yum

huancgaco lunch
Originally uploaded by Tasty_Peirogi.

Fair?

Discrimination is a charged word, so let me start by disarming it some for purposes of this post. Generally, when we think of discrimination in the political sense, we think of “unfair” discrimination, typically the type that hinders a person for (1) something outside of their control, and (2) objectively unrelated to the desired good or service. So there are some types of discrimination that most people acknowledge are bad, such as racial discrimination in employment, or gender discrimination for government services. Then, there are some types of discrimination that most people acknowledge are socially desirable, such as the laws that prohibit 10-year olds from buying tobacco. Finally, there are types of discrimination that are done by private individuals, for which most people don’t have problem with, such as the manager at 7-11 who refuses to hire people with facial piercings.

Regardless of whether we think that a particular type of discrimination is good or bad, discrimination can also be expressed as a preference for a particular group. For example, veterans of the US military often get a hiring preference for civilian government jobs, even when they are unrelated to their training or experience in the military. However, this preference, from a logical point of view, could just as easily be expressed as a bias against non-veterans. Now, as a non-veteran civil servant, I don’t have a problem with this policy either way because I think that people who have served in the armed forces should get a helping hand, even if it’s at my expense, based on their earlier social contract with the state. But whether I think it’s fair or not, I’m discriminated against.

I was reading in the Washington Post online today one of their new Blog columns. The writer is praising the 15th anniversary of the Family Medical Leave Act, which for the first time gave certain people the legal right to mandatory unpaid leave from their employer. Broadly speaking, the law allows people who work for a big enough company to take leave if they have or adopt a child, or to take care of a parent, child, spouse, or one’s self with a serious medical condition. Only 12 weeks every 12 months, though.

What does this have to do with discrimination? Like any law with eligibility requirements, the FMLA discriminates, in this case based on family status and health variables. That is to say that those who aren’t in one of the circumstances described in the statute are not legally entitled to 12 weeks unpaid leave. Very few would question the “neediness” of those people in the circumstances described in the statute, certainly not me. On the other hand, I think most people can agree that in many circumstances it is the employer and the other co-workers who must compensate for the employee’s absence.

However, isn’t the Act really discriminating against the childless, orphans, unmarried and the healthy? Of course it is. Then again, it’s hardly the only example of similar government policy. Today, the tax code (with a few pernicious exceptions) generally treats married people either the same as singles, or better. Ditto for parents.

Is it fair? I suppose that probably depends on who is answering the question. Compared to virtually every country in Europe, the US has a remarkably high native-born birth rate, despite having (in general) far fewer government programs to encourage childbearing. So I sincerely doubt that there is any (non-racist) demographic argument (unlike Europe) in support of the tax subsidies and benefits. On the other hand, I certainly acknowledge the benefits to both parent and child by allowing parents to stay home when Jr. arrives or is badly ill.

But in the end, aren’t non-parents – directly or indirectly – subsidizing parents? Or for that matter, those with smaller families subsidizing those with larger families? Is it not more equitable, at least, to broaden the circumstances for which “family” leave is available to employees who want to briefly return to school, travel to Africa, or learn a foreign language? Based purely on sympathy, I would guess most people would say “no.” On the other hand, from an equity point of view, why does the state decree that a person’s passion for childrearing is “better” than one’s passion for volunteering in Africa? Or learning to surf in Bali?

For me, I’m resigned to the fact that it’s merely a watered-down version of Jefferson’s “tyranny of the masses” – the breeders getting their way with the rest of us. But as this country debates things like gay marriage and gay adoption, I’m often struck with the feeling that if we are making things fairer (which I think is a good thing), there should be a lot more people at the table than just committed homosexual couples.