Two misguided columns that appeared in the June 14th edition of the Alligator demonstrate the perverse anti-government ideology that is consuming many of our young people, at the expense of reason.
In her column, University of Central Florida columnist Jennifer Theodore writes that the Paycheck Fairness Act, were it passed, would create "larger burdens for businesses, including increased costs and time spent on paperwork."
While Ms. Theodore makes some reasonable points (indeed, the salary negotiation training for women and girls sounds like a waste of some taxpayer dollars), the main thrust of the proposed law, which has been rejected by Republicans, is simply to close a loophole that had made the 1963 Equal Pay Act ineffectual.
It would also, among other things, ensure freedom of speech by allowing workers to share information about their wages with each other despite company rules. (The inability to do this is why Lily Ledbetter didn't know she was undergoing wage discrimination until she was retiring.)
And no, it would not increase burdens for businesses that don't discriminate in their pay of men and women for the same work. Do employers in a "free market", as Ms. Theodore states, always "choose to pay competitive rates in order to draw the best employees for their company?"
Well, before anti-discrimination laws started being passed, many companies discriminated against women and minorities regardless of whether this prevented them of drawing the best employees. And indeed, many companies view the best employee as the cheapest one, and are willing to reduce quality and to send jobs to be filled by cheaper workers overseas in the interest of their bottom lines.
As for the main argument Ms. Theodore makes, indeed, the law would place a deservedly greater burden on companies that discriminate, but not on ones that don't. The idea of the law is to deter companies from discriminating, and those that don't have nothing to fear.
In a column by Joshua Fonzi, he argued that the existence of marriage licenses represents an intrusion by the state in people's intimate affairs, and that the way to solve the divisiveness presented by the same-sex marriage issue is simply to get rid of government-issued marriage licenses.
Well, certainly, any couple can say they are married without a marriage license. But the idea of government recognition of marriage is to confer benefits and rights on married couples that married couples need, such as hospital visitation rights, receipt of spousal benefits, the ability to jointly file tax returns, and so forth.
Is Mr. Fonzi really suggesting that marriage be no longer recognized by the state and that couples be denied the rights they are entitled to?
Alan Beck, Gainesville Resident
