DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: orcus116 on March 12, 2012, 09:29:46 PM
-
I saw an article in my local paper about a new movement against what some people are calling jobless discrimination. In short some people felt that companies would refuse to interview them if they were out of work for a certain period of time, some job ads even proclaiming that anyone out of work for, say, a year were not going to be considered for the position. Sounds somewhat reasonable though reading some of the language for the proposed bill I can't help but feel it's a little unfair to have the pendulum swing in the complete opposite direction:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2501&tab=summary
My paper gave an example of an employer who immediately discounted a person who came to the interview in jeans, dishelved, and asked if there was going to be too much traffic during their daily commute. The employer deduced that that person just didn't want the job due to how careless they were about the whole ordeal. I definitely understand where they were coming from because my company is in the middle of getting a few new hires and my boss was going over some of the submissions she had received like, for example, one person's cover letter was a complete analysis of "Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes". Seriously. We're a civil engineering firm.
This bill now has the potential to give power to someone like the people mentioned above who can bring legal action if they're unemployed for more than a year and they feel a company has discounted them because of such. While I'm sure companies have certain hiring practices I can't really agree with forcing them to hire or strongly consider a candidate just because they submitted an application with little matching qualifications or motivation to even attempt to get the job. I know they're running out of ways to shrink the almighty unemployment rate number but shoehorning the wrong people into positions that might not even be beneficial for a company seems a little, I dunno, backwards.
-
I think that crap. An employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
-
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.
-
Just speaking from personal experience.
I have 5 years experience in retail one of those in management, 4 years experience in banking, and 15 years experience as an electrician. I have been a journeyman for 8 of those 15 years and just recently became an administrator so that I could run my own business.
Running my own business was not my first choice. It became a necessity. Want to know why?
Because with all that experience, and hitting the pavement in every way I know how since the crash....I have found almost NOTHING. I got a two month job last June, a one week job in January, and another two day job earlier this month. (all construction. They needed help for one job, and then they didn't have another job after it was finished) And when I did get that job in June??? I hadn't worked at all (at anything except trying to find a freakin job) for *TWO FULL YEARS*!!!
Since June of '09, that is all I've been able to find. I even have a letter of recommendation from my previous manager at a bank. Nothing. In two and a half years I had *1* group interview that I never got a call back on.
I *WANT* to work. But telling me that you won't hire me JUST because I've been off for two years? That's pretty freakin lame. No...that's beyond lame. That's ludicrous....and stupid....and a few other words I won't repeat in public forum.
:censored
-
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.
You really think a private company should be able to not hire people based on race, religion, country of origin, etc etc?
-
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.
You really think a private company should be able to not hire people based on race, religion, country of origin, etc etc?
As much as I *HATE* racism, or judgement of any kind based on race, creed, religion, nationalism...etc..etc.. I would say yes. It's akin to telling someone that they are NOT ALLOWED to feel a certain way. I'm just not comfortable infringing on a business owner's personal rights to that degree. I believe that I have a right to make a personal decision based on his hiring practices as well...as to whether or not I will support his business or not.
-
Case in point:
Carlos Santana fired a member of his band because of "spiritual reasons"...
For Carlos, his music is very spiritual in nature *TO HIM*....his band is his legal entity "business"...if he has a member that he feels upsets the "spiritual vibe" of his band, I believe he has every right to put together a band that is going to make him comfortable for the "spiritual vibe" he is looking for in his band. And NO ONE should be able to force him to hire a musician that he is not comfortable playing with, even if it is for some unknowable, personal, "spiritual vibe" reason.
-
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.
You really think a private company should be able to not hire people based on race, religion, country of origin, etc etc?
Yes. An owner who takes the risk of running their own business has the right to hire whoever they choose. The company I work for is a family owned grocery chain. Our main target are rich folk who want that "family" feel. The owner of the company, my boss, is one of the nicest guys I have ever met. He tolerates anyone, and believes everyone should have equal oppurtunity. Our customer bases are in locations that are mainly in white/wealthy populations. If he hires a black guy that looks like he is right out of the hood, or a woman dressed in a way that clearly defines her religion, it would affect sales. My boss isn't the bad guy, our customers are. He has to do whatever is best for his company.
