Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: paying plumbers Message-ID: <2314@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 08:59:58 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2314 Posted: Wed Aug 7 08:59:58 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 23:43:34 EDT References: <533@ttidcc.UUCP> <302@looking.UUCP> <2210@watcgl.UUCP> <2242@watcgl.UUCP> <238@fear.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 72 > In article <2242@watcgl.UUCP>, jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) writes: > > To those who say (listen up Brad) it would be degrading to people > > in general to have their wages decided by some independant (and > > probably necessarily at least quasi-governmental). How can it > > possibly be more degrading to have someone(s) making the decision > > who has nothing to gain or lose by the decision when you compare > > it to having the decision made by someone whose primary objective > > is to make as much money as possible which necessitates paying > > you as little as possible? > > John Chapman > > ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman > > Yeah, I know. I've read Marx, too. The problem is that I have > trouble making myself feel like a peasant when I've been able to find > employers who were more desperate to hire me than I was to work for > them. Nor is this particularly rare. I think that if you talked to a significant number of people you would find it rare - it certainly would be for the approx. 15% of the work for that is unemployed in Canada right now. In my experience the majority of people just don't have the choice of jobs/conditions/wages that your statement implies. > > The idea of taking away the power of setting salary from people I see > every day and giving it to the government is absurd. Maybe things How absurd it appears probably depends a lot on where you sit in the prevailing hierarchy. > are different in Canada (though I doubt it), but it's very difficult > to distract Congresspeople from their business of buggering page boys > and accepting bribes to get any decent legislation passed. > > Anyway, the whole point of centralizing power, as I see it, is to This type of power need not necessarily be centralized. > make policy inescapable. If my employer does something I don't like, > I only have to find another employer. If the goverment does > something I don't like, I have to find another *COUNTRY*. Or be forced to find ways of making the government more responsive. > > Imposing all of this statist garbage for the sole purpose of wage > equality for women seems extreme, especially given the continuing > improvements, the number of non-sexist employers and employers who > are women, and all. Besides, a change in political climate could > cause the controls to be abused. So we should never do anything because one day the mechanisms that are necessary to implement some policy may be abused? > > Why are you so eager to put the power of law behind your opinions? > Are you so wise, so benevolent, that it's a good idea to sweep away > all the diversity in the world and replace it with *YOUR* dictates? Right, lets have no laws because any law will replace all that wonderful diversity by *someone's* dictates; I can certainly see where the preservation of institutionalized social injustice is something we would want to preserve. :-> > > -- > > "Quid me anxius sum?" > -- E. Alfredus Numanus > Robert Plamondon > {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert -- John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me and they may not even be mine.