Ron Paul on Employee Rights (Part 1): Sexual Harassment-What's the Big Deal?
Published by James Peters January 15th, 2008 in Discrimination, Harassment, Policy : OpinionI have tried to tune out most of the political primary hysteria because I (1) made up my mind about who I would be supporting in the election long ago and (2) I live in California, so my opinion is not really that important at this stage.
Today I happened to stumble across some of Ron Paul's comments in Freedom Under Siege, a book (the link is to a 160 page pdf file of it) he published in 1987. Although I have heard in the past about racist, homophobic, intolerant, etc. comments he has made, I had not heard about some of the things he says about employee rights in this book.
I am neither a proponent of Ron Paul, nor am I an active opponent of his. I believe he has many great ideas, but like most people with a few great radical ideas, he also has a few radical bad ideas. These will be chronicled in a series of posts over the next few days. Originally this was going to be just one post, but the more I read this book, the more material I came up with.
"So-Called Harassment"
The first passage that jumped out at me is on page 17 of the book where he states the following about employees who are sexually harassed by their employers:
Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? ...[H]ow can the harassee escape [any] responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable...pressure and submission is hardly an example of a violation of one's employment rights.
Mr. Paul apparently believes that employers should be free to demand sexual favors from their employees and then terminate them if they are refused. Clearly this viewpoint is offensive to women and is not going to be adopted by anyone other than the far-far-far-right wing of American politics, but it also defies logic from a pure policy standpoint.
Why Don't they Just Quit?
In Ron Paul's view, an employee who is sexually harassed should just walk down the street and get a different job. Apparently the employer's "punishment" is that the employee quits.
However, this ignores the reality that employees cannot just start a new job right away without suffering any damages. What if that employee left a good job to work for this new employer? What if the employee moved to take this job and it is the only company where she can practice in her field (e.g. the only hospital or school in the area)?
"Hardly" a Violation of Employment Rights
Take this hypothetical of a single mother who works hard at her job as a secretary to put food on the table for her children. She has a disabled child who needs frequent medical care and had to wait a full year to get coverage under her employer's health plan. She has received steady raises in her pay to where she finally has enough money coming in to pay her bills and feed her family.
One day, the owner of the company asks her into his office, closes the door behind her and asks her to have sex with him on the couch. She refuses and he says if she is not undressed and on the couch in thirty seconds she is fired.
Current Law
Under current law in both California and the rest of the United States, the employee could simply refuse her employer's advances and sue for lost wages and benefits (until she gets another, comparable position), emotional distress, punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees.
Not only does this serve to compensate an employee who is forced to go through such an ordeal, but it also acts as a deterrent because employers would expect to be sued if this happened.
Ron Paul's View
Apparently Ron Paul believes that in this example the employee has the "right" to quit on the spot and no longer provide services to the employer. However, the employer also has the "right" to demand sex from his employees and terminate them if they do not comply.
The employee is forced to choose between food, shelter and healthcare for her children and being degraded at the hands of her employer. At the instant she makes her decision the "right" decision is far from clear.
This type of scene already plays out far too often in the United States, but imagine if employers had absolutely no liability for taking these sorts of actions.
Conclusion
Sexual harassment laws were passed in large part to deal with the extreme difference in power between employers and their employees.
Employers can make their employees do virtually anything they want within the boundaries of the law, but society has decided that employees should not be forced to choose between being a sex slave and surviving financially or professionally.
Does Ron Paul seriously believe that employees should be forced to make this decision and employers who force them to should not suffer any consequences? If so, do the 10% of people voting for him the primaries agree with him on this?
Table of Contents for This Series
- Ron Paul on Employee Rights (Part 1): Sexual Harassment-What's the Big Deal?