-
I don't like that law at all. I am a hiring manager. At my company, we are looking for the best, smartest, most ambitious people we can find. The last time I was looking to fill a position I had over 300 applicants for a "Network Administrator" position. Anyone in the I.T. business knows that it is something that evolves rapidly. What was considered a "best practice" two years ago may not be considered such today. So, hiring a guy, regardless of qualifications, who hasn't been working for the last 2 years is not the best thing for me to do. When I was going through the resumes, anyone who had not been actively employed in the last calendar year went to the bottom of the pile. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there and the reality is, as the manager of a department that is responsible for keeping about $100 million in enterprise information technology equipment functioning properly, I can't take the risk of hiring a person who might be "a little rusty" because they haven't been able to keep their skill sharpened on the job for the last year.
I would not like it one bit if I were forced into hiring someone like that. In fact, I'd find a way around it if it existed.
A lot of things in life are unfair. That's life.
-
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.
Good call.
-
I think that crap. An employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
Absolutely this. If an employer feels that someone doesn't have all the requirements necessary for a job then no one should be able to force them into hiring that person.
-
It's really no suprise to me something like this has been crafted considering how the government and society for that matter has conditioned our collective culture to believe they are entitled to everything. It's a joke of an idea but I think it'd be best to get used to seeing things like this because it's not the first or the last......
-
The job belongs to the company/organization/entity that provides it, not the applicant. If they won't hire me because I'm too handsome, then so be it.
-
ITT people are perfectly ok with institutionalized racism.
-
And you don't get to come into this thread and accuse people of being racist. Consider this your warning.
-
I have no problem with a law that says you can't discriminate based on a certain aspect of a person (race, gender, unemployment history, etc). That allows a company to still hire the best candidate. There's no discrimination if a white male is simply the better candidate that a black woman who's been unemployed for a year. But forcing companies to consider one race, or gender higher than others or considering those out of work for a long period of time before others is not OK.
-
Last time I checked a resume doesn't include a declaration of race and as a person of mixed race myself, I resent the accusation that I've made hiring choices based on anything other than qualifications for the position I have available.
-
ITT people are perfectly ok with institutionalized racism.
Actually, what I'd say is that in this thread people are OK with private sector racism. That's a very different thing.
-
And you don't get to come into this thread and accuse people of being racist. Consider this your warning.
Ok, maybe I was misunderstood here so let me try to explain further. I didn't call anyone racist. I said that people are ok with institutionalized racism being allowed in place. Institutionalized racism meaning that companies would be able to not hire someone just because they are black for instance. People have said in this thread that they are Ok with this.
I was not asking if it was OK if a person didn't hire a black person or a Jewish person. I don't believe anyone should HAVE to hire someone just because they are a certain race or religion. But they shouldn't be allowed to NOT hire them because of it.
Hopefully that clears this up. Hopefully you all misunderstood my initial question.
-
Fluffy posted a good article that touched on what 7StringedBeast is talking about in the skin colour thread:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14679657
Consider an experiment in 2003 by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, two American economists. They drafted 5,000 CVs and placed archetypal "black" names such as Tyrone or Latoya on half of them and "white" names such as Brendan or Alison on the other half. They then divided the white CVs into high and low quality and did the same with the black CVs.
A few weeks later the offers came rolling in from employers, and guess what? The "black" candidates were 50% less likely to be invited to interview. Employers were using skin colour as a marker for employment potential, despite the fact that the candidates' CVs were identical.
But that's not all. The researchers also found that although high-quality "white" candidates were preferred to low-quality "white" candidates, the relative quality of "black" CVs made no difference whatsoever.
It was as if employers saw three categories - high-quality white, low-quality white and black candidates. To put it another way, the subliminal assumption that causes us to think that black people are all the same has powerful real-world consequences.
For many economists, this assumption, which gets under the radar of our conscious thought, explains why black people still lag behind white people in economic development more than four decades after the introduction of race-relations legislation.
Quoted the bit in question
-
It's free speech. It's a jerk move, sure, but if it's their company, they should be able to do what they want. It's just like if you own a bar or restaurant. You should be able to let in/not let in whoever you want.
If you and I own competing bars across the street and you don't want [insert group here] in your establishment, then fine. I'll take their money.
-
It's free speech. It's a jerk move, sure, but if it's their company, they should be able to do what they want. It's just like if you own a bar or restaurant. You should be able to let in/not let in whoever you want.
