Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!greenber
From: greenber@acf4.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: abetting discrimination
Message-ID: <11300016@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Dec-84 17:37:00 EST
Article-I.D.: acf4.11300016
Posted: Sat Dec  1 17:37:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 08:25:58 EST
References: <1164@bbncca.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 59
Nf-ID: #R:bbncca:-116400:acf4:11300016:000:2682
Nf-From: acf4!greenber    Dec  1 17:37:00 1984

<>


net.motss / rrizzo@bbncca-->
> 
> 1. My question about contract clauses was in response to Julia Harper's
>    GENERAL claim (ie, that contracts typically allow) clients to refuse
>    to use/hire contractor employees on any grounds.  Quoting only one
>    contract with no evidence presented that it's typical in the relevant
>    respect is hardly an answer to my question.  Ross' sarcasm is point-
>    less & unnecessary.

Who made you the judge here??? Since I brought up ONE particular case
(happened to be mine), I would think that the contract under which the
assignment in question must adhere to would be relevant.

Evidence....what would you suggest....a virtual tome of similiar contracts
that I've signed in the past??  Almost all contracts in consulting that
I've seen allow the client to get rid of the consultant at almost anytime,
for any reason, simply by stating : "He wasn't doing the job in a workmanlike
manner!".  Sure...I could have fought it but (look out ----pointless and
unnescessary sarcasm follow:) but you weren't offering to pay for the 
expenses or the lost income.

> 2. Ross' quoting of his (?) contract is embarassing for the case he's
>    trying to make, & it undercuts his tone of certainty.

I'm not embarrassed about the contract and I don't see how it undercuts
any tone of certainty:

>   The clause
>    he quotes concerns "work times, work rules, & work standards"; these
>    are the only grounds on which the client can refuse to use/hire people,
>    although the client acting on such grounds can do so unilaterally
>    ("in the sole opinion of client").

Exactly....the client has these rights, or will you deny that???
So it is written, so it shall be done!  That is what contracts are for!

[What then follows is a mid-length discourse on standards in the
 client handbook, and how they can not "conflict with existing law"]

> I don't know what local conditions & laws are where Ross works, but
> he does not have the watertight case he thinks.

Well, the laws in this case really weren't under discussion...although
we seem to be getting to the legal aspect of it.  I had asked what the
feeling about this situation was in the gay community and received a 
number of replies that indicated that my viewpoint (at least within THIS
gay community) is a minority viewpoint.  I never claimed a "watertight"
case, or any case at all.  I merely was requesting the views of others.

> This debate is really getting tedious while not being particularly
> productive.

That's what the 'n' key is for, Ron.  (Oh no...more sarcasm??)


Ross M. Greenberg  @ NYU   ---->  allegra!cmcl2!acf4!greenber  <----