Dave,
DMB
The ownership of one's own time and energy being the ultimate property
right, no employee shall be deprived of just compensation. Since poverty is
the enemy of life, liberty and happiness and is inconsistent with both human
rights and human dignity, no full-time employee shall be deprived of a
living wage.
Would you vote for it?
RICK
Let's go over the operative clauses.
DMB
...no employee shall be deprived of just compensation.
RICK
Had you written only that "no employee shall be deprived of
compensation" it would be a restatement of the 13th amendment which already
prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. So the operative word here
must be "just". So the question becomes what do you mean by "just
compensation"?
Do you mean that people who do 'harder' jobs should make more money than
people who do 'easier' jobs (just = to each according to the difficulty of
their labors)? I can't believe that you intend to try and create a
constitutional amendment that demands all forms of employment be evaluated
and ranked according to some scale of difficulty and then have a minimum
wage for each profession set from this measure. Even if this task were at
all feasible it would be far beyond the scope of the judiciary. Courts are
very poorly suited for this sort of social architecture.
Or do you mean that there is minimum level of 'just compensation' for
the expenditure of time and energy that must be observed regardless of how
the time and energy is spent (just = to each according to a minimum
entitlement)? This would be a constitutional minimum wage law. As every
state already is bound to observe federal minimum wage laws, I'm not sure
what the advantages of a constitutional amendment to this effect would be.
Or do you intend a constitutionalization of the law of contracts (just =
to each according to what he's bargained for)? This would mean federal
enforcement of private contracts (as opposed to the current state/common law
system of enforcement). Again, I can't think of any significant advantages
to this scheme over the current one.
DMB
....no full-time employee shall be deprived of a living wage.
RICK
This seems to be a constitutional right for full-time employees to have
their minimum wage indexed to some measurement of the cost of living.
I'm not sure how you see it interacting with the last clause. Wouldn't all
employees (part or full time) have to earn the same rate of pay for the same
work under the 'just compensation' clause? To pay a anyone less for the
same job would seem to be "unjust".
So would I vote for it?
I don't think so. By demanding higher rates of pay for full-time workers
your amendment creates incentives for employers to minimize their use of
full-time employees in favor of part-timers and independent contractors so
as to avoid the 'living wage' clause. And the 'just compensation' clause
seems to be superfluous no matter how I read it.
The distinguished gentleman votes Nay.
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:09 BST