Topic: advertising first, product second

[TechPro]

Truth is, there are some VERY discriminatory business practices that are ... accepted, even though they are technically wrong.

For example, the "Hooters" restaurant chain is (how shall I say it) known for hiring girls with certain characteristics, and WILL NOT be hiring guys to do the same job, regardless of how much better the guy (or guys) may be at the job, simply because the guys do not have those certain characteristics.  The same would apply to girls who apply for the job yet lack those certain characteristics.

Is that discriminatory?  You decide.  In my opinion, it is allowable because the business desires certain characteristics in their employees in order to bolster their business with certain demographics.  I don't think it's discriminatory because the persons who are being discriminated against do not have the characteristics that the job requires.

As for Walmart, it could very well be that the ladies were usually passed over not because they are female but because they lacked certain characteristics that the business desired in the employees for those jobs.  That was the thing the ladies were saying was not the case, but according to the high court ruling were not successful in providing sufficient evidence.  I'll have to trust that the high court knew what they were doing.

[-<WillyP>-]

Yet, you haven't opined whether you think a business should be allowed to choose who they want to hire or promote, or not. Technically wrong? What does that mean, really? Technically, Hooters should hire men even though that does not fit with their business model?

[Scyphi]

And as far as women being offended by that, so what?

Well, I'm not saying they're right to think that, and in fact, I pretty much agree with what you've said, WillyP. I just wanted to put the detail that some people are probably going to take offense anyway out there for all to see, because I'd really be lying if I said differently.

[VANGUARD]

Truth is, there are some VERY discriminatory business practices that are ... accepted, even though they are technically wrong.

For example, the "Hooters" restaurant chain is (how shall I say it) known for hiring girls with certain characteristics, and WILL NOT be hiring guys to do the same job, regardless of how much better the guy (or guys) may be at the job, simply because the guys do not have those certain characteristics.  The same would apply to girls who apply for the job yet lack those certain characteristics.

Is that discriminatory?  You decide.  In my opinion, it is allowable because the business desires certain characteristics in their employees in order to bolster their business with certain demographics.  I don't think it's discriminatory because the persons who are being discriminated against do not have the characteristics that the job requires.

As for Walmart, it could very well be that the ladies were usually passed over not because they are female but because they lacked certain characteristics that the business desired in the employees for those jobs.  That was the thing the ladies were saying was not the case, but according to the high court ruling were not successful in providing sufficient evidence.  I'll have to trust that the high court knew what they were doing.

Whether it be right or wrong, I sort of side with Techpro. That restaurant is looking for something, and guys simply don't have that; and some girls don't either.
I guess it's like filming a movie or T.V. show. someone is looking for a hot actress, or an actor/actress that is 250 pounds that fits the part where ever in the story. Some director may want someone bald, someone small, someone tall.

In most careers, I don't think it should matter. If it requires a ton of heavy lifting, okay, maybe just the guys.
they pick women over men to be receptionists. I hear it's because women tend to sound more pleasant and sweet on the phone than guys do.

Chip 'n' Dales, about the same as that restaurant (I keep thinking of Chris Farely on SNL when I think of that place). They won't pick some heavy set guy.

[Crash]

I went to a concert over the weekend in London and among the various, stylish, young people there, (who you might describe as 'normal') was one young man who obviously suffered from down syndrome.

How is this relevant?  There are some things in life that you can't change but there are many that you can.
I think we have a duty to make society as fair as possible by changing those things that are changeable.

One thing I will say in favour of the European Union, is that it has enforced very, very powerful employment legislation, which can be enforced (at least indirectly) against any employer and directly against the "state" in any EU country and prohibits any kind of discrimination in the workplace. So this kind of court decision would hardly be acceptable in a European Court.
Were it to come about, it would surely be appealed up to the European Court of Justice and I'm certain that they would take an extremely dim view of (what seem to be fairly commonly-known) practices at Walmart.
 
Where you have evidence that women of certain performance and qualification are being excluded from progressing up the company ladder in favour of equally or lesser-qualified men, that in-and-of-itself is strong evidence (which the company might be able to refute) of sexual discrimination in the workplace.

