
> I would be surprised
> is something similar was not the case in Australia.
I wouldn't be too sure. In the other Anglophone countries it
seems that there's a strong public policy in favor of libel plaintiffs.
Robert Bannister
The discriminating reader would, indeed, have taken it that way. I
certainly discriminate between the two things, but subject lines are
rather like headlines, so I don't pay all that much attention to them.
--
Rob Bannister
Raymond S. Wise
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.030429...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu...
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[...]
> First, there's some question, and this goes to language usage, whether
> what we often call "illegal discrimination" is really "illegal". Only
> in rare cases does such discrimination lead to criminal liability
> being imposed on the discriminator. Ordinarily, "bad" discrimination
> is a statutory tort; the discriminated-against person can recover
> damages from the discriminator. (To the extent that punitive damages
> are available, and to the extent that a government agency can civilly
> sue the discriminator, as is often the case, you might say it can
> become quasi-criminal.)
>
> So, issue one, though a bit off-topic, is, is the existence of a legal
> regime that imposes civil tort-style liability on someone who commits a
> wrong enough to make that wrong "illegal" or "against the law"? We
> don't (or I don't) think of, say, it being "against the law" to leave a
> banana peel lying on the floor in a supermarket aisle. Does it have
> something to do with the tort being statutorily defined rather than
> defined by common law (which I think has to be a bogus distinction)?
> Basically, is it just sloppy usage to say "racial discrimination is
> illegal", or is it legitimate?
[...]
It's common usage, according to my experience. Once when I was at a state
employment agency the employment counselor[1] called an employer and talked
to him about me. At one point she said "It is illegal for me to answer that
question and it is illegal for you to ask it." Later, when talking with the
employer himself, he revealed what he had asked: He wanted to know whether I
was just out of high school.
No one who says that "such-and-such discrimination is illegal" believes that
the person discriminating in that way can be immediately arrested. However,
everyone knows that an employer who openly discriminated in a way contrary
to law could not get away with it for very long. (It's the subtle forms of
illegal discrimination which can go on for years and years.)
> > I presume that this might also become a legal question, if it has not
> > already. That is, if a newspaper were to say that a given church which
fully
> > admitted that they refused to hire homosexuals "discriminated against
> > homosexuals," could the newspaper be successfully sued for libel on the
> > grounds that the church's actions were completely legal? I am certain
that
> > in the US the newspaper could not be successfully sued.
>
> I'm dead sure you're right. It's not the *legality*, but the *truth*
> of their discrimination against homosexuals. It's just that people
> don't like to use "discrimination" to describe activity that they don't
> consider "bad". Affirmative action is discrimination, but supporters
> of affirmative action consider it "good", so they don't call it
> "discrimination".
>
> Assuming that it's legitimate to call racial discrimination in
> employment "illegal" for the moment, if a newspaper reported that a
> business refused as a matter of policy to hire black persons, and the
> business sued the newspaper for libel, the newspaper could submit
> evidence supporting what it had reported to defeat the libel action,
> if I'm not mistaken.
>
> > I would be surprised
> > is something similar was not the case in Australia.
>
> I wouldn't be too sure. In the other Anglophone countries it
> seems that there's a strong public policy in favor of libel plaintiffs.
I was aware that Britain had laws which strongly favored libel plaintiffs
and considered that the same might be true in Australia. Even so, in the
case in question, I would be very surprised indeed if such a libel suit
could succeed, even in England.
Note:
[1] This person might have had a title other than "employment counselor,"
and since it was decades ago, that job may very well have a different title
today anyway.
Raymond S. Wise
[...]
[...]
You appeared to be making the case that "discrimination" is always used
negatively. That is what I understood from both the article and the
dictionary definition you quoted. Not only did I not find the latter
"substantially the same," I took it to be illustrating and you to be making
the exact *opposite* argument from that which I was making, which was that
"discrimination" can be used in a neutral sense.
david56
> Once when I was at a state employment agency the employment
> counselor[1] called an employer and talked to him about me. At one
> point she said "It is illegal for me to answer that question and it
> is illegal for you to ask it." Later, when talking with the employer
> himself, he revealed what he had asked: He wanted to know whether I
> was just out of high school.
This is presumably a reference to age discrimination? There is no
similar law in the UK. It is entirely legal to discriminate on grounds
of age here. Job adverts commonly state an expected age range.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Alan Jones
> Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>
>> Once when I was at a state employment agency the employment
>> counselor[1] called an employer and talked to him about me. At one
>> point she said "It is illegal for me to answer that question and it
>> is illegal for you to ask it." Later, when talking with the employer
>> himself, he revealed what he had asked: He wanted to know whether I
>> was just out of high school.
>
> This is presumably a reference to age discrimination? There is no
> similar law in the UK. It is entirely legal to discriminate on
> grounds of age here. Job adverts commonly state an expected age
> range.
... and indeed some employers choose older people, often retired from
another job. The DIY chain B&Q famously does so, partly because the older
floor assistants actually know about gardening, house-painting and so forth
while youngsters can only parrot what they've been told.
Alan Jones
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
It's a good theory, but if you actually visit a B&Q (I often go to their
main London warehouse on the A10) you'll find that the ones who know
anything at all about DIY have long queues, and the others know little.
A 'Times' report just a couple of days ago stated that about a third of the
people in Britain over 50 and able to work are jobless, and will probably
remain so.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Remote Hertfordshire
England
Barry Etheridge
"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote in message
news:vauee4p...@corp.supernews.com...
"Trespassers will be prosecuted". Racial, gender, or age discrimination is
subject to a civil and not a criminal trial and it remains for the plaintiff
to prove that such discrimination was unreasonable, ill-founded, and
actually caused compensatable loss or disadvantage. There are related
crimes, inciting racial hatred, racially motivated assault etc. and it is
illegal to advertise a position with 'discriminatory' conditions such as
"Girl wanted", "Teenager required", unless that business has obtained prior
registration as an excepted trade. But it cannot be illegal to ask a
question, or receive an answer to it! The employer merely has a civil
liability not to be unduly influenced by that answer nor to make decisions
based purely on it.
