POWER PLAY: THE EEOC SHOULDN'T GIVE A HOOT ABOUT HOOTERS

The philosophy upon which the ever-expanding Hooters restaurant empire is built is a simple one: Guys like attractive, scantily clad young ladies to bring them their eats.

Yeah, their wings are rather tasty (those served at the restaurant, not any which might sprout from the bodies of waitresses) but are a bit on the pricey side. Reason? A premium is added for the scenery.

There are those who holler that this is an exploitation of women (the waitresses' attire, not overpriced food) and therefore an insidious practice akin to but not as severe as posing for Playboy or dancing in a strip joint.

Strong moral arguments can be made against those activities. If you hold Victorian standards of decorum, to lesser extent those arguments can be extended to the Hooters uniforms. As far as exploitation goes, however, to my understanding free will on the part of waitresses is involved. No one is holding a tactical missile to their parents' heads to force the ladies to profit from the physical attributes with which they have been graced.

In the past, Hooters waitresses have sued the company on the grounds that its dress code amounts to sexual harassment. Hello? That's like enlisting in the infantry and then suing the military because people are trying to kill you.

Common sense is clear: If you do not wish to be ogled, do not apply at Hooters. That way everybody gets what they want and no one gets sued.

The company's latest battle is with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the company's refusal to hire male waiters -- a policy the EEOC claims is blatant sexual discrimination.

Hello again? Apparently the keg is tapped but no one's drinking over at the EEOC. Or perhaps everyone's drinking and that's the problem.

The EEOC is charged with insuring that every business in the realm engages is "fair hiring practices." Exactly what manner of species a "fair hiring practice" is, no one quite agrees.

Generally, federal law bars discrimination based on race, gender, religion and disability, and some states and localities tack on sexual orientation. However, anti-discrimination enforcement tends to go beyond those points.

While a college student, I worked a few summers and Christmas breaks at the chemical factory that has been the ancestral source of employment for the Powers clan. I was the 10th member of my family and the fourth generation to work there. Many other families also had proud traditions at the plant.

Sadly, the Powers tradition likely ends with me, and the other lines will be no more as well, all thanks to the EEOC.

The company's longstanding practice was to hire the kids of employees as temporary laborers during times when a lot of people usually take vacation. The goal was to foster employee goodwill by providing their kids reasonably high-paying jobs to help them pay for college. Also, many of those kids stayed on permanently, helping to fortify the family connection.

Oh no, said the EEOC, that is discrimination against those who have no family ties. What the EEOC failed to grasp is that the company was not interested in hiring outsiders part-time but in providing a perk to employees. Unfortunately, the federal bureaucracy is not interested in altruistic motives, and hence the company no longer hires any temporary workers.

What did the EEOC accomplish in its mission to stamp out discrimination of any type? It cost dozens of college students good jobs each year.

In the Hooters case the EEOC wants to rewrite the company's formula for success. According to the letter of the law, they may think they're doing their duty. To reasonably intelligent people -- few of whom, I presume, hold position of authority at the agency -- the EEOC and federal government as a whole looks extremely silly.

Maybe someone should look into the EEOC's discrimination against people who have a grasp on reality.

Marc Powers is a member of the Southeast Missourian news staff.