If you and I own competing bars across the street and you don't want [insert group here] in your establishment, then fine. I'll take their money.
Now that crosses some lines I wouldn't want to see crossed, you know, like rolling back the 1964 Civil Rights Act :tdwn That's pretty much reprehensible
-
It's free speech. It's a jerk move, sure, but if it's their company, they should be able to do what they want. It's just like if you own a bar or restaurant. You should be able to let in/not let in whoever you want.
If you and I own competing bars across the street and you don't want [insert group here] in your establishment, then fine. I'll take their money.
Now that crosses some lines I wouldn't want to see crossed, you know, like rolling back the 1964 Civil Rights Act :tdwn That's pretty much reprehensible
And this is the attitude I was trying to address. This is America. We shouldn't be discriminating against people due to race, gender, religion etc etc. I thought this was a core American belief these days.
-
It's free speech. It's a jerk move, sure, but if it's their company, they should be able to do what they want. It's just like if you own a bar or restaurant. You should be able to let in/not let in whoever you want.
If you and I own competing bars across the street and you don't want [insert group here] in your establishment, then fine. I'll take their money.
Now that crosses some lines I wouldn't want to see crossed, you know, like rolling back the 1964 Civil Rights Act :tdwn That's pretty much reprehensible
I agree it's reprehensible, but property rights and free speech are more important than someone else's feelings. But going back to this bill, how would it be enforced? An employer will simply say 'I hired the most qualified candidate." You can't prove discrimination unless you would catch something on video (eg "Sorry, we don't hire your kind" being said in the interview).
-
I agree it's reprehensible, but property rights and free speech are more important than someone else's feelings.
The reason why Libertarianism isn't going anywhere, in a nutshell.
rumborak
-
I agree it's reprehensible, but property rights and free speech are more important than someone else's feelings.
The reason why Libertarianism isn't going anywhere, in a nutshell.
rumborak
We'll just have to increase our efforts. :biggrin: We ain't goin' away.
-
I once worked under the most successful manager in the entire region of a major video store chain. He ran several stores, and when a "problem" store needed housekeeping, he was the guy they called in to shape it up.
Wanna know what he did?
He would take a stack of about 50 applications, and *without even reading them*, he'd pick out the 6 that had the best handwriting. They were the only ones who got interviewed.
He was eventually kicked up to regional because of his knack for always putting together the best crews in the state.
The national video chain (of course) eventually went under...but I never forgot his hiring practices...and I'll bet he is still successful to this day.
-
The fact of the matter is, people have things they are biased about. Hiring a new employee is a very difficult thing, especially in a business that deals with a lot of revenue. You can't just hire and let someone go if they are not good enough, it's a waste of money. Not to mention that a single screw up could cost some companies thousands of dollars. I would bet any amount of money that every person on this forum would automatically discredit someone as a future employee, for one thing or another, just off of a judgement call.
-
Slight tangent, but what is intereting to me is that lately there seems to be a more prevalent feeling that people are entitled to a job. It's like those 99%'ers clamouring "I have a degree, why won't you hire me, you evil corporations?!" A job is something you have to earn, and prove yourself worthy of having; not something you are deserving of because you think you are.
-
I can't believe it, but I agree with the OP. I had a friend who texted me before an interview, "Should I clean the purple dye out of my hair before going to the interview?"
MFW:
:|
:facepalm:
Ya think!?!?
-
I agree it's reprehensible, but property rights and free speech are more important than someone else's feelings.
The reason why Libertarianism isn't going anywhere, in a nutshell.
rumborak
We'll just have to increase our efforts. :biggrin: We ain't goin' away.
Not until we implement the re-education nanites anyway.
-
The fact of the matter is, people have things they are biased about. Hiring a new employee is a very difficult thing, especially in a business that deals with a lot of revenue. You can't just hire and let someone go if they are not good enough, it's a waste of money. Not to mention that a single screw up could cost some companies thousands of dollars. I would bet any amount of money that every person on this forum would automatically discredit someone as a future employee, for one thing or another, just off of a judgement call.
Maybe because they smell bad, they look like they are on drugs, or they didn't dress appropriately, but not because they are male or female or black or white.
-
The fact of the matter is, people have things they are biased about. Hiring a new employee is a very difficult thing, especially in a business that deals with a lot of revenue. You can't just hire and let someone go if they are not good enough, it's a waste of money. Not to mention that a single screw up could cost some companies thousands of dollars. I would bet any amount of money that every person on this forum would automatically discredit someone as a future employee, for one thing or another, just off of a judgement call.