This, of course, makes it notoriously difficult to follow up a case. I was
interviewed by a regional rep for a well known British Charity Shop just
before Christmas and despite having a very successful trial day was rejected
for the position. When I was in the shop in February, I spoke to the
manager, who I knew had supported my application and she told me that the
rep in question had her own exacting standards and if you didn't meet them
perfectly, you didn't get the job. When I asked her just what those
standards were, she said, "Let's just say that it would have helped if you
were 10 years younger and had boobs!" Would she be so forthcoming if I was
to take that to an Industrial Tribunal. I think you can imagine the answer!
R F
> Common usage does not, sadly, mean correctness! Consider the famously wrong
> "Trespassers will be prosecuted".
I don't think this is incorrect, but it refers to a sense of
"prosecute" that is now relatively uncommon in AmE: to pursue a civil
claim, to sue. "Prosecution" (in AmE) for most people means pursuit,
by some agency of the state (= AmE 'the government'), of the imposition
of criminal liability by a court upon an appropriately charged person.
In patent and trademark law, "prosecution" has a special meaning: the
effort to obtain an applied-for patent, or an applied-for registered
trademark, from the US Patent and Trademark Office. I assume
"prosecute" is similarly used in the other Anglophone countries,
BIDNK.
> There are related
> crimes, inciting racial hatred, racially motivated assault etc. and it is
> illegal to advertise a position with 'discriminatory' conditions such as
> "Girl wanted", "Teenager required", unless that business has obtained prior
> registration as an excepted trade.
I passed by a restaurant in Chicago the other day that had a "WAITRESS
WANTED" sign. Oy!
Barry Etheridge
civil cases. A trespasser cannot be prosecuted. Shot, run over, abused, or
generally worked over by heavies, according to the landowner's taste, but
never prosecuted! :c)
In the usage which you suggest it would surely be the case which was
prosecuted, not the trespasser, in any event?
In fact, the legal definition of trespass has been so watered down that it
would now be nearly impossible to pursue any sort of case. Short of firing a
bazooka at the bedrooms, it would be very difficult even to fall into the
law's hands for criminal damage!
Raymond S. Wise
news:b8oedn$6id$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
The purpose of language is communication. "It is illegal to discriminate on
the basis of race" communicates what the speaker intends, as does "It is
illegal to drive through a red light." In practice, these would be confusing
only to a child or a foreigner: Someone who has lived in America for many
years knows that the sentence "It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of
smurf" means that if they do smurf, the police are not going to come and
arrest them. Someone who has lived in America for many years knows that, in
the context of driving on a public thoroughfare, the sentence "It is illegal
to smurf" means that if they smurf they *may* be arrested.
It is certainly true that some popular beliefs about the law are simply
wrong: The belief that it is illegal for a consumer to tear off a tag on a
mattress, for example. But in the cases in question, the usages "illegal
racial discrimination" and "Trespassers will be prosecuted," there is no
confusion: The usages communicate the intended meaning. They are thus
appropriate. (When speaking of English usage I would not use the word
"correct" except in speaking of the difference between ungrammatical and
grammatical usages, in the linguistic sense: Thus, we can say that "He saw
I" is not correct.)
david56
> In the UK, the legal definition of the word makes it quite distinct from
> civil cases. A trespasser cannot be prosecuted. Shot, run over, abused, or
> generally worked over by heavies, according to the landowner's taste, but
> never prosecuted! :c)
I thought that this had changed recently, with the introduction of a
real crime of "criminal trespass". It was used against somebody in a
political manner wasn't' it?
Per Rønne
> In the UK, the legal definition of the word makes it quite distinct from
> civil cases. A trespasser cannot be prosecuted. Shot,
to death?
> run over,
by a horse?
> abused,
raped by the landowner, no matter age or sex?
> or generally worked over by heavies,
beaten to cripples?
> according to the landowner's taste
Shocking! Has the UK Parliament ever considered upgrading the
legislation to the, eh, nineteenth century?
--
Per Erik Rønne
Mike Oliver
> In the UK, the legal definition of the word makes it quite distinct from
> civil cases. A trespasser cannot be prosecuted. Shot, run over, abused, or
> generally worked over by heavies, according to the landowner's taste, but
> never prosecuted! :c)
Trespassers can certainly be *arrested*; it's the most common charge
used to arrest protesters who are actually interfering with something.
And you can't be arrested for a civil tort (I think). So trespass
must be a criminal matter, even if it rarely makes it to an actual
trial.
Dr Robin Bignall
<b...@quirm.glowinternet.com> wrote:
>In the UK, the legal definition of the word makes it quite distinct from
>civil cases. A trespasser cannot be prosecuted. Shot, run over, abused, or
>generally worked over by heavies, according to the landowner's taste, but
>never prosecuted! :c)
>
>In the usage which you suggest it would surely be the case which was
>prosecuted, not the trespasser, in any event?
>
>In fact, the legal definition of trespass has been so watered down that it
>would now be nearly impossible to pursue any sort of case. Short of firing a
>bazooka at the bedrooms, it would be very difficult even to fall into the
>law's hands for criminal damage!
>
It was always thus in my lifetime. In my spotty teens (early 1950s) the
books said that if a landowner got angry over your trespass, and you had
done no damage but were just ambling over private land, to satisfy the law
you should offer what was then the lowest legal tender -- at that time a
half-penny -- to be free of all problems. The landowner would have to prove
real damage to pursue the matter further.
I think David is correct on the matter of criminal trespass, but different
laws from the one mentioned above have always been available to be applied
to special cases, such as Government property. Greenham Common springs to
mind. Magistrates have been reluctant to use them, though, just as they are
reluctant to use existing legislation against football hooligans.
R F
In the US there's generally both criminal trespass and civil trespass
(the latter being a tort). Whatever "trespassers will be prosecuted"
meant historically, today an American posting such a sign probably has
in mind calling the cops to arrest a trespasser for criminal trespass.
ObAUE: Is "civil tort" redundant?
