[thechat] [ugh]

[aardvark]

> From: Tara Cleveland <tara at taracleveland.com>
>
> > overwork and underpay is societal, not governmental (and last I
> > checked, the disparity was steadily decreasing).... the government
> > doesn't mandate longer hours and lesser wages...
>
> But it often doesn't protect against it either...

no, nor, IMO, is it expressly supposed to...

times and values change... why hardcode that stuff into play when it
can have long-term detrimental effects?

i really don't believe in the need for government to handle all of
our ills...  that just eschews responsibility on behalf of its
citizens...  we have people pouring coffee in their laps and
expecting someone else to pay them millions... people expect the same
from government now, and yet we continue to complain that our taxes
are too high and government is too far into our private lives...

should the government install cameras in my home to be absolutely
*sure* i don't raise my hand to my wife?

> Why isn't it part of your constitution - like civil rights are? and
> like many other countries?

why isn't protecting against long hours and low wages part of our
constitution?  because, thankfully, our forefathers didn't try to
regulate how businesses are run for the next 200+ years... imagine
the child labor laws we'd have if we went by what they said...

instead, the constitution is open enough to adapt and still provide
the most basic protections...  given that wages have steadily
increased, along with safety, output, and wealth (in the aggregate
for wealth), i'd say it's been a good 200 years *without* the
constitution telling us how to do it...

> What ever happened to the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) that would make
> women equal constitutionally?

er, didn't they get the vote?  is an amendment to the constitution
necessary when the constitution is clear on the point of "all men"
(regardless of how womyn choose to read that), coupled with case law
and enforcement?  aren't we there, legally, already?

IOW, i doubt the argument that "men" needs to be changed to "men and
women" throughout the constitution will fly... it's a generic word
now, regardless of how some folks outside the bell curve may see
it...

> from <http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/who.html>:
> Laws to prevent sex discrimination are simply not enough. The bleak
> reality is that because hard-won laws against sex discrimination do
> not rest on a strong constitutional foundation, they are essentially
> ephemeral. These federal laws and regulations contain many loopholes;
> are inconsistently interpreted, or worse ‹ ignored; and may be
> weakened by amendment or repealed outright.

such is the nature of the changing moral fiber of an evolving
society... again, aren't you glad the guys who wrote it 200 years ago
*didn't* say children should work at age 8 and earn no less than 4
cents a day?

so why should we try to apply our current societal viewpoint when in
200 years we may look anything but enlightened?  should we make
amendments to protect dolphins, on the off chance they're found
intelligent enough to own land, or can we just let natural evolution
of a society handle that?

sorry, but until the pendulum swings back far enough that a female
employee falsely accusing me of sexual harassment doesn't
automatically end my career, i'll defer ramming more legislation into
the constitution...  we are far too simple-minded a society to keep
adding amendments willy-nilly...

> Hmm?

because...

--
Read the evolt.org case study
Usability: The Site Speaks for Itself
http://amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904151035/evoltorg
ISBN: 1904151035