- Ron Paul on Employee Rights (Part 2): Unattractive Women Need Not Apply
- Ron Paul on Employee Rights (Part 3): Darn Those Pesky Civil Rights Laws
Tags
California Employment Law | Discrimination | Gender Discrimination | News | Policy : Opinion | Sexual Harassment
Related Posts
4 Comments DISCLAIMER
4 Responses to “Ron Paul on Employee Rights (Part 1): Sexual Harassment-What's the Big Deal?”
- 1 Pingback on Feb 16th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Thank you for making Ron Paul's book Freedom Under Siege available on line for free! I have never been introduced to the concept of individual rights before. This subject is very interesting, I always thought that the government would know what is best for everyone. Ron Paul says I have the ability to know what is best for me.
"Throughout the twentieth century, the trend has been away from limited government and toward big government's intervening in every aspect of our lives. It has been financed with borrowed money and a fraudulent paper money system. Today, by
majority vote, government can easily cancel out the earnings or rights of individuals without any debate as to constitutionality. "
Just wanted to point out that I did not post the book. The link points to the mises.org website which hosts it.
This is only my point of view, but I think that you are taking Mr. Paul's example out of context a little bit.
I think that he was trying to say that by putting a law on the books only makes it more likely that there will be more violations of personal rights. Maybe I'm only using personal experience on this, but from what I've read: In the 70's men were being paid one and a half times as women were; in 2008 men are being paid one and a half times as women are. I believed that if women were in more jobs, that some of this would quit. It didn't happen. I don't think that women should quit because they are coerced to do anything. But I hope that Mr. Paul is not saying that either. I don't think that the legislation of moral does any good. It seems, also, that discrimination is still prevalent. The method is different and there is more lying about it, but it is still going on. The way that it happens now, the boss will pull a Clinton and then business as usual. The government and employers (generally) are still trying to get away with these ugly things, but now everyone sits on their hands when things like this happens, because they believe (or at least say) that the government will take care of the situation so they don't have do anything.
I think that the insurance is a one problem in your hypothetical example. The more we are forcing employers to "give" insurance, the more "cracks" appear for people to slip through. In my case (this is only a summary), I was assaulted and then my boss told me that I "had to" see doctors to get a disability designation. He told me that since the employer (and apparently the insurance company) was forcing me to do this, that all of the costs would be covered. It didn't happen. After 21 years (only on this last job) of working for a "retirement", I was left with no job (I was fired because I was no longer "able"), three doctors' bills, no retirement, a tiny disability income, no way of getting another job, more medical problems and without insurance. Now they are threatening to make me pay back the disability income, because I don't have the money to pay doctors to tell them that I'm ill! Everyone is dancing around the law to protect the people who are harming me while the law is making my life impossible. All of those benefits that I had to pay all those years, for my "own good", have disappeared to someone else's pocket. My coworkers had the excuse of "we was jus' a heppin'"; the union didn't want to help, because I wasn't an employee anymore; the EEOC says this state is a "right to work state" so they will not help; I can't get unemployment because I'm not "abled"; Job Service won't even let me register because this is Vocational Rehab's job; Vocational Rehab won't help because I don't have the ability to get a loan (because I don't have a job); I can't get welfare because I have "disability income". Lawyers are the biggest excuse makers of all - from "it is not possible in our political atmosphere" to "well you're not DEAD yet, are you". Even the churches are in the act. They (the ones who come to my house) believe that this is the Armagedon and this is a good thing, according to them, so they don't have to do anything except pray because God (or Jehovah) will make everything right after we are all dead.
Sorry, I got off of the sexual harassment subject. I can rant about that for awhile, if you want
But it kinda ties up with your last blog "Employers Must At Least TRY to Accommodate Disabled Employees".
If you have any helpful suggestions (not excuses, please), I'm in need (a home based job or business, some type of income, food, legal representation, etc.).
I'm not drinking the Kool Aid for Paul, but most of what he's saying is what I've been saying for decades. I find him refreshing and I hope more people will try to think for themselves - this insanity has got to stop.
Kathy