R F
> The purpose of language is communication. "It is illegal to discriminate on
> the basis of race" communicates what the speaker intends, as does "It is
> illegal to drive through a red light." In practice, these would be confusing
> only to a child or a foreigner: Someone who has lived in America for many
> years knows that the sentence "It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of
> smurf" means that if they do smurf, the police are not going to come and
> arrest them. Someone who has lived in America for many years knows that, in
> the context of driving on a public thoroughfare, the sentence "It is illegal
> to smurf" means that if they smurf they *may* be arrested.
I'm not really so sure about this. I think when people say "It's
illegal to discriminate" they probably have an inaccurate sense of the
consequences of such conduct. In reality it's just a way of making it
expensive to engage in discriminatory conduct, like imposing a tax.
You're still free to do it, in a sense (unless more extraordinary
measures are taken against you -- that might be part of the
difference). Or, maybe more likely, people are expressing some sort
of moral-social judgment that goes beyond (but accompanies) the
imposition of civil liability. The problem I have
with it is that no one says "It's illegal to leave a banana peel on
your floor if you've invited someone into your home and that person
might be expected to slip on the banana peel and hurt himself". (As
with discrimination, this can *sometimes* rise to the level of a
criminal wrong, but it would be rare.) Clearly some civil
wrongs are treated differently, in the non-legal language, than
others, and I'm not sure what the operating principle is. (This even
extends sometimes to statutory language, as we saw when we were
discussing C**p's possible "violations" of Florida civil rights law.
The statute itself used words like "violation" and "unlawful" IIRC.)
Raymond S. Wise
news:3EAF8BE2...@ntlworld.com...
> Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>
> > Once when I was at a state employment agency the employment
> > counselor[1] called an employer and talked to him about me. At one
> > point she said "It is illegal for me to answer that question and it
> > is illegal for you to ask it." Later, when talking with the employer
> > himself, he revealed what he had asked: He wanted to know whether I
> > was just out of high school.
>
> This is presumably a reference to age discrimination? There is no
> similar law in the UK. It is entirely legal to discriminate on grounds
> of age here. Job adverts commonly state an expected age range.
>
> --
> David
Yes, age discrimination is not allowed under US law. The US Supreme Court
recently decided that it would hear a case to answer the question: "Does the
federal law prohibiting age bias in the workplace allow for
reverse-discrimination lawsuits - from younger employees claiming it's older
workers who are getting preferential treatment?"
See
http://www2.hrnext.com/Article.cfm/Nav/5.0.0.0.27197
This will decide a question of federal law. It is certainly possible that
some states have laws which explicitly prohibit such descrimination against
younger workers.
R F
> "david56" <bass.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:3EAF8BE2...@ntlworld.com...
> > Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> >
> > > Once when I was at a state employment agency the employment
> > > counselor[1] called an employer and talked to him about me. At one
> > > point she said "It is illegal for me to answer that question and it
> > > is illegal for you to ask it." Later, when talking with the employer
> > > himself, he revealed what he had asked: He wanted to know whether I
> > > was just out of high school.
> >
> > This is presumably a reference to age discrimination? There is no
> > similar law in the UK. It is entirely legal to discriminate on grounds
> > of age here. Job adverts commonly state an expected age range.
> >
> > --
> > David
>
>
> Yes, age discrimination is not allowed under US law. The US Supreme Court
> recently decided that it would hear a case to answer the question: "Does the
> federal law prohibiting age bias in the workplace allow for
> reverse-discrimination lawsuits - from younger employees claiming it's older
> workers who are getting preferential treatment?"
I hadn't known this before looking this up, but the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, the interpretation of
which is in question here, specifically 'prohibits' age
discrimination only against employees age 40 and over.
The plaintiffs in this case were a class of UAW workers who were
employed by a General Dynamics subsidiary and who were between the ages
of 40 and 49. The UAW reached a new collective bargaining agreement
with General Dynamics under which only employees who were 50 years or
older would qualify for full retirement health benefits.
The precise wording of the relevant part of the ADEA is:
It shall be unlawful for an employer --
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or
otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to
his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual's age.
("Individual" is specifically defined to mean "individuals who are at
least 40 years of age".)
See the 6th Circuit's opinion at
http://tinyurl.com/aper
> This will decide a question of federal law. It is certainly possible that
> some states have laws which explicitly prohibit such descrimination against
> younger workers.
The 6th Circuit thought that the plain language of the ADEA
(particularly the use of "any individual") permitted reverse
discrimination suits. This is probably how the SCOTUS will go too,
because they're generally big on interpreting Congressional statutes in
this way. (The basic theoretical justification for this: (a) if a
statute can be construed by looking only at the text, the court should
look only [hi Rey!] at the text, because in this way it will
limit its interference with the democratic process; (b) if the court
thereby gives it the "wrong" interpretation, Congress can always revise
the statute to nullify the court decision, something that's much easier
than, say, changing a Constitutional-issue decision, which would
require a constitutional amendment.)
From what I gather, some state laws make all age discrimination in
employment unlawful, even for employees younger than 40; other state
laws just mirror the federal ADEA. Probably some states have no age
discrimination law. But anyway, probably no such law explicitly applies
only to protect *older* workers (which might even be an equal
protection violation, though that isn't what's at issue here).
Evan Kirshenbaum
> ("Individual" is specifically defined to mean "individuals who are at
> least 40 years of age".)
Nice circular definition.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them.
| Albert Einstein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Alan Jones
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:38:09 +0100, "Alan Jones"
> <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> ...some employers choose older people, often retired from
>> another job. The DIY chain B&Q famously does so, partly because the
>> older floor assistants actually know about gardening, house-painting
>> and so forth while youngsters can only parrot what they've been told.
>>
> It's a good theory, but if you actually visit a B&Q (I often go to
> their main London warehouse on the A10) you'll find that the ones who
> know anything at all about DIY have long queues, and the others know
> little.
>
> A 'Times' report just a couple of days ago stated that about a third
> of the people in Britain over 50 and able to work are jobless, and
> will probably remain so.
