#

GRE·94-4考题——(2)

关注此贴
时间:2005-11-15 23:10  209次点击 | 0 关注

 Defenders of special protective labor
  legislation for women often maintain
  that eliminating such laws would
  destroy the fruits of a century-long
(5) struggle for the protection of women
  workers. Even a brief examination of
  the historic practice of courts and
  employers would show that the fruit
  of such laws has been bitter: they
(10) are , in practice, more of a curse
  than a blessing.
   Sex-defined protective laws have
  often been based on stereotypical
  assumptions concerning women's needs
(15) and abilities, and employers have
  frequently used them as legal excuses
  for discriminating against women.
  After the Second World War, for
  example, businesses and government
(20) sought to persuade women to vacate
  jobs in factories, thus making room
  in the labor force for returning
  veterans. The revival or passage of
  state laws limiting the daily or weekly
(25) work hours of women conveniently
  accomplished this. Employers had only
  to declare that overtime hours were
  a necessary condition of employment
  or promotion in their factory, and
(30) women could be quite legally fired,
  refused jobs, or kept at low wage
  levels, all in the name of "protecting"
  their health. By validating such laws
  when they are challenged by lawsuits,
(35) the courts have colluded over the years
  in establishing different, less advant-
  ageous employment terms for women
  than for men, thus reducing women's
  competitiveness on the job market.
(40) At the same time, even the most well-
  intentioned lawmakers, courts, and
  employers have often been blind to
  the real needs of women. The lawmakers
  and the courts continue to permit
(45) employers to offer employee health
  insurance plans that cover all known
  human medical disabilities except
  those relating to

本新闻共8页,当前在第1页  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  


#
#
#
  本帖还有0条回复,请登录查看…   
 注册

#
作者:

英语水平:

+ 关注

#
#
相关帖子