Maybe because they smell bad, they look like they are on drugs, or they didn't dress appropriately, but not because they are male or female or black or white.
If you needed help at a front desk, and had to women apply, would you choose a fat indian lady with slightly better qualities, or a 25 year old bombshell that would still get the job done correctly?
In many scenarios, image is everything.
-
The fact of the matter is, people have things they are biased about. Hiring a new employee is a very difficult thing, especially in a business that deals with a lot of revenue. You can't just hire and let someone go if they are not good enough, it's a waste of money. Not to mention that a single screw up could cost some companies thousands of dollars. I would bet any amount of money that every person on this forum would automatically discredit someone as a future employee, for one thing or another, just off of a judgement call.
Maybe because they smell bad, they look like they are on drugs, or they didn't dress appropriately, but not because they are male or female or black or white.
If you needed help at a front desk, and had to women apply, would you choose a fat indian lady with slightly better qualities, or a 25 year old bombshell that would still get the job done correctly?
In many scenarios, image is everything.
I'm assuming you are making the 25 year old bombshell a white girl?
-
The fact of the matter is, people have things they are biased about. Hiring a new employee is a very difficult thing, especially in a business that deals with a lot of revenue. You can't just hire and let someone go if they are not good enough, it's a waste of money. Not to mention that a single screw up could cost some companies thousands of dollars. I would bet any amount of money that every person on this forum would automatically discredit someone as a future employee, for one thing or another, just off of a judgement call.
Maybe because they smell bad, they look like they are on drugs, or they didn't dress appropriately, but not because they are male or female or black or white.
If you needed help at a front desk, and had to women apply, would you choose a fat indian lady with slightly better qualities, or a 25 year old bombshell that would still get the job done correctly?
In many scenarios, image is everything.
I'm assuming you are making the 25 year old bombshell a white girl?
She could be black.
-
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best. One might have better qualities on paper. But you need to take personality into consideration. None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever. You should not discriminate against people because of skin color. What is so wrong about that concept? Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?
-
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best. One might have better qualities on paper. But you need to take personality into consideration. None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever. You should not discriminate against people because of skin color. What is so wrong about that concept? Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?
My point is that an employer might not discriminate about skin color, but their customer base might. If hiring a black person would drop my sales 10% because of their twisted views, I'm not hiring them.
-
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best. One might have better qualities on paper. But you need to take personality into consideration. None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever. You should not discriminate against people because of skin color. What is so wrong about that concept? Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?
My point is that an employer might not discriminate about skin color, but their customer base might. If hiring a black person would drop my sales 10% because of their twisted views, I'm not hiring them.
This argument doesn't even make sense. Name a situation where an employer would lose business for hiring a black person. Seriously.
-
I agree it's reprehensible, but property rights and free speech are more important than someone else's feelings.
The reason why Libertarianism isn't going anywhere, in a nutshell.
rumborak
We'll just have to increase our efforts. :biggrin: We ain't goin' away.
Yeah, but you're never going to achieve mainstream acceptance or "critical mass" as they say when you embrace something like discrimination and chalk it up to "private property rights"
If it were going to gain any mainstream acceptance, I think it would have done so by now, when you consider that the concept of libertarianism has been around for more than 150 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Getting back to the hiring thing: As a hiring manager, my job (among other things) is to hire the person who best meets the qualifications for the job, but also who is going to be the best fit at my company in terms of personality, background, etc. In my opinion, no one is "entitled" to a job. As mentioned above, a job is something you have to compete with others for. They don't call it "the job market" for nothing. While I am not OK with disqualifying candidates based only on the color of their skin or their gender or religious or ethnic heritage, I think it's perfectly acceptable for someone in my position to exercise some "gut feeling" on who the right candidate is going to be. I think the main criteria should certainly be objectively measurable (education, experience, etc) but there are also some "soft qualifications" (hygiene, personal appearance, personality, etc) that I think are well within the spectrum of "appropriate" criteria by which to evaluate a potential employee.
-
Yeah, compatibility is crucial. I work for a small business, currently 5 employees (we've had as many as 9). For many years employee number six made us all miserable half the time. He just didn't click with the rest of us. This was a more or less unskilled position, so personality really is one of the most important qualifications if we opt to fill his position again.