On your last point, yes, alas, though there are regional differences - as
indeed there must be for B&Q. I use the branch in (or rather on the
outskirts of) Trowbridge in Wiltshire, where the assistants are quite
knowledgeable about their stock and how to use it. They are mostly either
very young (and helpful with heavy loads!) or elderly: I suppose for retired
people the job provides a supplement to their pensions and a reason "to get
out of the house" for company. But that sort of job does nothiing for people
in middle life who need to get a living wage. Generally, the level of
employment in this area is high, but employees are often very modestly paid
while house prices inexorably rise.
Alan Jones
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
True for this area, too, Alan. I am only 25 miles from London as the crow
flies (although the local ones seem to spend most of their time in my
garden) and the jobs advertised in the local paper have rates of pay that
are appalling compared with commuting into London. House prices are
relatively lower, but my comparison is with Chiswick, where I lived before,
and which is one of the 'swish' areas of London. [I sold my 1.5 bedroom
flat in Chiswick, and could have kept the same mortgage and bought my
current 5-bedroom house here, but I increased the mortgage because the
house needed about £10,000 spending on it to suit a severely disabled
person living mostly alone. Apart from a new mixer tap for the kitchen sink
(arriving today), that work is now complete.] However, the *average* job
around here is such that people either depend on overtime, or moonlighting.
Don Aitken
wrote:
>Barry Etheridge wrote:
>
>> In the UK, the legal definition of the word makes it quite distinct from
>> civil cases. A trespasser cannot be prosecuted. Shot, run over, abused, or
>> generally worked over by heavies, according to the landowner's taste, but
>> never prosecuted! :c)
>
>Trespassers can certainly be *arrested*;
Not in the UK; not for that, anyway.
> it's the most common charge
>used to arrest protesters who are actually interfering with something.
Over here it is almost always "conduct likely to cause a breach of the
peace", or "obstructing the police in the execution of their duty"
(the relevant duty being that to prevent a breach of the peace). The
police may, if they choose, assist a landowner in removing trespassers
from land, but if they do so they are not acting in the execution of a
duty, and have no power to arrest those involved.
--
Don Aitken
Raymond S. Wise
It is the trespasser who would be prosecuted, whether the case was civil or
criminal:
From the *American Heritage Dictionary,* 4th ed., at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/64/P0606400.html
"1. _Law_ a. To initiate civil or criminal court action against."
From *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictonary,* at
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=prosecute
"3 a : to bring legal action against for redress or punishment of a crime or
violation of law <_prosecuted_ them for fraud>"
R F
> Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>
> > Once when I was at a state employment agency the employment
> > counselor[1] called an employer and talked to him about me. At one
> > point she said "It is illegal for me to answer that question and it
> > is illegal for you to ask it." Later, when talking with the employer
> > himself, he revealed what he had asked: He wanted to know whether I
> > was just out of high school.
>
> This is presumably a reference to age discrimination? There is no
> similar law in the UK. It is entirely legal to discriminate on grounds
> of age here. Job adverts commonly state an expected age range.
Shocking! But FWIG there's an EU directive which requires the UK to
enact age-discrimination legislation.
david56
I'm not aware of it, but it's possible. How would this deal with a
mandatory retirement age?
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>R F wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, david56 wrote:
>>
>>>Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>>>
>>>>Once when I was at a state employment agency the employment
>>>>counselor[1] called an employer and talked to him about me. At one
>>>>point she said "It is illegal for me to answer that question and it
>>>>is illegal for you to ask it." Later, when talking with the employer
>>>>himself, he revealed what he had asked: He wanted to know whether I
>>>>was just out of high school.
>>>
>>>This is presumably a reference to age discrimination? There is no
>>>similar law in the UK. It is entirely legal to discriminate on grounds
>>>of age here. Job adverts commonly state an expected age range.
>>
>> Shocking! But FWIG there's an EU directive which requires the UK to
>> enact age-discrimination legislation.
>
>I'm not aware of it, but it's possible. How would this deal with a
>mandatory retirement age?
Abolish it. That's what the papers have been talking about for a while,
now, that everyone will have to work until 70 or beyond in order to get any
sort of state pension that will keep them in anything other than poverty.
Or work until they drop, which in this ageist country is an impossibility.
Spehro Pefhany
<docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>Abolish it. That's what the papers have been talking about for a while,
>now, that everyone will have to work until 70 or beyond in order to get any
>sort of state pension that will keep them in anything other than poverty.
>Or work until they drop, which in this ageist country is an impossibility.
They are in the process of dropping mandatory retirement at 65 in
Ontario. It's interesting, perhaps, that the Ontario Human Rights Code
limits the legal definition of "age" to those between the ages of 18
and 65.
The best way to save money on pensions is to increase the pension
every year that people keep working. People are such optimists- it
will come as such a surprise to them when they drop dead a few years
after retirement.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Skitt
> The best way to save money on pensions is to increase the pension
> every year that people keep working. People are such optimists- it
> will come as such a surprise to them when they drop dead a few years
> after retirement.
That system exists in the USA. For each year after the qualifying age (65
for me) there is an increase of approximately 7% in benefits, as I recall.
I retired after reaching the age of 67, but not because of the larger
benefit. It was just that my job had become so easy that it would have been
totally wrong to give up the efortless way to a great income. Then matters
started changing -- things were threatening to get tougher, and when things
get tough, the tough get going. I did. Get going, that is. Back home to
California.
Now the younger workers *have* to work longer to obtain full Social Security
benefits, as the qualifying age increases gradually, by a couple of months
for each year, from 65 to 67 for those born between 1938 and 1960.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Mark Wallace
Quite right, too!
If thr Middle Ages come around again, they will be sent packing!
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/
-----------------------------------------------------
david56
> On Mon, 05 May 2003 17:58:13 +0100, the renowned Dr Robin Bignall
> <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>Abolish it. That's what the papers have been talking about for a while,
>>now, that everyone will have to work until 70 or beyond in order to get any
>>sort of state pension that will keep them in anything other than poverty.
>>Or work until they drop, which in this ageist country is an impossibility.
But it's a contractual agreement between employer and employee. Does
the government wish to interfere with contracts between consenting parties?
