There is much discussion these days about equality and rights — particularly relating to health care. But what does it really mean to have equal rights or equal treatment? Is there a case that equal rights or equal treatment should lead to equal outcomes? And how do these apply in a place of business?
The Declaration of Independence created the foundation for all that followed in establishing the governing of our country, including the Constitution of the United States. In the Declaration of Independence, the signers agreed on a few critical statements, after much discussion and debate. Among these statements is the oft-quoted phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Sadly, the right to the pursuit of Happiness has often been erroneously stated as the ‘right to happiness’.
Equal Rights
In a simpler form, the Declaration of Independence states that everyone was created by God who gave every being (not just some) the right to seek their own happiness, according to their own choices in how they live. Then the Constitution defines a set of standards upon which we may do this without harming others in enjoying these same rights. Again, some have erroneously claimed that the Constitution guarantees free equal health care. However, the Constitution states the federal government should promote the general welfare, not provide it.
Equal Treatment
Do these rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness give everyone the right to equal treatment? Only to the extent that it applies to these three items. Everyone has the right to be free from harm by others. Does this mean they have the right to be given the same health care treatment as others? Only to the extent that they pursue it. What if one person can’t afford the same health-care treatment that another person can? Are their rights being trampled upon? Is the inability to pay a valid reason for someone to not be given this treatment? If I have a right to live, does that require you to give me the life-saving treatment I cannot afford?
To answer this, we must understand that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution were focused on protecting individual rights from being taken away by others or the federal government. They were opposed to creating requirements upon others to fulfill those rights. In other words, I have a right to life and am protected from others’ activities that would deprive me of my life, but you are not required to sustain my life at your expense.
If I choose to seek a form of treatment from you, you are obligated to treat me the same as you would treat anyone else: you are obligated to offer me the same procedure, with the same attention, at the same price as you would any other person, rich or poor, regardless of background, social standing, heritage, ethnicity, etc. But, you are not obligated to give me the treatment for free because I cannot pay for it, nor is another person obligated to pay for my treatment because I cannot. (You can choose to do this if it meets with your choices of pursuing happiness in your own life, but you are not compelled to do so.)
Equal Outcomes
To require everyone to pay a specified amount (or a percentage of income) to pay for equal health treatment for everyone is potentially forcing me to forsake my own pursuit of happiness. If owning a large house on a golf course is my version of pursuing happiness, can I require you to pay for my house if I pay for your health care treatment? Most people would say ‘no.’
Does your right to life (if defined as the right to health care) override my right to the pursuit of happiness? If the government requires me to give of my income to support your health care, will it require you to give of your income to support my pursuit of happiness?
No one has a right to be given the same things. No one has a right to force others to give them the same things. John Adams refuted these very ideas.
“That all men are born to equal rights is true,” Adams conceded in his 1787 Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America. “But to teach that all men are born with equal powers and faculties, to equal influence in society . . . is as gross a fraud . . . as ever was practiced by . . . the self-styled philosophers of the French Revolution.” Adams described fifty babies in a single room, all four days old, all in identical cradles, all dressed and nursed alike, yet all strikingly different. “They were born to equal rights,” he concluded, “but to very different fortunes; to very different success and influence in life.”
Being born to different fortunes, success and influence clearly denotes different outcomes.
Equality at Work
We currently have laws that state “Employers may not pay unequal wages to men and women who perform jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility, and that are performed under similar working conditions within the same establishment.” At its core, this means you cannot pay a man or woman one rate simply because of their gender and a another person a different rate just because they are the opposite gender.
Additionally, many unions have negotiated contracts with employers that require the employer to pay every employee in a specific job the same rate (often times also dependent upon seniority).
Even though both these situations eliminate one form of inequality, they also create inequality. Assume Pat and Chris are both performing the same work. These requirements state they will both be paid the same. However, what if Pat performs just enough to get by, just enough to meet productivity requirements – in other words, Pat meets the minimum standard of performance. Chris on the other hand puts in extra effort (although it’s not required) and is more diligent and responsible in performing the assigned work, and thus more successful. In the case of a negotiated rate, you must pay Pat and Chris the same amount even though Chris has contributed more to the success of the business. In some extreme cases, Chris performs better, but since Pat has more seniority you’re even required to pay Pat more than Chris.
This is an unjust application of equality at work. More just, and according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you should be able to pay Chris more because she contributes more to the business and Pat would receive less because he contributes less. Applying the right to liberty (choice) and the pursuit of happiness, you would be able to compensate Chris more for her choices in how she pursues her happiness via her work than you compensate Pat because of his choices in how he works.
Seniority is another example of equal outcomes versus equal rights. Seniority requires you to pay more to one individual merely because they have been on the job longer than another person, even if the second person performs better and contributes more to the success of the organization.
While I advocate adhering to the laws and contracts that govern a business’s operations, wherever possible leaders should apply the principle of equal rights rather than equal outcomes.
Recent Comments