As people here have probably gathered, I'm an equal opportunity misanthrope. As Sgt. Hartman said, "here you are all equally worthless!" I'm not going to turn away somebody because they're black (or more likely around hear Mexican), but it's somewhat tough to draw the line with regards to characteristics. I'm much more likely to hire somebody who listens to rock music in the shop than crappy hip-hop rap or the even more nauseating Tejano. I'm not going to hire somebody who wears his pants around his ankles. Gang tattoos are probably out, as well. Given those factors, the likelihood is that I'd hire a white kid before a black or Mexican kid. Yet it's not inconceivable that I'd hire a 35 year old black guy who's into Cannonball Adderly long before a 19 year old white guy into C&W.
Point is, it's a pretty gray area, and race absolutely does factor into it.
-
But Barto, what you just described doesn't really have to do with race. You are looking at qualities that anyone could have. You don't want someone who won't fit in at work. But you aren't saying no Mexicans or Black people will fit in so I'll never hire them. You would hire someone who isn't white if they fit the qualifications necessary to be employed at your place of business. That being said, you obviously don't believe discriminating someone based on race/religion/gender is right.
And kirk also, everything you said is 100% OK to do for hiring. That's not real discrimination in any way.
-
But Barto, what you just described doesn't really have to do with race.
What you said should be 100% correct. But in reality, if someone in position to make a hiring decision ever articulated what Barto said, the EEOC and/or a plaintiff's lawyer would be knocking on his door with a lawsuit claiming that those characteristics are merely a proxy for what is actually race discrimination.
-
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best. One might have better qualities on paper. But you need to take personality into consideration. None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever. You should not discriminate against people because of skin color. What is so wrong about that concept? Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?
My point is that an employer might not discriminate about skin color, but their customer base might. If hiring a black person would drop my sales 10% because of their twisted views, I'm not hiring them.
This argument doesn't even make sense. Name a situation where an employer would lose business for hiring a black person. Seriously.
Uh.... The place I work. More than half of our customers are 55+ year old, rich, retired, racist fucks. We had a Puerto Rican guy working for us a while ago. He was a great employee. He also happened to have more complaints in his first 3 weeks than the rest of his department did for the prior year. He ended up quitting because the customers would treat him like he was a piece of shit. It's never spoken about, but that's probably the reason why our company has only had 2 black employees in the 7 years I have been working there. Our customers are fucked in the head enough to take their business elsewhere because they don't want to deal with a person of color. Blacks don't get hired because our store managers are racist, they don't get hired because we will lose customers as a result.
-
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best. One might have better qualities on paper. But you need to take personality into consideration. None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever. You should not discriminate against people because of skin color. What is so wrong about that concept? Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?
My point is that an employer might not discriminate about skin color, but their customer base might. If hiring a black person would drop my sales 10% because of their twisted views, I'm not hiring them.
This argument doesn't even make sense. Name a situation where an employer would lose business for hiring a black person. Seriously.
Uh.... The place I work. More than half of our customers are 55+ year old, rich, retired, racist fucks. We had a Puerto Rican guy working for us a while ago. He was a great employee. He also happened to have more complaints in his first 3 weeks than the rest of his department did for the prior year. He ended up quitting because the customers would treat him like he was a piece of shit. It's never spoken about, but that's probably the reason why our company has only had 2 black employees in the 7 years I have been working there. Our customers are fucked in the head enough to take their business elsewhere because they don't want to deal with a person of color. Blacks don't get hired because our store managers are racist, they don't get hired because we will lose customers as a result.
So then your manager is then perpetuating racism despite not being racist. Which in turn makes him discriminatory.
I don't think this example really holds up, nor should it. You are basically saying that your business needs bigots to survive. I find this dubious.
-
I kinda agree with 7Stringed here. I'm not denying anybody's right to hire whoever they want, just trying to reflect on the fact that system of incentives and behaviors that perpetuates racism like the one discussed here should be seriously evaluated and put into question.
-
I would pick whoever I thought would do the job the best. One might have better qualities on paper. But you need to take personality into consideration. None of this has anything to do with skin color what so ever. You should not discriminate against people because of skin color. What is so wrong about that concept? Is this really a conversation that needs to be had in this day and age?