> They are in the process of dropping mandatory retirement at 65 in
> Ontario. It's interesting, perhaps, that the Ontario Human Rights Code
> limits the legal definition of "age" to those between the ages of 18
> and 65.
>
> The best way to save money on pensions is to increase the pension
> every year that people keep working. People are such optimists- it
> will come as such a surprise to them when they drop dead a few years
> after retirement.
That already happens here with earned company pensions and I think it's
also true for the state pension. Of course, you don't have to actually
retire to draw either of these.
Me, I shall retire at the earliest possible opportunity, Equitable Life
notwithstanding.
Jerry Friedman
In the U.S., there are questions that interviewers aren't allowed to
ask prospective employees, such as "Are you married?" (The objection
is that employees sometimes discriminate against married women on the
grounds that they'll probably soon ask for maternity leave.) I don't
know whether this is a civil or criminal matter.
--
Jerry Friedman
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 May 2003 17:58:13 +0100, the renowned Dr Robin Bignall
>> <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Abolish it. That's what the papers have been talking about for a while,
>>>now, that everyone will have to work until 70 or beyond in order to get any
>>>sort of state pension that will keep them in anything other than poverty.
>>>Or work until they drop, which in this ageist country is an impossibility.
>
>But it's a contractual agreement between employer and employee. Does
>the government wish to interfere with contracts between consenting parties?
>
I think you'll find from history that governments of every colour and
persuasion will do whatever they think fit.
david56
> On Mon, 05 May 2003 20:43:27 +0100, david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 05 May 2003 17:58:13 +0100, the renowned Dr Robin Bignall
>>><docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Abolish it. That's what the papers have been talking about for a while,
>>>>now, that everyone will have to work until 70 or beyond in order to get any
>>>>sort of state pension that will keep them in anything other than poverty.
>>>>Or work until they drop, which in this ageist country is an impossibility.
>>>
>>But it's a contractual agreement between employer and employee. Does
>>the government wish to interfere with contracts between consenting parties?
>
> I think you'll find from history that governments of every colour and
> persuasion will do whatever they think fit.
But they are usually mindful of the wishes of business, who pay them
vast amounts of tax and allow them to fund their ridiculous ideas. Will
big business want 85 year old programmers?
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 May 2003 20:43:27 +0100, david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 05 May 2003 17:58:13 +0100, the renowned Dr Robin Bignall
>>>><docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Abolish it. That's what the papers have been talking about for a while,
>>>>>now, that everyone will have to work until 70 or beyond in order to get any
>>>>>sort of state pension that will keep them in anything other than poverty.
>>>>>Or work until they drop, which in this ageist country is an impossibility.
>>>>
>>>But it's a contractual agreement between employer and employee. Does
>>>the government wish to interfere with contracts between consenting parties?
>>
>> I think you'll find from history that governments of every colour and
>> persuasion will do whatever they think fit.
>
>But they are usually mindful of the wishes of business, who pay them
>vast amounts of tax and allow them to fund their ridiculous ideas. Will
>big business want 85 year old programmers?
That, I don't know, but if an 85 year-old can hack it like an 18 year-old,
why not?
Back in the days of the middle 1960s, taxes were such that the "Brain
Drain" to America and, in fact, anywhere but Britain, was created by a
Labour Government (Harold Wilson's, I think). I can't remember the rates
for earned income because I was a student, but the rate for unearned income
from investments went up to 98%, and, in some cases, was over 100%. (They
actually took more away than the gross.)
Governments will do anything that their absurd ideologies dictate.
Skitt
> david56> wrote:
>> Will big business want 85 year old programmers?
>
> That, I don't know, but if an 85 year-old can hack it like an 18
> year-old, why not?
Apropos of nothing, here's the ancient computer model I last worked with to
create the software for testing a hardware kit used for converting a missile
that goes Boom! to one that gathers data of its flight and whose flight
could be terminated if it starts heading for Cuba, or indulges in some other
unexpected shenanigans.
http://home.wanadoo.nl/jarod/museum/hp9000.htm
In addition to what you see, it had two huge Winchester disk drive units
which also had cartridge read/write tape drives, only one of which could be
turned on at a time, and a printer of the same vintage. The two disk drive
units contained entirely different software programs and configurations, and
the desired unit had to be powered up before boot-up.
HP Pascal with UCSD extensions was the language.
Dr Robin Bignall
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>> david56> wrote:
>
>>> Will big business want 85 year old programmers?
>>
>> That, I don't know, but if an 85 year-old can hack it like an 18
>> year-old, why not?
>
>Apropos of nothing, here's the ancient computer model I last worked with to
>create the software for testing a hardware kit used for converting a missile
>that goes Boom! to one that gathers data of its flight and whose flight
>could be terminated if it starts heading for Cuba, or indulges in some other
>unexpected shenanigans.
>
>http://home.wanadoo.nl/jarod/museum/hp9000.htm
>
>In addition to what you see, it had two huge Winchester disk drive units
>which also had cartridge read/write tape drives, only one of which could be
>turned on at a time, and a printer of the same vintage. The two disk drive
>units contained entirely different software programs and configurations, and
>the desired unit had to be powered up before boot-up.
>
>HP Pascal with UCSD extensions was the language.
Were you 85 at the time? If so, it proves my point.
Mark Wallace
> Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>> david56> wrote:
>
>>> Will big business want 85 year old programmers?
>>
>> That, I don't know, but if an 85 year-old can hack it like an 18
>> year-old, why not?
>
> Apropos of nothing, here's the ancient computer model I last worked
> with to create the software for testing a hardware kit used for
> converting a missile that goes Boom! to one that gathers data of its
> flight and whose flight could be terminated if it starts heading for
> Cuba, or indulges in some other unexpected shenanigans.
>
> http://home.wanadoo.nl/jarod/museum/hp9000.htm
What a *beauty*!
Up to 2.5Meg RAM (what could you possibly do with it all?), and a massive
10Meg Winchester!
There were times when I'd have killed for specs like that!
> In addition to what you see, it had two huge Winchester disk drive
> units which also had cartridge read/write tape drives, only one of
> which could be turned on at a time, and a printer of the same
> vintage. The two disk drive units contained entirely different
> software programs and configurations, and the desired unit had to be
> powered up before boot-up.
