Oh boy…

I have tried over the last 14 months to leave my political ideology out of my blogs.  Whether I am from a Red or Blue state doesn’t matter.  Whether I am for Bush, McCain, Obama or Bob Barr has nothing to do with The Four R’s of Workforce Engagement or the hassles I put up with as me and my brother continue to care for my dad.  Whether I am fiscally conservative or socially liberal, or the other way around shapes who I am and what I think, but doesn’t give me a soapbox that I take lightly.

However an issue came up last week that concerns me as an employee advocate and business-man…

The Bush administration has proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.  As Leavitt said, “Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree. This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience.”

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 600,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors’ offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

Uh-huh… I picked this as my first “semi-political” blog issue! So here goes…

This has nothing to do with the “power of the presidency” or the separation of powers guaranteed in our constitution.  For me, it’s the separation of powers in the workplace.  Where do the rights of the individual worker stand compared to the needs and requirements of their employer?  Can the boss “force” an employee to do something in their job that is morally repugnant to the individual?  Where do legal protections stop and start for both the worker-bee and their boss?

For me, as a political science major in college and someone who took a fair amount of time studying court rulings (thank my college advisor, Ethyl Galzerano for that one!),  this “opt-out” proposal is a pandora’s box.  I was especially struck by this comment, “Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree. This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience.”

The five freedoms guaranteed by the constitution are:

1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of religion
3. Freedom of press
4. Freedom of assembly
5. Freedom of petition

Freedom of conscience?  I don’t see it.  But let’s play this out to a somewhat illogical end, what we called in debate an “Ad Absurdum” fallacy.

Can a mailman refuse to deliver mail to a healthcare professional that gives advice to women on birth control if it is against his conscience?  Can a fireman refuse to go out on a call if a Mosque is burning down because he/she believes that Islam is a “false religion”?  Can a policeman refuse to do their job if the victim of a crime is a sex offender?  Can a waiter refuse to give service because they don’t like the color of the person’s skin?  Can a pharmacist refuse to provide the “day-after” pill to a woman who requests it or anti-viral drugs to an AIDS patient?  Can an employee refuse to “work on the line” if the machining they are doing on a piece of metal will find its way on a pistol or shotgun? Can a science teacher refuse to use an approved textbook that doesn’t speak to creationism?

The simple answer is “yes”.  Workers don’t have to do anything.  “Have to” is the key phrase.

However, this isn’t the issue as I see it.  The government is attempting to deny any legal recourse to the boss who disagrees with those actions, (or inactions),  there can be no legal recourse.  And that tilts the scales to far to the employee side of the equation.

Employees have a recourse if they are asked (or told) to do something they feel is immoral, unethical, or just plain wrong.  They can quit.  And in some cases, sue their employer depending on the state they live in and the circumstances of their specific situation.  Some might argue that an employee really can’t “just quit”, it would put their family’s health and well being in jeopardy.  That’s completely true.  Welcome to life and making decisions that impact it.

What the government is attempting to do is to tie the hands of the employers by using a loss of federal funding as the lever.

Employers have to retain the ability to ensure their employees are meeting the needs of their customers.  If an employee cannot, or will not perform their duties on a day to day basis, is it fair (or legal) to force their employer to offer accomodations for that individual?  Employers should be able to retain their rights, just as employees do.  If there is a legal issue, let the courts decide it, either individually or as a class action.

So…  that was me dipping my toe…  Someone please get me a towel.  I look forward to your comments.