My point is that an employer might not discriminate about skin color, but their customer base might. If hiring a black person would drop my sales 10% because of their twisted views, I'm not hiring them.
This argument doesn't even make sense. Name a situation where an employer would lose business for hiring a black person. Seriously.
Uh.... The place I work. More than half of our customers are 55+ year old, rich, retired, racist fucks. We had a Puerto Rican guy working for us a while ago. He was a great employee. He also happened to have more complaints in his first 3 weeks than the rest of his department did for the prior year. He ended up quitting because the customers would treat him like he was a piece of shit. It's never spoken about, but that's probably the reason why our company has only had 2 black employees in the 7 years I have been working there. Our customers are fucked in the head enough to take their business elsewhere because they don't want to deal with a person of color. Blacks don't get hired because our store managers are racist, they don't get hired because we will lose customers as a result.
So then your manager is then perpetuating racism despite not being racist. Which in turn makes him discriminatory.
I don't think this example really holds up, nor should it. You are basically saying that your business needs bigots to survive. I find this dubious.
He not discriminating. Discriminating would be saying "I'm not hiring a black man because of the fact he's black", he more or less thinks "Its unfortunate that hiring a black man would hurt my sales because my customers are racists"
And yes, the business I work for does need bigots to survive. Unfortunately, those bigots have the most cash, and they make up the majority of our customer base (like I said earlier, at least 50%). The people that have a problem with blacks, are also the same people who drop literally thousands of dollars a month into the company. There is one old couple (who I have heard say the word "nigger" on several occassions) that drop at least 300 dollars a week on just getting shit catered. If there was a black guy as head chef, I guarantee we would lose them as customers.
-
"I'm not hiring this black man because I can't have a black worker because whatever reason blah blah"
in short
"I am not hiring this black worker because he is black"
If he were white, those reasons for not hiring wouldn't exist. It's based 100% on his skin color. Thus he is discriminating, without being racist.
-
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.
Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?
-
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.
Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?
Because they discriminate based on looks. It's discrimination, the word doesn't always mean that whoever does it is a racist nazi bastard, but the word means what the word means. Every job discriminates, they pick the best candidate and not the worst one, that's also discrimination. It's fine in a lot of situations. In this case it's based on his skin color.
-
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.
Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?
Because they discriminate based on looks. It's discrimination, the word doesn't always mean that whoever does it is a racist nazi bastard, but the word means what the word means. Every job discriminates, they pick the best candidate and not the worst one, that's also discrimination. It's fine in a lot of situations. In this case it's based on his skin color.
Hooters doesn't hire fat chicks because thats not what their customers want to see. They go to have some hot chick that the would fantasize about serve them. Hooters limits who they hire because doing otherwise would have a negative affect on their revenue. I'm sure the owner of a Hooters establishment doesn't hate fat chicks, he/she just can't afford to have them work there. The same goes for the place I work.
-
See, you're justifying what you think I'm disapproving of. I'm not making a judgement call. WHATEVER his reasoning is, it's still discrimination, that's just what the word means. He can be a saint but he's still discriminating, whatever his reason for it is. Once again, discrimination is not a negative word by itself, so there's no real need to defend what he does against the usage of the word discrimination. That's just what it is.
-
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.
Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?
You're assigning a negative connotation to discrimination where one needn't exist. When you go to the store to buy peanut butter, and you decide to buy crunchy instead of creamy, you're discriminating. It only means to assign distinction. Discrimination can be bad or good, but the word itself is neutral. Your boss and Hooters both discriminate against classes of people, but it could just as easily be seen as a necessary consequence rather than the actions of assholes.
-
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.
Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?
You're assigning a negative connotation to discrimination where one needn't exist. When you go to the store to buy peanut butter, and you decide to buy crunchy instead of creamy, you're discriminating. It only means to assign distinction. Discrimination can be bad or good, but the word itself is neutral. Your boss and Hooters both discriminate against classes of people, but it could just as easily be seen as a necessary consequence rather than the actions of assholes.
That
-
It is 100% based on his skin color, but it's not because he discriminates against them. His business will lose money... I don't get why this point is so hard to get across. If the customers didn't give a shit, he'd have no problem hiring black people.
Why doesn't hooters ever hire a fat chick?
