Scorched Payroll Policy?
---
Can you spot the logical flaw in this reasoning?
What kind of dysfunctional thought process would underlie the conclusion that the best way to guarantee the right of non-discrimination (the victims from denial of which are few) is by obliterating the right of privacy (the enjoyers of which are many)? Add to the calculus that "non-discrimination" is strictly a statutory right and that "privacy" is a constitutional right, and the proposal becomes even more absurd.
Agree or disagree all you want with the Supreme Court's recent holding in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire regarding when the statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims should commence. The fundamental jurisprudential premise remains: It is up to the plaintiff to prove her case. The government has no business conscripting innocent bystanders and their private matters in order to prove it for her.
As was my point in this post — it is one thing to drag a defendant kicking and screaming into a courthouse. Should the government really be in the business of pushing plaintiffs into court too?
It is not a proper function of government to ride roughshod over the privacy rights of parties who are both disinterested and uninterested in who makes what. Be disgruntled all you want. Quit if you're unhappy; sue if you've believe you've be wronged.
But leave me and my pay stub out of it.
This year, each of the eight associate justices of the Supreme Court will earn $203,000. The only woman and the only African-American on the court are paid the same as their six white male colleagues. Only Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. earns more than everyone else, $212,100. Their pay is set by Congress, and it is a matter of public record.One would think it isn't very difficult: You pay a part of John Roberts' salary; you do not pay part of mine. Stated differently: Mind your own damn business!
Congress should pass legislation mandating that all workplaces create this kind of transparency by requiring companies to post salaries.
What kind of dysfunctional thought process would underlie the conclusion that the best way to guarantee the right of non-discrimination (the victims from denial of which are few) is by obliterating the right of privacy (the enjoyers of which are many)? Add to the calculus that "non-discrimination" is strictly a statutory right and that "privacy" is a constitutional right, and the proposal becomes even more absurd.
Agree or disagree all you want with the Supreme Court's recent holding in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire regarding when the statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims should commence. The fundamental jurisprudential premise remains: It is up to the plaintiff to prove her case. The government has no business conscripting innocent bystanders and their private matters in order to prove it for her.
As was my point in this post — it is one thing to drag a defendant kicking and screaming into a courthouse. Should the government really be in the business of pushing plaintiffs into court too?
It is not a proper function of government to ride roughshod over the privacy rights of parties who are both disinterested and uninterested in who makes what. Be disgruntled all you want. Quit if you're unhappy; sue if you've believe you've be wronged.
But leave me and my pay stub out of it.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
5 June 2007
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