Plus, if you read the opinion of the dissenting (female) judge in the Walmart matter, she highlighted procedural peculiarity with the case, which indicated to me that the plaintiffs were hardly given a fair and equal hearing.
Another thing the commentators seized upon was that one reason the action was dismissed was because there were too few claimants (). This went against your own caselaw on the matter, I believe.
And the final thing was how similar the individual claimants' claims were, given that this was employment-related. Usually, in cases such as these the claims are far from identical yet may indicate a pattern. Here they were very similar, indicating a systemic prejudice. That also normally behoves the court to permit a class-action when claims are, essentially, identical.

I read back and someone said how the claimants had lost the case. Yes, this is true but the trial itself had not been held. They had asked permission to launch a class-action and that had been denied. That's not the same as having the case heard and losing on the facts and evidence.

So, I think Walmart has had a lucky or convenient escape and if I weren't such a cynic, I might think that lobbying power had nothing to do with it.

[-<WillyP>-]

You would choose to give up your right to decide for your self, and give over all your personal freedom to a govt panel, they will decide what is best for you, who you can like or not like, who you can hire or promote, whether or not you should invest in insurance, how much you should put away for retirement, and on and on. Europeans will conform, or pay the penalty. Americans patriots will fight for freedom and liberty. Discrimination against women and minorities is wrong, I agree with that, but I don't want govt nose-pickers telling me how to run my business.

Where do you draw the line?

[Crash]

As an employee, I don't see that I personally would have to give anything up to maintain equality.
As an employer, that might differ but what legitimate business does anyone have promoting someone on the basis of nepotism or sexism rather than qualification? How does legislating against that disadvantage you financially as an employer (or disadvantage the business in practical terms) if the best person (albeit not a man) gets the job?

No-one would argue that putting a less-qualified woman ahead of a man is the right thing to do, so where is the sacrifice being made?
The law makes sense, from an egalitarian perspective, for the employee and, from a practical perspective, for the employer.
If he (the employer) has taken due diligence to ensure that the best, most qualified person is in the post, where does the problem lie and how is he liable?

I draw the line by asking myself which is more important ... equality (which you support) or my right to make a wrong decision (ie. choose to employ a less-qualified person over a more qualified person). I think that's an easy question to answer and I suppose I apply the same test across the board.

To take another example ... car insurance is a legal requirement. Which is more disanvantageous? having to pay for insurance myself? Or, possibly having no legal recourse when an uninsured driver causes an accident and injures me irreverably?

Living in a world without obligation is great but what happens when you need something from someone else? Nomatter how independent you are, there will be a time. What happens when no legal obligation lies upon a policeman or doctor to ... protect or treat you? You shouldn't have the burden of paying taxes and they shouldn't be obliged to do anything, just like everyone else.
That exaggerates the point but I think it makes it.

I think you not only risk sounding like a complete jingoist but sound like one outright when you say "Europeans will conform" and "Americans ... fight for freedom and liberty". I personally take that as an affront after the number of British soldiers that have died fighting, in part, for American freedoms.
I'm no great historian but America has a poor record of fighting for anyone's freedom but its own. WWII illustrates that.

Now, I myself am frustrated at the lack of contribution by our supposed European NATO allies to the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan but to say 'we're all about freedom and the rest of the world (what little we may know about it) is weak and virtueless' is part of what got us into the post 9/11 situation in the first place.

[-<WillyP>-]

Crash, you are missing the point completely. Don't you even read what you are responding to?

Nowhere did I say anything that could be misconstrued as to be saying that not promoting a more qualified woman would be good for business. Yet, business owners make bad desicions every day. Maybe the owner does not like women. Lets talk not about women, but left handed red headed people. Surely they deserve as much rights to promotion as anyone else right? But what rights do the business owners have? They are the ones who spend long hard hours, and every penny they can scrape up, building a business bit by bit. Maybe he has a fear of left handed red headed people. Should the owner of a business be forced to surround himself with people he is afraid of, however irrational that fear may be?

What you are saying, is that promoting more qualified women is good business practice, therefore it should be a law that a business has to promote more qualified women. It might also be a good business practice to change the oil in your company vehicle every 3,000 miles, should we have a law mandating that too? Business owners are not egalitarian, they are human. Not every disadvantage is financial. If every decision is to be reviewed and approved by the govt, why bother having business owners at all? If you say, 'no not every decision is reviewed and approved', then where do you draw the line?

To answer your question, 'where is the sacrifice', what more sacrifice could there be, for a business owner, than to loose control over the business he has slaved over the last thirty years?