You're assigning a negative connotation to discrimination where one needn't exist. When you go to the store to buy peanut butter, and you decide to buy crunchy instead of creamy, you're discriminating. It only means to assign distinction. Discrimination can be bad or good, but the word itself is neutral. Your boss and Hooters both discriminate against classes of people, but it could just as easily be seen as a necessary consequence rather than the actions of assholes.
Then why is discrimination labeled as a bad thing? I agree with this logic, but it means that we discriminate every time we have to choose between two or more things. To me, not hiring someone simply because you don't like blacks is an example of discrimination. Not hiring a black because it will affect your company, due to circumstances beyond your control, is just having to make a financial decision.
-
It's generally seen as a bad thing within the context of employment. Like I said, the word itself is neutral, but the application of it can be good or bad, and most people view racial discrimination as bad. You can make legitimate arguments, like your boss or Hooters, and many will see that as perfectly fine, but it's discrimination nonetheless, and up to the individual to assign value to it.
-
Long story short, it's a matter of semantics and what's at stake.
-
wouldnt racial discrimination just be racism?
-
wouldnt racial discrimination just be racism?
No, racial discrimination is what your boss does. Racism would be "I hate black people!" From that, he might then move into the racial discrimination category should he base his hiring/firing decisions on that hatred.
-
Law perspective: Pretty much what Barto said.
-
Most people just automatically associate the word "discrimination" with racism or intolerance.
-
ITT people are perfectly ok with institutionalized racism.
It's not institutionalized racism. Have you ever heard of freedom of associate?
-
ITT people are perfectly ok with institutionalized racism.
It's not institutionalized racism. Have you ever heard of freedom of associate?
That is the freedom to come together and congregate, not the freedom to exclude based on one's skin color, gender, or religion.
-
It's your right to exclude anyone you want
-
From the Wiki on Freedom of Association
Limitation
However, the implicit First Amendment right of association in the U.S. Constitution has been limited by court rulings. For example, it is illegal in the United States to consider race in the making and enforcement of private contracts other than marriage or taking affirmative action. This limit on freedom of association results from Section 1981 of Title 42 of the United States Code, as balanced against the First Amendment in the 1976 decision of Runyon v. McCrary.[3]
-
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.
Wait... so the government (but not private sector) should be required to hire based upon race, religion, creed, etc, instead of hiring the best candidate for the job basd upon skills, education, training, experience and best fit for the poition? I'm confused.
-
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.
Wait... so the government (but not private sector) should be required to hire based upon race, religion, creed, etc, instead of hiring the best candidate for the job basd upon skills, education, training, experience and best fit for the poition? I'm confused.
No. The government should be required to hire the most qualified applicant, regardless of race, color or creed. A private business owner should be able to hire (or in this case, not hire) whoever the hell he wants. If that person doesn't want to hire a gay, black, Muslim woman, even if she is the best candidate, that's his own business. Uncle Sammy has no such right, IMO.
-
Does this mean my local Hooters could be filled with flat chested 2/10's instead of big breasted 7-9/10's? Where's Fox news?! There's going to be an outrage!!!!
No, but really. People are going to hire who they want. It's just a fact.
-
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.
Wait... so the government (but not private sector) should be required to hire based upon race, religion, creed, etc, instead of hiring the best candidate for the job basd upon skills, education, training, experience and best fit for the poition? I'm confused.
No. The government should be required to hire the most qualified applicant, regardless of race, color or creed. A private business owner should be able to hire (or in this case, not hire) whoever the hell he wants. If that person doesn't want to hire a gay, black, Muslim woman, even if she is the best candidate, that's his own business. Uncle Sammy has no such right, IMO.
The large scale social consequences which completely allowing discrimination leads to is abhorrent. There's using race as one of many factors in determining if a candidate is right, and then there's using race as the only factor. When you start saying it's okay for private businesses to practice discrimination, a la their right to do so on an individual basis, you can easily end up with a Jim Crow style south. I mean, is it acceptable for such discriminatory practices to basically create a secondary class of citizens?
I'd also say there's a difference between not hiring a gay, black or Muslim woman and not hiring any gay, black or Muslim.
-
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.
Wait... so the government (but not private sector) should be required to hire based upon race, religion, creed, etc, instead of hiring the best candidate for the job basd upon skills, education, training, experience and best fit for the poition? I'm confused.
