5/04/00 11:40 a.m.
Can You Spell P-A-N-D-E-R?
A bad — and unconstitutional — new idea from the President.

By Roger Clegg , general counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity

resident Clinton signed an executive order on Tuesday that banned discrimination against parents in the federal workplace. Now, I have no strong objection if the president wants to make a silly rule for his bureaucrats to follow; but, of course, it won’t stop there. According to USA Today, "He urged Congress to extend the protection to all workers." This is a very bad idea: Let us call this legislation the Parents’ Act for Non-Discrimination in Employment Relations, or PANDER.

It was proposed last year simply because it polled well, and therefore represents a new low for civil-rights legislation. At the time, the administration admitted that it had only anecdotal evidence of anti-parent discrimination, and Slate magazine concluded that four of the eight examples given by the White House were invalid.

This makes the bill not only unjustified, but unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court, Federal legislation — in order to be constitutional — would have to be aimed at discrimination that has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. This clearly, does not.

It will, in addition, lead to spurious lawsuits and predictably dumb regulations by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A company that decided not to have a day-care center, or that discouraged moms from bringing their kids to work with them, could expect trouble from plaintiffs’ lawyers and bureaucrats alike. Asking about a colleague’s child might be challenged as a new kind of harassment, but then again, you might also be sued if you made it a point to ignore the kid.

There is no reason not to trust the marketplace in this matter. Good workers are at a premium, and any employer that irrationally discriminates against parents will lose out. If there are some employers for some jobs who conclude that, all things considered, they would prefer to have someone who can be on call 24 hours a day, that should be up to them. When people have kids, they reshuffle their priorities. It would be appalling if they didn’t.

The latest rhetorical gimmick by the left is to extol X and Y, and then say, "No one should have to choose between her X and her Y." As in, between her mortgage payment and her prescription, or her job and time off for her child. This is just a way of saying that the law should guarantee that everyone has X and Y. That may or may not be a good idea, but what makes no sense is to say that it is up to the employer to foot the bill for the president’s generosity.

But when you can get others to pay for your gifts, it makes it a lot easier to PANDER.