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.
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.
posted by Jason at 19:08
2 Comments:
As someone who just had a baby but didn't get to take advantage of the FMLA (my company is too small) I wonder if I can be unbiased in commenting. Probably not, so forgive me.
I'd say that society does subsidize parents / marrieds a bit more but not nearly to the extent that they could if they really wanted to promote marriage and kids. (Or DEFEND marriage as the evangies say.)
I could argue that my child might end up working to pay your social security benefits, but who knows if it will even exist by then. Anyway, there are benefits to society to continue with population growth and it needs to be taken on by individuals since a society can't produce new members on its own. (Although you could argue it could expand its borders or allow open immigration to do so.)
I'd say that America tries to balance these things, but more in self-interest of people making the laws than in the interest of society. It sure would be great to go back to government run day care like WWII so that everyone could participate in increasing the GDP (should they so choose.)
And, I support your idea for sabbaticals to travel or study -- it's just as important a benefit to the employee, which is the point of an employer offering such things. The law getting involved makes it more complicated. But, you'd be surprised how many people can't use the FMLA.
What on Earth gave you the idea that we will ever be treated fairly in life?
In the words of one of my favorite malcontents, James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid!" Although he was speaking to George Bush senior's failed bid for re-election, I think Mr. Carville's statement fairly sums up the U.S. bias toward families at the expense of the hipster singletons like you, J.
As I'm sure you know, one of the strengths of the U.S. economy is the number of consumers--more babies = more future consumers. As a country, unfortunately, the U.S. lives and breathes to make money. The government wants to promote lasting unions (however dysfunctional) and the future consumers that are born from those unions so that Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart, and their ilk can make lots of money from the future sweat and toil of those new consumers. Evidently, the government believes that policies like the FMLA do this.
For politicians, the beauty of favoring families is that they may fool some us into believing that they support family values out of a sense of moral obligation and successfully hide the fact that they are largely motivated by their own greed, or at a minimum, the greed of those who bankroll them. Unfortunately, no one has yet explained to these politicians how your surfing trip to Bali will significantly benefit their bottom line or the bottom line of those who fund them...better get on that.
Too cynical? Too true.
Post a Comment
<< Home