Oh, and by the way, car insurance is not a legal requirement. But the point I make is not about which is more disadvantageous, it is whether I have the freedom to make my own choice.

By fighting, I meant against those in your own govt who take away your freedoms by law. You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted.

[-<WillyP>-]

Living in a world without obligation is great but what happens when you need something from someone else? No matter how independent you are, there will be a time. What happens when no legal obligation lies upon a policeman or doctor to ... protect or treat you? You shouldn't have the burden of paying taxes and they shouldn't be obliged to do anything, just like everyone else.
That exaggerates the point but I think it makes it.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion. If I enter into a contract to provide certain services then I am obligated to do so, otherwise I am in breach of contract. A doctor and a policeman, enter into contracts to do certain thing, such as protect you or treat you, when they accept the job. No different then when I make a contract to build a deck or remodel a bathroom. Where did you get the idea that freedom equals no obligations? Quite the opposite is true, being free to make your own decisions require a much higher level of responsibility and sense of obligation.

[Scyphi]

Ugh, politics...

Okay, where do I want to begin?

Well, first off, let it never be said that WillyP isn't American, which I commend him for, but I should also point out that it is possible to be a little too American, and the USA has been guilty of this for many, many, years.

Second, I also wish to point out to both parties that this matter all boils down to personal opinion over matters that have been under debate for decades, if not centuries, and even today, there is no set "line" that has been drawn that decides when things are going too far or not far enough, simply because no one can come to an agreement that everybody is happy with. This very discussion can be used as evidence for that if you so wish.

Third, you both need to keep in mind that you're obviously from different countries and have been greatly exposed to their practices for some time, and, don't take it the wrong way, are thus a little bias. These two regions of the world have had a long history of doing things differently from each other, and I should further point out have also had a long history of not seeing eye to eye on political matters such as this, and that's okay. There is nothing wrong with discussing the differences and which is right or wrong or neither, but also keep in mind that for something like this, I doubt there's going to be one "right" solution that's good for everybody, so try and keep this from an argument over who's doing it better than the other, because nothing productive short of warfare is going to come from that (to your credit, though, you have both been doing a fair job with this. I can just feel the tension rising, so I wanted to try and nip it in the bud before the flame wars start).

Now, I'm going to try and make a few comments on your guys's comments whilst trying to keep from undoing all of the attempted peacekeeping I just did.

You would choose to give up your right to decide for your self, and give over all your personal freedom to a govt panel

Crash was more of trying to explain how things are done on his side of the globe, and when you compare it to how things are done on the American side, it not only probably seemed odd to him, it also seemed a little ridiculous, and to a certain degree, it is, but I'm sure the same can be said about some of the governmental actions Europe's made over the years. No government is perfect, every now and then they make bad choices, choices that sooner or late can come back and bite them.

My point, though, is that Crash was not saying we should let the government rule our lives, just that sometimes government intervention, whether we like it or not, IS necessary. An excellent example of this in America is it's long history of discrimination against African Americans, in which government intervention DID occur to put an end to certain hypocritical practices, and even today, that discrimination is not all gone. Had it been left up to the people, this may have never happened, so in order to right the wrongs that had been made, the government needed to intervene. Obviously, they shouldn't intervene too much, an idea we're all no doubt a little leery of, but that's exactly the reason why the American government works the way it does. By letting the citizens choose the governmental officials, it's our job to elect people who can make the actions the government needs to make, but not overstep their authority. If this isn't happening, then we the people are not doing our job.

I'm no great historian but America has a poor record of fighting for anyone's freedom but its own. WWII illustrates that.

This is true more than any American is willing to admit. In my studies of history, I've discovered that America has been more concerned about their own freedom than the freedom of others, and sometimes that was only limited to the freedoms of a certain select. This isn't to say this was done intentionally, because it certainly wasn't. It's just certain ideals were common at certain times, and it led to events that in retrospect seem faulty with our modern day of thinking. But even our modern day of thinking is not without flaws. Not to say that anyone here is guilty of this, and I highly doubt anyone is, but there has been a bad habit spreading among Americans where they consider America to be, to put it bluntly, better than everyone else, when this just isn't true. And even when America did act to support the freedom of others in other countries (Iraq, Korea, the Philippines, etc.) they usually did it by trying to force their own alien ideals onto a people that weren't entirely welcoming of it or prepared for it, and it led to conflict. America has actually been doing that for awhile now, since as far back as the late eighteen hundreds, and while our tactics have changed, probably for the better, we still face the same issues.