No. The government should be required to hire the most qualified applicant, regardless of race, color or creed. A private business owner should be able to hire (or in this case, not hire) whoever the hell he wants. If that person doesn't want to hire a gay, black, Muslim woman, even if she is the best candidate, that's his own business. Uncle Sammy has no such right, IMO.
The large scale social consequences which completely allowing discrimination leads to is abhorrent. There's using race as one of many factors in determining if a candidate is right, and then there's using race as the only factor. When you start saying it's okay for private businesses to practice discrimination, a la their right to do so on an individual basis, you can easily end up with a Jim Crow style south. I mean, is it acceptable for such discriminatory practices to basically create a secondary class of citizens?
I don't think so. For one thing, there are so many minorities in the South that nobody would want to write off their business. While some people might not want it, plenty of others will. Also, I think we're only talking about small businesses. Major stores won't want the heat they'd get elsewhere. And at present, there's really nothing stopping small businesses from discriminating anyway.
-
I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.
My position.
Wait... so the government (but not private sector) should be required to hire based upon race, religion, creed, etc, instead of hiring the best candidate for the job basd upon skills, education, training, experience and best fit for the poition? I'm confused.
No. The government should be required to hire the most qualified applicant, regardless of race, color or creed. A private business owner should be able to hire (or in this case, not hire) whoever the hell he wants. If that person doesn't want to hire a gay, black, Muslim woman, even if she is the best candidate, that's his own business. Uncle Sammy has no such right, IMO.
The large scale social consequences which completely allowing discrimination leads to is abhorrent. There's using race as one of many factors in determining if a candidate is right, and then there's using race as the only factor. When you start saying it's okay for private businesses to practice discrimination, a la their right to do so on an individual basis, you can easily end up with a Jim Crow style south. I mean, is it acceptable for such discriminatory practices to basically create a secondary class of citizens?
I don't think so. For one thing, there are so many minorities in the South that nobody would want to write off their business. While some people might not want it, plenty of others will. Also, I think we're only talking about small businesses. Major stores won't want the heat they'd get elsewhere. And at present, there's really nothing stopping small businesses from discriminating anyway.
If this is true, then why are there such powerful historical counter examples? There were tons of business owners in the south who didn't mind losing the business of black people - especially when you consider the fact that minorities are often less wealthy, and in a lot of cases, you're not losing much business.
And the fact that it happens, and will continue to happen, is no reason to just roll over and accept it. If that were true, we should abandon every law, and accept complete anarchy.
-
The difference is the prevailing attitudes of today. Fifty years ago, you allowed black folk to eat in your establishment and white people would stop coming there. People nowadays don't mind patronizing with people of different ethnicity. Add to that, significantly fewer people who are patently opposed to serving black people at all. In today's climate it'd just be bad business, with plenty of people willing to jump in and capitalize on your mistake.
-
No. The government should be required to hire the most qualified applicant, regardless of race, color or creed. A private business owner should be able to hire (or in this case, not hire) whoever the hell he wants. If that person doesn't want to hire a gay, black, Muslim woman, even if she is the best candidate, that's his own business. Uncle Sammy has no such right, IMO.
The government allows for you to run your business the way you see fit already, with the exception of using race, religion etc as the criteria NOT to hire someone. In an earlier example you mentioned that you would be less inclined to hire someone who wore their pants around their ankles, or listened to hip hop at work. It is perfectly within your right as an employer to have a dress code, or to prohibit music from being played in the work place that you deem inappropriate. It is not and should not be permissable for you to hire someone based upon their age, race or religion provided they are qualified to do the job, and physically capable of doing the job with reasonable accomodation.
-
The difference is the prevailing attitudes of today. Fifty years ago, you allowed black folk to eat in your establishment and white people would stop coming there. People nowadays don't mind patronizing with people of different ethnicity. Add to that, significantly fewer people who are patently opposed to serving black people at all. In today's climate it'd just be bad business, with plenty of people willing to jump in and capitalize on your mistake.
(https://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/median-net-worth-by-race-2007.png?4c9b33)
So long as that's true, I'm mostly inclined to disagree with you. Racism is fading, especially in my generation (I mean fuck, I'm a white kid from Montana), but it's a farce to think that something almost built into human consciousness has just faded away. Chino gives an example in this thread, about how it goes on today. If it's about the money, then the poorest people in the country aren't going to have as much of a say as the richest people in the country. It also doesn't mean you have to making money off of minorities, it just means you separate them, make them a different class of people.