Fair Employment Opportunity Act

[orcus116]

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.

[Chino]

I think that crap. An employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.

[El Barto]

I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.

My position.

[jammindude]

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.

 

[7StringedBeast]

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?

[jammindude]

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. 

[jammindude]

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.

[Chino]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[Chino]

I think that crap. [A non-governmental] employer has the right to employ or not employ whoever they choose.

My position.

Good call.

[Nekov]

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.

[gmillerdrake]

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......

[PraXis]

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.

[7StringedBeast]

ITT people are perfectly ok with institutionalized racism.

[bosk1]

And you don't get to come into this thread and accuse people of being racist.  Consider this your warning.

[lordxizor]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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.

[El Barto]

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.

[7StringedBeast]

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.

[AcidLameLTE]

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

[PraXis]

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.

[kirksnosehair]

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      That's pretty much reprehensible

[7StringedBeast]

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      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.

[PraXis]

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      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).

[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

[PraXis]

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.  We ain't goin' away.

[jammindude]

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.

[Chino]

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.

[Cool Chris]

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.

[Super Dude]

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:
 
 

Ya think!?!?

[XJDenton]

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.  We ain't goin' away.

Not until we implement the re-education nanites anyway.

[7StringedBeast]

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.

[Chino]

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.

[7StringedBeast]

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?

[Chino]

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.