While the subject of the World Wars is still fresh, though, I'd actually like to back up America's actions in both wars with a brief history lesson. WWI really began because of a really pretty childish dispute in Europe that got way out of hand, and America not only recognized it, but also saw that nothing would be gained by intervening so they didn't. And for a long time, the rest of Europe tried their hardest to keep America out of the war (for whatever reason, some, like Germany, were more interested in simply not having yet another force to reckon with). But the events of the war still slowly bled their way into American affairs, one thing led to another, and America stepped in and in doing so, actually turned the tide of the war. Afterwards, though, with WWI being so brutal and violet, America was not at all keen in getting involved in such a war again, and wanted peace instead. Their solution in getting it was to seclude themselves from the affairs of the rest of the world, thinking that if they just kept completely and utterly to themselves as much as possible, that would protect them from ending up in more unwanted wars. But then WWII came along and proved them wrong with the combined threats of the invading Axis powers Japan, Italy, and especially Nazi Germany risking their well being, with the attack on Pearl Harbor finally being the last straw, and so America was again pulled into the war. Whether or not America's actions in both wars were right or wrong, not a whole lot of blame can be put on them either.

But as WillyP said, this isn't entirely relevant to the discussion, so moving on...

I draw the line by asking myself which is more important ... equality (which you support) or my right to make a wrong decision (ie. choose to employ a less-qualified person over a more qualified person).

This is an important point that must be considered. Yes, business owners, and in fact everyone, need to have the right to make their own choices, but that still doesn't necessarily make them the right choices. Again, it is the government's job to try and insure the wrong choices are thwarted from going too far while at the same time trying to maintain fair equality among everyone, and this is EXTREMELY difficult at times, and so sometimes the best solution is to try and compromise. We may not always like the compromise, but sometimes it's the best choice that can be done. In my personal opinion on the matter, I think you're both right, that WillyP's right to say that the government shouldn't interfere too much in the affairs of business owners, and that Crash is right that the government should make sure those business owners don't take their rights too far. If they didn't, then the working conditions of today would probably still be like they were back in the early nineteen hundreds during the Industrial Revolution, which I would hope would be undesirable to all. And part of the reason working conditions were like that is because business owners were allowed to run things however they wished, and they got greedy, caring more about the profit than the people working for them. As a result, a lot of harm was done, and even innocent lives were lost at times because of it. It wasn't until the government started to step in that these conditions really started to change, so in a way, you can thank the government for making the workplace what it is today.

Crash, you are missing the point completely. Don't you even read what you are responding to?

No, he's not missing the point, it's just a case of your opinions clashing with each other, and with neither side being too willing to concede that this is just they way they think and are letting their opinions, I hate to say it, blind them, even if only partially.

...then where do you draw the line?

There is no right or wrong answer to this question in my opinion. Like I said before, though, I have no problem with it being discussed just so long as it's kept from turning into a flame war, which means both sides need to take an active part in keeping it from reaching that point. Don't comment recklessly and angrily. Try and stop and think about things as you post and consider all side of the argument, like what I'm attempting to do with this post (and am hopefully at least partially successful). Again, though, you both have been doing an okay job at this.

By fighting, I meant against those in your own govt who take away your freedoms by law. You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted.

I hate to say it, WillyP, but this is an extremely American and extremely bias thing to say, and is an example of what NOT to say in discussions such as this. Even if it was true, though, nothing but trouble is going to come from saying it, and is really only an inflammatory comment. So at the very least, I ask you try and keep comments such as this to yourself.

Completely irrelevant to the discussion.

This depends on how you look at it. I see it as more of an instance of Crash trying to provide an example to try and prove his point, and maybe just wasn't as successful as he had hoped.

There...I think that's everything I want to say. Hopefully none of my points will be taken the wrong way.

We've really been prone to getting into situations such as this a lot lately. 

[-<WillyP>-]

It is NOT NOT NOT the US govt's job to right every wrong! Scyphi, all due respect, but your whole post, your attitude, is what is wrong in this country. You have grown up knowing only the liberal, socialist attitude you are expressing.

I am American, and always will be. This is the greatest country in the world, no doubt about it. Of course I am biased! But, I am right. If you want a govt nanny, move to a country that has a history and tradition of this. It isn't the American way of life.