>
> HP Pascal with UCSD extensions was the language.
Objects? Who needs Objects?
Just write the damned program!
rzed
"Mark Wallace" <mwal...@dse.nl> wrote in message
news:b97v5m$gaocu$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> Skitt wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Apropos of nothing, here's the ancient computer model I last worked
> > with to create the software for testing a hardware kit used for
> > converting a missile that goes Boom! to one that gathers data of its
> > flight and whose flight could be terminated if it starts heading for
> > Cuba, or indulges in some other unexpected shenanigans.
> >
> > http://home.wanadoo.nl/jarod/museum/hp9000.htm
>
> What a *beauty*!
> Up to 2.5Meg RAM (what could you possibly do with it all?), and a
massive
> 10Meg Winchester!
> There were times when I'd have killed for specs like that!
I think I might seriously wound for specs like that even *now*, though
for different reasons.
Back in the day though, you're absolutely right. Any disk drive! Luxury.
--
rzed
M. J. Powell
Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> writes
>On Tue, 06 May 2003 00:17:53 +0100, david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 May 2003 20:43:27 +0100, david56 <bass.b...@ntlworld.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 05 May 2003 17:58:13 +0100, the renowned Dr Robin Bignall
>>>>><docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Abolish it. That's what the papers have been talking about for a while,
>>>>>>now, that everyone will have to work until 70 or beyond in order
>>>>>>sort of state pension that will keep them in anything other than poverty.
>>>>>>Or work until they drop, which in this ageist country is an impossibility.
>>>>>
>>>>But it's a contractual agreement between employer and employee. Does
>>>>the government wish to interfere with contracts between consenting parties?
>>>
>>> I think you'll find from history that governments of every colour and
>>> persuasion will do whatever they think fit.
>>
>>But they are usually mindful of the wishes of business, who pay them
>>vast amounts of tax and allow them to fund their ridiculous ideas. Will
>>big business want 85 year old programmers?
>
>That, I don't know, but if an 85 year-old can hack it like an 18 year-old,
>why not?
>
>Back in the days of the middle 1960s, taxes were such that the "Brain
>Drain" to America and, in fact, anywhere but Britain, was created by a
>Labour Government (Harold Wilson's, I think). I can't remember the rates
>for earned income because I was a student, but the rate for unearned income
>from investments went up to 98%, and, in some cases, was over 100%. (They
>actually took more away than the gross.)
105% for unearned (!) income.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Raymond S. Wise
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>
> > The purpose of language is communication. "It is illegal to discriminate on
> > the basis of race" communicates what the speaker intends, as does "It is
> > illegal to drive through a red light." In practice, these would be confusing
> > only to a child or a foreigner: Someone who has lived in America for many
> > years knows that the sentence "It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of
> > smurf" means that if they do smurf, the police are not going to come and
> > arrest them. Someone who has lived in America for many years knows that, in
> > the context of driving on a public thoroughfare, the sentence "It is illegal
> > to smurf" means that if they smurf they *may* be arrested.
>
> I'm not really so sure about this. I think when people say "It's
> illegal to discriminate" they probably have an inaccurate sense of the
> consequences of such conduct. In reality it's just a way of making it
> expensive to engage in discriminatory conduct, like imposing a tax.
> You're still free to do it, in a sense (unless more extraordinary
> measures are taken against you -- that might be part of the
> difference). Or, maybe more likely, people are expressing some sort
Let me ask you this. In a post in this thread on April 29, 2003, I
said the following:
[quote from Usenet post]
No one who says that "such-and-such discrimination is illegal"
believes that
the person discriminating in that way can be immediately arrested.
However,
everyone knows that an employer who openly discriminated in a way
contrary
to law could not get away with it for very long. (It's the subtle
forms of
illegal discrimination which can go on for years and years.)
[end quote from Usenet post]
Do you not agree that I am correct about this? I am talking about a
company that *openly* discriminates. This would mean, in practice,
that if big enough to have a personnel office, that company would have
explicit rules stating the illegal rule in question. It means that,
whether large enough to have a personnel office or not, when a member
of the discriminated-against group applied for a job, the company
would stop the interview at the point that it learned that the person
was a member of the discriminated-against group in question.
This never happens, of course, so we have to use our imagination. Such
cases typically never even end up in court: An agency of the federal
government and the company come to an agreement in which, besides a
money settlement, the company agrees to change its personnel
practices. If we imagine that the company refuses to settle in that
way, then I figure either of two things would happen.
First, I would expect a company in such a case could be forced by a
court decision to change its personnel practices. If it did not do so,
then the officers of the company could be charged with contempt of
court which--unlike with government officials--would have serious
consequences. It never happens that a company's officers persist in
risking contempt, but if it were to happen, I presume that the
ultimate result would be the end of the company.
For the sake of argument, let's take contempt of court out of the
equation. A company which openly discriminated would have a hefty fine
against it. We have to imagine it going on after the case to continue
to openly discriminate. Again, this never happens, but if we imagine
that it did, think of what would happen. Any member of the
discriminated-against group could apply for a job, be turned down
because of their (protected) status, and turn around and sue the
company for discrimination. They too would receive a hefty settlement,
since the facts of the case would not be in dispute. In such an
unlikely scenario, people would be lining up to be discriminated
against! The company would inevitably go bankrupt.
In real life, companies do not openly discriminate, and illegal
discrimination has to be done very subtly. Except in a very small
company, I hardly see how it can be done with direction from the
highest levels of a company, since companies are bureaucracies: To
ensure that the illegal practice is followed, they would have to put
it into writing, becoming effectively the very sort of openly
discriminating company that does not in fact exist, since such company
policy would be learned during discovery in an anti-discrimination
case!
It is as I said, people do not expect that if you illegally
discriminate, a cop can be summoned to arrest you, but no company
could do so for long unless it went about it in an extremely subtle
manner. Furthermore, practical considerations would prevent such
discriminatory practice from coming from the highest levels of the
company. They could not, in other words, consider anti-discrimination
laws to be simply a sort of tax or cost of doing business.
