{"article":{"id":211669,"heading":"Ron Paul and the Employer\/Employee Relationship","author":"richard myers","created":"2007-12-16 21:49:37","modified":"2013-11-11 00:50:34","last_modified":"Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:50:34","article":"
Ron Paul's Blimp is Flying High \r\n— <\/strong><\/div>\r\n
How About His Reputation Among Working \r\nPeople?<\/strong><\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
\r\n
Ron Paul and the \r\nEmployer\/Employee Relationship<\/strong><\/div>\r\n\r\n
...including the words of the \r\n candidate<\/strong><\/div>\r\n \r\n
by richard myers<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Ron Paul defends the rights of the employer on principle. He \r\ncalls it liberty; i call it privilege. <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
The boss has power over the employee, and may exert that power \r\nin illicit ways. Ron Paul considers the employment contract voluntary<\/em> \r\non both sides, and he therefore doesn't recognize the reality of that \r\npower relationship. While he won't defend a manager who actually uses \r\nforce<\/em> to coerce sex from a subordinate, his recommended solution to sexual \r\nharassment by the boss is for the employee to quit her job.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
This leads me to believe that Ron Paul hasn't a clue what it must \r\nmean to be a single mother, dependent upon a paycheck to feed her children. \r\nAnyone who would offer a sexually exploited employee some civil \r\nrights tools to defend herself is derided as a social \r\ndo-gooder. <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Ron Paul wants a woman in such a situation to stand on her \r\nown. She's signed that voluntary employment contract, she's free and \r\ncapable of making other voluntary associations, so she must solve the \r\nproblem herself, according to Ron Paul's libertarian philosophy.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
In making such judgments, Ron Paul ignores centuries of history. We \r\nknow that slavemasters took advantage of female slaves, and even prominent \r\n\"founders\" of the nation whom we might otherwise respect — Thomas Jefferson \r\ncomes to mind — have mixed race offspring as a result. For centuries, male \r\nbosses of various stripes (whether capitalist, or slave-master) have taken \r\nadvantage of women in their employ. The threat of dismissal or other \r\npunishment, coupled with the uncertainty of finding another job, has forced \r\ncountless women into subservience and exploitation. <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
A Case History<\/strong><\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Three decades ago I worked in a Denver factory in which \r\nwomen outnumbered men by five to one. There wasn't much manufacturing in the \r\narea, and we had jobs that paid comparatively well. Many of us saw the value in \r\nmaking this our career, and i stayed for 33 years. Some employees weren't \r\nallowed that opportunity. <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Supervisors developed reputations for having numerous relationships \r\nwith the women who worked for them. One supervisor routinely joked about rubbing \r\nup against women in his crew. Another was fired after multiple \r\naccusations of rape, and others were transferred for similar behavior. But it \r\nseemed that most such activity was either tolerated or ignored by upper \r\nmanagement.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
A pretty young woman walked by, and my boss blurted out \r\nin a very loud voice, \"let's take her into the bathroom and \r\nrape<\/strong> her!\" He emphasized the word \"rape\", and his words \r\ncoincided with some animated body movement. The young woman managed an \r\nembarrassed smile and didn't say anything. Such harassment of female \r\nemployees was fairly routine in the factory, and to the extent that such \r\nbehavior has been diminished, i expect that is primarily due to threat of a \r\nlawsuit. <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
However, Ron Paul considers such a solution \r\nunacceptable<\/em>. Better for the employee to quit — just walk \r\naway, and let the managers continue their abusive games. <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
In fact this young woman did quit her job, and i surmise it \r\nwas the taunt by my boss that caused her to leave. Was this a fair outcome? \r\nRon Paul apparently believes so. In Freedom Under Siege<\/em>, Paul has \r\nwritten,      <\/div>\r\n\r\n
Today the lack of understanding and respect \r\n for voluntary contracts has totally confused the issue that in a free society \r\n an individual can own and control property and run his or her business as he \r\n or she chooses. The idea that the social do-gooder can legislate a system \r\n which forces industry to pay men and women by comparable worth standards \r\n boggles the mind and further destroys our competitiveness in a world \r\n economy.

Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure \r\n employees into sexual activity. Why don't they quit once the so-called \r\n harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, \r\n but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? \r\n Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. If \r\n force was clearly used, that is another story, but pressure and submission is \r\n hardly an example of a violation of one's employment rights.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
http:\/\/www.mises.org\/books\/freedomsiege.pdf <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
page 24     <\/div>\r\n
In my opinion, the young woman who quit her factory job because of \r\na blatant sexual taunt was guilty of only one thing — being vulnerable. Yet \r\nRon Paul wonders, \"how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the \r\nproblem? ...pressure and submission is hardly ... a violation of \r\none's employment rights.\" <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
It appears that in President Paul's country, employers \r\nhave the right to harass. And, Paul himself has no concept of the \r\ndifficulty of finding jobs, nor of the possible hardship when a job is lost. \r\n<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Unemployment in our society is maintained at a certain level \r\nas a means of keeping down wages. The unemployment rate is based upon NAIRU, the Non-Accelerating \r\nInflation Rate of Unemployment. If a person becomes the one out \r\nof twenty or twenty-five workers who are out of a job by design, then the \r\npenalty of losing a job may be severe.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Ron Paul's Rationale for Corporate Dominance<\/strong><\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Ron Paul's website states that, <\/div><\/div>\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\"Liberty means free-market capitalism, which \r\n rewards individual achievement and competence...\" <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
What exactly does it mean, that \"liberty means \r\nfree-market capitalism\"? Paul believes that \"in a free society an individual can \r\nown and control property and run his or her business as he or she chooses.\" \r\n[page 24]. Paul's philosophy would set corporations free to do essentially \r\nwhatever they wish. <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Well, then, what rights will workers have? The freedom to \r\nseek a different employer. <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
But for working folk, \"freedom\" should<\/em> mean more than the \r\nright to change bosses.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Under President Ron Paul, \"do-gooding\" is \r\nverboten. No one will have any right to balance the power \r\nrelationship between employer and employee, by legislative or other means. Would \r\nthat give us sweatshops, child labor, poorhouses, company towns? Would Ron Paul \r\nexcuse and defend company unions, trusts, monopolies, cartels, blacklists, \r\nprivate goons, slumlords? These questions should be asked of the \r\ncandidate.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Ron Paul Specifics<\/strong><\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Under Ron Paul, an employer would be free to fire an \r\nemployee \"<\/em>for any reason he \r\nchooses\"<\/em>.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Paul doesn't believe that working people should have any right \r\nto \"equal pay for equal work\".<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Under President Paul, if you're not physically \r\nattractive<\/em>, you<\/u> may<\/u> not<\/u> have<\/u> \r\na<\/u> right<\/u> to<\/u> a<\/u> job<\/u>.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Ron Paul wrote in his book,<\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n
The concept of equal pay for equal work is \r\n not only an impossible task, it can only be accomplished with the total \r\n rejection of the idea of the voluntary contract. By what right does the \r\n government assume the power to tell an airline it must hire unattractive \r\n women if it does not want to? The idea that a businessman must hire anyone \r\n and is prevented from firing anyone for any reason he chooses and in the \r\n name of rights is a clear indication that the basic concept of a free \r\n society has been lost.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
http:\/\/www.mises.org\/books\/freedomsiege.pdf<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
page 24<\/div>\r\n
Note the phraseology here. Paul doesn't qualify his \r\nstatement<\/em> to pertain to an employment position (such as \r\nstewardess?) that is socially anticipated to have a certain image to \r\nuphold<\/em>. Paul's stated principle appears to allow an airline to make \r\nattractiveness<\/em> (or anything else they may choose) a hiring issue across \r\nthe board. <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
What's to prevent them from hiring only employees with blue eyes \r\nand blond hair? Might Aryan Airlines<\/em> become a viable carrier under \r\nPresident Paul? <\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Granted, Paul is no national socialist<\/em>. He probably would \r\nnot support the incorporation of such ideologies into government. That's because \r\nall government is inherently evil, and only the market delivers righteousness \r\nand justice.<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