Crash IS saying we should let govt run our lives, our business, because if you don't fight against govt scope creep, that is what you end up with.

[Crash]

If you fail to change the oil, no individual employee is disadvantaged in terms of salary etc. This example is not parallel.
In your other example you're talking about promoting the importance of admittedly "irrelevant", and (in the case of women) outdated preferences/fears above fears of real, personal detriment.

You're also forgetting that here the law recognises that the employer is in a more powerful position than the employee due to economic pressures right from the outset. That's an issue that should always be borne in mind.

In the UK, it is a sensible legal requirement to possess insurance when driving a motor vehicle, just as employers are required to have personal injury insurance for their employees. Perhaps this non-contractual obligation is too burdensome on employers too?

The fact that some duties are contractual and some are general is not really an issue for me either.
Besides, these duties bring about criminal liability which has nothing to do with any contract that a doctor might have signed. It has to do instead with their non-contractual, legal duty of care, which can give rise to such things as gross negligence manslaughter etc. if that duty is breached.

You say you shouldn't have the burden of following employment law, that being obliged to is contrary to your freedoms. Your freedom is curtailed by obligations. Therefore, how is discussion of various obligations irrelevant?

"You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted."
- This is bullshit. This is not a discussion. What facts are you basing that on?

The problem is that you don't know what freedom is. One of your political parties uses the word "Freedom" to instill fear. "Do this, support us or your american freedoms will be taken away" and so forth.
It's interesting because my mind automatically races to analogise this with Nazi Germany but instead of inciting hatred to acquire total control, they exploit peoples' fear of losing their freedom to the precise same end.
Freedom is a sense of accomplishment that you obtain after struggle. The British have learned that as a nation although that sensation has dimmed with the passage of time. It is not a bargaining chip that you can threaten to take away.

I totally agree with what you were saying though that Government should be as hands-off as possible. This year some 600 quangos have been eliminated by the coalition here. Never let it be said that efficiency savings are altogether a dreadful thing. But we still have a long way to go with local government.
If you knew how many times this family has stood up and claimed its rights in almost every area; (law-enforcement, local government, private litigation, education), you name it, you might think twice about some of your statements.

[Crash]

Willy posted in the same time that I was writing mine.

I didn't see any need to alter it, although I will say this:

If you were employed by a firm - who would you rather give discretion to? - the government and the courts or your employer (bearing in mind that that could be anybody - a complete roll of the dice).

You're basically saying "I want to live in a country where my ability to make a childish, immoral and senseless decision is more important than guaranteeing that people are employed and paid fairly and in accordance with their abilities".
I don't think that America is such a country or ever was and I seriously doubt that most americans view it as such either.

Somewhere, yes, you draw the line to stop government interventionism. We had waaay too much of it under our last government and we were aware of that at the time and it is now being reversed. The coalition may have its faults but is very busy undoing a lot of the damage that Labour did.
I don't know where it is but as surely as I know anything I know it isn't with employment equality. And I suppose you can tell in each individual case where the line is or isn't to be drawn by balancing the implications of each possible decision outcome (as with anything else).

[-<WillyP>-]

If you fail to change the oil, no individual employee is disadvantaged in terms of salary etc. This example is not parallel.
In your other example you're talking about promoting the importance of admittedly "irrelevant", and (in the case of women) outdated preferences/fears above fears of real, personal detriment.

This is at the heart of what I am telling you: An employer/employee relationship is a form of contract between the two parties. As an employer, I should have the right to enter into contracts with such parties as I choose. Yes I am well aware of anti discrimination laws, that is what I am talking about! Should I have no rights to my outdated preferences/fears? The Constituition makes no provision for regulating pay scale for men vs women. Don't get me wrong, I believe in a perfect world everyone would get what they are worth, BUT the right is to a potential earnings, not that everyone gets treated fairly by every other individual. If I hire you for 10/hour and someone else for 20, have I cheated you? No, you agreed to work for 10. That was your choice. Don't you want the right to make that choice for yourself?

You're also forgetting that here the law recognises that the employer is in a more powerful position than the employee due to economic pressures right from the outset. That's an issue that should always be borne in mind.

How can you say that I have forgotten that? This is all about what we are discussing, whether laws of this nature are appropriate or not. Of course I know what the laws are, I am saying the laws got to far, intruding into what should be a business owners decision.