> of moral-social judgment that goes beyond (but accompanies) the
> imposition of civil liability. The problem I have
> with it is that no one says "It's illegal to leave a banana peel on
> your floor if you've invited someone into your home and that person
> might be expected to slip on the banana peel and hurt himself". (As
> with discrimination, this can *sometimes* rise to the level of a
> criminal wrong, but it would be rare.) Clearly some civil
> wrongs are treated differently, in the non-legal language, than
> others, and I'm not sure what the operating principle is. (This even
> extends sometimes to statutory language, as we saw when we were
> discussing C**p's possible "violations" of Florida civil rights law.
> The statute itself used words like "violation" and "unlawful" IIRC.)
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>>> david56> wrote:
>>>> Will big business want 85 year old programmers?
>>>
>>> That, I don't know, but if an 85 year-old can hack it like an 18
>>> year-old, why not?
>>
>> Apropos of nothing, here's the ancient computer model I last worked
>> with to create the software for testing a hardware kit used for
>> converting a missile that goes Boom! to one that gathers data of its
>> flight and whose flight could be terminated if it starts heading for
>> Cuba, or indulges in some other unexpected shenanigans.
>>
>> http://home.wanadoo.nl/jarod/museum/hp9000.htm
>>
>> In addition to what you see, it had two huge Winchester disk drive
>> units which also had cartridge read/write tape drives, only one of
>> which could be turned on at a time, and a printer of the same
>> vintage. The two disk drive units contained entirely different
>> software programs and configurations, and the desired unit had to be
>> powered up before boot-up.
>>
>> HP Pascal with UCSD extensions was the language.
>
> Were you 85 at the time? If so, it proves my point.
Naah, I was 67 the last time I touched that rig. It is still there and in
use by a young whipper-snapper, I believe.
R F
Speaking very generally, you're probably correct.
> I am talking about a
> company that *openly* discriminates. This would mean, in practice,
> that if big enough to have a personnel office, that company would have
> explicit rules stating the illegal rule in question. It means that,
> whether large enough to have a personnel office or not, when a member
> of the discriminated-against group applied for a job, the company
> would stop the interview at the point that it learned that the person
> was a member of the discriminated-against group in question.
Those are two different things, though. In the first case, you have an
explicit, published company policy. In the second case, you have a
policy in the form of hiring practices. Remember the example of C**p
discriminating against married people, though it doesn't appear that
his particular discrimination was "illegal" in Florida. C**p was
like, "What, you're married? Next!"
> This never happens, of course, so we have to use our imagination. Such
> cases typically never even end up in court: An agency of the federal
And/or state
> government and the company come to an agreement in which, besides a
> money settlement, the company agrees to change its personnel
> practices.
Or a private litigant sues the company for discrimination. Or both. I
would assume that there are more private discrimination lawsuits than
agency actions against allegedly discriminating employers.
> If we imagine that the company refuses to settle in that
> way, then I figure either of two things would happen.
>
> First, I would expect a company in such a case could be forced by a
> court decision to change its personnel practices.
That might happen in some cases, but in a typical discrimination
lawsuit by a private litigant, the company just ends up paying money to
the plaintiff, either as a result of a verdict or, much more commonly,
in a settlement.
> If it did not do so,
> then the officers of the company could be charged with contempt of
> court which--unlike with government officials--would have serious
> consequences. It never happens that a company's officers persist in
> risking contempt, but if it were to happen, I presume that the
> ultimate result would be the end of the company.
Perhaps, yes.
> For the sake of argument, let's take contempt of court out of the
> equation. A company which openly discriminated would have a hefty fine
> against it.
I wouldn't use the word "fine", which implies a criminal penalty. But
it would potentially have to pay lots of money.
> We have to imagine it going on after the case to continue
> to openly discriminate. Again, this never happens, but if we imagine
> that it did, think of what would happen. Any member of the
> discriminated-against group could apply for a job, be turned down
> because of their (protected) status, and turn around and sue the
> company for discrimination. They too would receive a hefty settlement,
> since the facts of the case would not be in dispute. In such an
> unlikely scenario, people would be lining up to be discriminated
> against!
But presumably not all of them would be able to prove discrimination,
unless they were all qualified for the position in question.
> The company would inevitably go bankrupt.
Not inevitably. It could probably uproot itself and move to Europe or
someplace like that.
> In real life, companies do not openly discriminate, and illegal
> discrimination has to be done very subtly.
That's not true unless you mean "recognized 'illegal' discrimination".
There's all sorts of *legal* discrimination that goes on pretty openly.
> Except in a very small
> company, I hardly see how it can be done with direction from the
> highest levels of a company, since companies are bureaucracies: To
> ensure that the illegal practice is followed, they would have to put
> it into writing, becoming effectively the very sort of openly
> discriminating company that does not in fact exist, since such company
> policy would be learned during discovery in an anti-discrimination
> case!
There might also just be a culture in which discrimination is sort of
an understood thing. Like how at one time black people were generally
hired only for "non-visible" back-office positions in white-collar
settings.
> It is as I said, people do not expect that if you illegally
> discriminate, a cop can be summoned to arrest you, but no company
> could do so for long unless it went about it in an extremely subtle
> manner.
This is probably correct, except that the company could move to Europe
or someplace like that.
> Furthermore, practical considerations would prevent such
> discriminatory practice from coming from the highest levels of the
> company. They could not, in other words, consider anti-discrimination
> laws to be simply a sort of tax or cost of doing business.
I guess not, but they *do* see it partly as a cost of doing business.
That's speaking of the more realistic kinds of discrimination, anyway.
Companies take out insurance to cover discrimination lawsuits, for
example. Companies also know that they're going to get baseless
discrimination lawsuits from time to time, and they do what they can to
minimize their potential liability (one thing that seems to be common
nowadays is to have an explicit company policy to the effect that they
*don't* discriminate on the basis of various protected criteria).