But with recent corporate license in the nature of Enron, \r\nHaliburton, Blackwater, dangerous imports, and those responsible for the mortgage lending \r\ncrisis, shouldn't this sort of \"corporate freedom\" also give us pause? \r\n<\/div>\r\n
 <\/div>\r\n
Some more Ron Paul specifics <\/strong><\/div>\r\n
    \r\n
  • \r\n
    When it comes to illness (AIDS in particular), Paul is quick to assert \r\n the \"rights of the insurance company owners\" [page 30]. Well of course; he is \r\n the CEO's friend, too.<\/div>\r\n <\/li>
  • \r\n
    He would allow sweatshop labor — presumably, work such as sewing \r\n garments for long hours at low pay — in the home [page 28]. How \r\n many children would be forced to work in such an unregulated environment? \r\n Didn't we have congressional hearings nearly a century ago and conclude that \r\n such unregulated working conditions were an abomination?<\/div>\r\n <\/li>
  • \r\n
    Ron Paul has voted to zero-fund an OSHA intiative relating to \r\n ergonomics.<\/div>\r\n <\/li>
  • \r\n
    He is against the minimum wage, and has voted not to increase it. http:\/\/www.ontheissues.org\/2008\/Ron_Paul_Jobs.htm  <\/div>\r\n <\/li>
  • \r\n
    He crosses picket lines: http:\/\/www.laborradio.org\/node\/7423 <\/div><\/li><\/ul>\r\n
     <\/div>\r\n
    What about Ron Paul's views on union rights? Ron Paul believes \r\nthere should be:<\/div>\r\n\r\n
    ...no privileges, no special benefits \r\n legislated to benefit the unions, but you should never deny any working group \r\n to organize and negotiate for the best set of standards of working \r\n conditions. <\/div>\r\n
     <\/div>\r\n
    http:\/\/www.ontheissues.org\/2008\/Ron_Paul_Jobs.htm     \r\n <\/div>\r\n
     <\/div>\r\n
    Unions with no special privileges or benefits, with members who can \r\nbe fired \"for any reason\". Consider what sort of emasculated organization \r\nthat<\/em> might be. <\/div>\r\n
     <\/div>\r\n
    Ron Paul appears to believe that unlimited corporate power is \r\njust fine, so long as it is market-derived. Unions under Ron Paul would be \r\nless relevant than they already are. Workers will become low-paid wage-slaves \r\nwith no rights on the job, with the exit door always held open for them. <\/div>\r\n
     <\/div>\r\n
    The individual liberty<\/em> of the Ron Paul variety is the \r\nfreedom to nakedly exploit, without regulation or constraint. Seems \r\nclear enough that Ron Paul is no friend to working people who may wish to \r\nunite for their own protection.<\/div>\r\n
     <\/div>\r\n
    best wishes,<\/div>\r\n
    richard myers<\/div>\r\n
     <\/div><\/div>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"Ron Paul's Blimp is Flying High \u2014 How About His Reputation Among Working People?","numcomment":5,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2007\/12\/211669.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[{"id":211670,"heading":"This is not news.","article":"By definition, Paul does not support socialist concepts like unionization, elimination of exploitation and so on. Those of us on the left who plan on voting for him have no illusions about this. What we really need is a revolution. However, in the meantime, we also need to roll back the authoritarian state. Paul could help with that effort. As for workers rights, no one with a chance of winning will be helping out with workers rights.","author":"Skelly","parent_id":211669,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2007-12-16 22:36:07","modified":"2007-12-16 22:36:07","fileurl":""},{"id":211675,"heading":"No To Paul!","article":"Ron Paul will never become President.\r\nHe will be lucky to even become the Republican nominee.\r\nHe is against abortion, \r\nas well as gay marriage.\r\nHe hasnt a chance in hell!\r\nPeople need to do alot more research on this wolf in sheep's clothing!","author":"Eddie","parent_id":211669,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2007-12-17 00:55:59","modified":"2007-12-17 00:55:59","fileurl":""},{"id":211676,"heading":"Heh","article":" Yea, like being for so called gay 'marriage' and abortion would get him the GOP nomination.....self delude much?","author":"Lord Locksley","parent_id":211669,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2007-12-17 01:58:23","modified":"2007-12-17 01:58:23","fileurl":""},{"id":211702,"heading":"??","article":"I think the point that they were trying to make was \r\nno self-respecting woman who cherishes the right to do what they want with their own damn bodies would vote for Ron Paul.\r\nNor would any gay man or woman, or their loved ones.\r\nThat's a shit load of people who will give their vote to another candidate.","author":"Stephanie","parent_id":211669,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2007-12-18 01:18:11","modified":"2007-12-18 01:18:11","fileurl":""},{"id":211706,"heading":"to: Skelly","article":"He'd reduce the public police state, but allow, even encourage, the privatized police state. In this regard, he's identical to Bush and Cheney.\r\n\r\nBefore that, though, he'd reduce the size of the welfare state and start selling off land to raise money for military purposes. Libertarians generally support the existence of police to protect private property rights.","author":"Lua P.","parent_id":211669,"mime_type":"text\/plain","created":"2007-12-18 02:41:41","modified":"2007-12-18 02:41:41","fileurl":""}]}