In the UK, it is a sensible legal requirement to possess insurance when driving a motor vehicle, just as employers are required to have personal injury insurance for their employees. Perhaps this non-contractual obligation is too burdensome on employers too?

It should be a matter for employers and employees to decide. If both employer and employee don't want it, why should the govt interfere?

The fact that some duties are contractual and some are general is not really an issue for me either.
Besides, these duties bring about criminal liability which has nothing to do with any contract that a doctor might have signed. It has to do instead with their non-contractual, legal duty of care, which can give rise to such things as gross negligence manslaughter etc. if that duty is breached.

You say you shouldn't have the burden of following employment law, that being obliged to is contrary to your freedoms. Your freedom is curtailed by obligations. Therefore, how is discussion of various obligations irrelevant?

I never said that! Not even close!

"You are so used to being govt children, you don't know any other way. You have given up so many rights, that Americans take for granted."
- This is bullshit. This is not a discussion. What facts are you basing that on?

No facts, just an observation based on what you wrote.

The problem is that you don't know what freedom is. One of your political parties uses the word "Freedom" to instill fear. "Do this, support us or your american freedoms will be taken away" and so forth.

That would be the liberal party, the Democrats, which I assume would be your party if you were an American citizen. This is what I fight against.

It's interesting because my mind automatically races to analogise this with Nazi Germany but instead of inciting hatred to acquire total control, they exploit peoples' fear of losing their freedom to the precise same end.
Freedom is a sense of accomplishment that you obtain after struggle. The British have learned that as a nation although that sensation has dimmed with the passage of time. It is not a bargaining chip that you can threaten to take away.

I totally agree with what you were saying though that Government should be as hands-off as possible. This year some 600 quangos have been eliminated by the coalition here. Never let it be said that efficiency savings are altogether a dreadful thing. But we still have a long way to go with local government.
If you knew how many times this family has stood up and claimed its rights in almost every area; (law-enforcement, local government, private litigation, education), you name it, you might think twice about some of your statements.

What is a quango? Anyway, this section sounds like you are coming around to agreement with me. Good job!

[-<WillyP>-]

Willy posted in the same time that I was writing mine.

I didn't see any need to alter it, although I will say this:

If you were employed by a firm - who would you rather give discretion to? - the government and the courts or your employer (bearing in mind that that could be anybody - a complete roll of the dice).

You determine your employer by a roll of the dice? I don't think so. You need to research the firm, make sure you are a good fit, make sure the policies there jibe with your personal belief, that the company is reputable and will advance your own personal growth goals, and that you will in good conscience be able to promote the goals of the firm. Do you really see getting a job like a lottery draw? Just go work for some random company, no care as to what philosophy the business might promote, whether or not the company discriminates against women or left handed red heads? Well, I guess that would explain a lot about why you have the attitude about labor laws. You want the govt to insure that any random company you go work for will meet your needs. Never mind what the company needs. Do you see your employer as some faceless, nameless corporate entity, existing solely to provide employment to random masses?

You're basically saying "I want to live in a country where my ability to make a childish, immoral and senseless decision is more important than guaranteeing that people are employed and paid fairly and in accordance with their abilities".
I don't think that America is such a country or ever was and I seriously doubt that most americans view it as such either.

I do live in such a country, in the US anyone can make childish, immoral, and senseless decisions, and millions do every day. We all have the equal right to peruse an income, but there are no guarantees. As a business owner IF I make childish, senseless business decisions, I won't be a business owner for long, I'll be bankrupt. There is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anyone employment. And fairness is a very subjective thing. If we make a law that everyone gets 20 instead of 10, I have to let half my work force go. Is that fair to those who are now unemployed? Is it fair to the taxpayers who are funding their unemployment checks? What about when the unemployment checks run out, and half of those are still unemployed because the economy now sucks as a result of millions being unemployed?

Somewhere, yes, you draw the line to stop government interventionism. We had waaay too much of it under our last government and we were aware of that at the time and it is now being reversed. The coalition may have its faults but is very busy undoing a lot of the damage that Labour did.
I don't know where it is but as surely as I know anything I know it isn't with employment equality. And I suppose you can tell in each individual case where the line is or isn't to be drawn by balancing the implications of each possible decision outcome (as with anything else).

Right.