Most likely since regulations “began”, there have been folks that feel we need more of ’em; we can’t sell rotten meat you know. And there have folks that would have fewer of them; no one would buy rotten meat you know. My position certainly falls nearer the “fewer are better” side of the ledger.
However, I will admit that there is a line. Independent of what side of the “regulation debate” you come from, an earnest party to such a debate must realize that a couple of things:
- There is an extreme position. On BOTH sides. That is, there is an extreme amount OF regulation and an extreme LACK of regulation.
- There comes a point when one must admit he is approaching that line.
So, I get the point that taken to far, my position could become an extreme one, and unsustainable. I happen to think that’s the “feature” of the way in which we build our laws; no one person gets to decide. However, be that as it may, the point this morning isn’t to try and debate whether certain regulation is too much or too little, rather, it’s to point out the impact of regulations once applied.
Consider, for example, a recent letter from the EEOC, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, regarding the requirement of a high school diploma for employment:
The “informal discussion letter” from the EEOC said an employer’s requirement of a high school diploma, long a standard criterion for screening potential employees, must be “job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” The letter was posted on the commission’s website on Dec. 2.
Employers could run afoul of the ADA if their requirement of a high school diploma “‘screens out’ an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets the ADA’s definition of ‘disability,’” the EEOC explained.
Independent of whether or not one agrees with this direction from the EEOC, that is, not being within the rights to require a high school diploma for employment, the fact remains unequivocal:
The “regulation” will result in fewer jobs. Employers hiring for low skilled or entry level positions will be that much more leery of facing a discrimination lawsuit than they may otherwise have prior. And THAT will result in some of them delaying or outright canceling of a job opening.
The result of very well intention and noble altruism is that the new law, rule or regulation will cause more harm to and discriminate against the very target population that it was meant to assist. This is true in exactly the same way and measure as minimum wage laws harming the very people it attempts to help.
The minimum wage debate is an old favorite. Another very visible and clear line of disagreement between conservatives and liberals. There are those on one side that feel we should increase the minimum wage to a level that better represents a living wage. Other, myself included, feel that wages are best left to the negotiations of the employer and the employee.
