Moral of the story is that it’s easy to sanctimoniously demand that others do what you think is right. More complex when it’s you that has to balance the competing demands of life.
And old story but worth an ocasional reminder.
- Is there any useful distinction between a “sanctimonious demand” and a “legal obligation”?
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is not responsible for overtime laws; it is responsible for prosecuting violations of anti-discrimination laws.
- Is either a requirement not to discriminate or a requirement not to force people to work without compensation a sanctimonious demand?
- Isn’t it a good thing when people in positions of authority are made subject to the same laws that everyone else is?
The moral of the story is that sometimes people is positions of authority violate the law and that, in this case, our legal system has successfully assigned liability to such people.
You make some very good points.
But these things are not always so clear cut and there are often two sides to the story. Taking the Righteous Wrath approach when it’s other people and the Generous Interpretation approach when it’s oneself is sanctimonious.
Liberal hypocrisy! Over here, come look! Liberal hypocrisy, right here! Step right up and wring your hands over the liberal hypocrisy!
I’m not sure I understand what you’re talking about. Who’s the one “taking [an] approach” here? And which approach is of which type?
Perhaps it would help if you offered some examples of these types of approaches with respect to other kinds of legal obligations.
I’m trying to move the discussion away from truisms and cliches to understand exactly what your point is here.
The Bush administration didn’t care much for government regulations on itself or on business. Where it could, it would have regs repealed or declare in Executive Orders the regs would be ignored. A more subtle way of stifling regulation is to cut funding and head count for the enforcers.
By giving the EEOC half as many people as it needs, and not giving them enough money to pay overtime, the administration was able to cripple regulations without actually repealing them. The same thing happened at the pesky OSHA and the bothersome NLRB.:rolleyes:
The EEOC had a position here as well. Apparently they considered various employees to be exempt after a study by an outside consultant. And they considered time off to be a form of compensation for overtime. http://www.eeoc.gov/press/3-26-09a.html.
These are the same types of legalistic arguments that you frequently see the EEOC on the opposite side of.
So you agree that it’s good that they lost this case.
By the way, do you understand that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment Standards Administration are two separate entities?
And do you understand that such agencies might sometimes violate the law – perhaps under the direction of the executive – and might occasionally have to be corrected by a court?
I didn’t look at it closely enough to say for sure. I would tend to assume so.
The same types of issues are in play.
Of course.
9 posts in and the OP has already been pwned. :smack:
Better luck next time.
So what, exactly, are you talking about then?
Please elaborate. What “types of issues” are “in play” and what other types of issues are you comparing them to to conclude that they are the same?
And if you could state your point expressly, it would be helpful. Do you mean to suggest that it should not be illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, age, or disability or that it should not be illegal to force employees to work without compensation or both?
Whether such and such type of employee is exempt from this or that standard. Whether treating this type of worker this way and another type of worker that way is equivalent or amounts to discrimination. And so on.
No.
But standards on what constitutes discrimination are subject to interpretation.
As one example, much of what the EEOC is involved in is whether such and such accommodation is “reasonable” under the ADA requirements. This is an extremely subjective judgment. It’s easy to take a hard line purist stance in a vacuum, when sitting in your EEOC office thinking about it and not subject to any actual requirement to make sure that the job gets done. When it’s your job to make sure that the work gets done you might look at things differently.
I don’t intend to get bogged down in the details of any particular examples. My general point is that most of these employment and discrimination issues have gray areas to them, and are not black and white as you continue to suggest in your posts, and that there’s a difference between the type of stance a purist takes when there’s nothing on the line and the stance that someone takes in the face of real world pressures and ambiguity.
And this is highlighted when the EEOC, in its role as employer, takes a position that would typically be taken by an employer, and condemned by the EEOC in its role as enforcer.
In other words, the law in enforced through interpretation of legal standards. Interesting point.
Yes, by legislators that set such standards, by agencies charged to enforce such standards, and by courts charged to interpret such standards. What is the issue here? Are such standards being set incorrectly? Can you offer us any data or examples of this? What is the relevance of the linked article here? Have the standards been enforced incorrectly against the E.E.O.C.? Can you offer us a statement of what you would consider to be a better standard?
By the way, a lot of things are subject to interpretation. What does this characteristic tell us about them?
Actually, the law considers “reasonable” to be an objective standard. But, never mind. Let’s assume that it’s subjective. So what? What are you proposing What is the problem? Is there a problem? What should be changed in order to address this problem? Should the government give up trying to assure that people with disabilities are not unfairly denied employment opportunities? If not, then what?
Are you talking about anyone in particular? So far as I know, none of us here at the SDMB are sitting in an E.E.O.C. office, so we might be a little hazy as to what you might be talking about.
Are you talking about any E.E.O.C. decision or policy in particular? What is a “purist” stance? Has anyone ever taken a purist stance? Are there any examples of the enforcement of a purist stance?
Yes, it’s true that an agency responsible for enforcing certain standards will take actions that will force a person being regulated to consider priorities that he or she might not otherwise consider in the absence of regulation. That actually happens to be the point of regulation.
I can do this too.
Societal or legal issues are easy to talk about in the abstract. It’s easy to talk about things in terms of vague truisms, but in the real world they don’t really mean anything unless you present some level of detail. You can spout stuff like this all day and the rest of us, given no data at all, may easily conclude that all these considerations have been taken into account and everything is functioning exactly as it should be.
When the E.E.O.C. is acting in its role as an employer, it is judged in the context of that role. This highlights nothing except that we are adhering to the principle that no one is above the law.
Again, I remind you that overtime laws are enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor, not by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission.
It seems you are searching for some kind of irony here, but there isn’t one.
- The E.E.O.C. didn’t sue itself.
- Government agencies are continuously facing enforcement actions from other agencies and from private parties. There’s nothing novel or ironic about this. This is the way things are supposed to work.
Acsenray,
I’m sorry if I’m not being specific enough for you. As previous, my point is about a general pattern and attitude and not any specific case. I see this general pattern in the sum of many cases that I’ve seen over the years. If you don’t see it or agree, that’s fine too.
I have no idea whether I agree, because you’ve failed to make a point that can be agreed or disagreed with.
How much for that one in the corner wearing the marijuana tee shirt?
Priceless!
I guessing here, but I think this is Fotheringay-Phipps’ argument (not that I’m saying I agree with it):
(1) The EEOC has an “ivory tower” approach to labor law, in that it demands concessions from employers who would rather not go out of their way to employ disabled/non-white/female workers and will prosecute employers if they fail to comply with what the EEOC deems “reasonable” efforts. Employers on the other, have a “real world” view that in order to get the job done, employing disabled/non-white/female workers is a significant imposition, and therefore not “reasonable”.
(2) The Department of Labor has an “ivory tower” approach to labor law, in that it demands that employees get paid for all time worked. Employers, on the other hand, have the “real world” viewpoint that in order to get the job done, it is necessary to have some employees be exempt from overtime regulations, or pay employees with time off, or whatever.
(3) It is ironic that in this case the “ivory tower” EEOC, in its role as an employer, has violated the “ivory tower” rules of the Department of Labor due to “real world” pressures to get the job done. Perhaps this should encourage the EEOC to be more flexible and understanding of “real world” business pressures.
Is that a fair summary of the point you’re trying to make, F-P?
yes.
Show me why the conclusion isn’t simply – “Justice has been done. Now everyone should be aware that anti-discrimination laws and overtime laws will be enforced against all employers, whether in the public or private sector.”