I think you are right about the basic issue that this sort of came out
of, that "illegal" is the generally-accepted word that's used,
including in legal language, for this sort of thing.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Those are two different things, though. In the first case, you have an
>explicit, published company policy. In the second case, you have a
>policy in the form of hiring practices. Remember the example of C**p
>discriminating against married people, though it doesn't appear that
>his particular discrimination was "illegal" in Florida. C**p was
>like, "What, you're married? Next!"
Please don't distort what I say. My comment was that there is nothing
wrong with the *applicant* bringing up the fact that he/she is
married. It had to do with an applicant writing a cover letter to a
resume.
The employer has the right to be interested in this information even
if the employer doesn't have the legal right to ask about it. An
applicant can reveal any personal information the applicant chooses to
reveal. There is nothing illegal about an applicant stating that "I'm
black, an unmarried mother, a member of a cult, a collector of plaster
casts of celebrity penises, forty-seven years old, and have $3,860 of
unpaid parking tickets in my glove compartment." The employer,
though, should clap his hands over his ears and hum "I'm a Yankee
Doodle Dandy" during this recitation.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
Barry Etheridge
> applicant can reveal any personal information the applicant chooses to
> reveal. There is nothing illegal about an applicant stating that "I'm
> black, an unmarried mother, a member of a cult, a collector of plaster
> casts of celebrity penises, forty-seven years old, and have $3,860 of
> unpaid parking tickets in my glove compartment."
You've met my ex-wife then?
Dena Jo
> I sold my 1.5 bedroom flat
What constitutes half a bedroom? I've never heard that phrase.
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
Barry Etheridge
"Dena Jo" <TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9378DA67...@130.133.1.4...
It's one where there's room to swing half a cat!
Dr Robin Bignall
<TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 01 May 2003, Dr Robin Bignall posted thus:
>
>> I sold my 1.5 bedroom flat
>
>What constitutes half a bedroom? I've never heard that phrase.
The half-bedroom had a child's cot in it when I went to see the flat before
I bought it. I could just get my desk and computer in it, plus one
two-drawer filing cabinet. To open the desk drawers I had to take my chair
out of the room.
This is why much of my hi fi has only been installed since I moved to a
house, and why most of my books were in storage for 14 years. There was no
room.
The advantages of the flat, before I became disabled, were that it was
convenient for the many offices I worked out of 87 to 93, and Chiswick is a
nice place to live with many shops and restaurants.
Dena Jo
> The half-bedroom had a child's cot in it when I went to see the
> flat before I bought it. I could just get my desk and computer in
> it, plus one two-drawer filing cabinet. To open the desk drawers I
> had to take my chair out of the room.
What, then, is the purpose of such a room? Does it have a closet,
even?
Harvey Van Sickle
> On 12 May 2003, Dr Robin Bignall posted thus:
>
>> The half-bedroom had a child's cot in it when I went to see the
>> flat before I bought it. I could just get my desk and computer in
>> it, plus one two-drawer filing cabinet. To open the desk drawers I
>> had to take my chair out of the room.
>
> What, then, is the purpose of such a room? Does it have a closet,
> even?
In houses with lots of rooms -- which was (I'm guessing) probably what
Robin's flat formed a part of before it was divided into flats -- this
sort of "bigger than a cupboard but smaller than a real bedroom" space
is often referred to as a "box room". Used for storage.
English houses often don't have basements, and stuff is stored in the
loft (or attic) via a hatch in the upstairs ceiling, so an "in house"
storage area is useful. (We have 5 bedrooms, with only 2 people living
here; the smallest of the bedrooms is fitted out with shelves as a box
room, where we store stuff for more frequent access than going up in
the loft and/or as a staging point before it gets shifted up there.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 20 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
Dr Robin Bignall
<TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 12 May 2003, Dr Robin Bignall posted thus:
>
>> The half-bedroom had a child's cot in it when I went to see the
>> flat before I bought it. I could just get my desk and computer in
>> it, plus one two-drawer filing cabinet. To open the desk drawers I
>> had to take my chair out of the room.
>
>What, then, is the purpose of such a room? Does it have a closet,
>even?
No. Only as a baby's bedroom or a tiny office.
The whole thing is quite curious. Imagine a whole terrace of 50 two-storey
houses built in 1912. Each house has a passage on each floor running front
to back. The ground floor has 4.5 rooms - 4 ordinary-sized rooms and a tiny
half-room at the back adjacent to the garden. The first floor has 4 + 2 x
0.5 rooms, the 4.5 matching downstairs and the other 0.5 being the room I
already described, which is over the stairwell. Each of these houses has
only one front door, and those that have been turned into two flats have
been done so internally, with a common front door.
Except, that is, for what was my building and the one adjacent on its
right. The only exterior change is that these have two front doors, and
were each built as two flats, because the street numbering is continuous.
My flat was 13; the others were 11, 15 and 17. Nobody in the local council
had any idea of why just these two were built that way.
david56
> On 12 May 2003 13:48:09 GMT, Dena Jo
> <TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 12 May 2003, Dr Robin Bignall posted thus:
>>
>>
>>>The half-bedroom had a child's cot in it when I went to see the
>>>flat before I bought it. I could just get my desk and computer in
>>>it, plus one two-drawer filing cabinet. To open the desk drawers I
>>>had to take my chair out of the room.
>>
>>What, then, is the purpose of such a room? Does it have a closet,
>>even?
>
> No. Only as a baby's bedroom or a tiny office.
>
> The whole thing is quite curious. Imagine a whole terrace
=US "row houses"
> of 50 two-storey
> houses built in 1912. Each house has a passage on each floor running front
> to back. The ground floor has 4.5 rooms - 4 ordinary-sized rooms and a tiny
> half-room at the back adjacent to the garden. The first floor has 4 + 2 x
> 0.5 rooms, the 4.5 matching downstairs and the other 0.5 being the room I
> already described, which is over the stairwell. Each of these houses has
> only one front door, and those that have been turned into two flats have
> been done so internally, with a common front door.
>
> Except, that is, for what was my building and the one adjacent on its
> right. The only exterior change is that these have two front doors, and
> were each built as two flats, because the street numbering is continuous.
> My flat was 13; the others were 11, 15 and 17. Nobody in the local council
> had any idea of why just these two were built that way.
--