Antidiscrimination - how much 'protection' is ethical?

[outside looking in]

A very serious question. Where should the line be drawn?

We all agree that color shouldn't be a deciding factor in who gets hired for a particular job. But at what point do antidiscrimination laws violate the rights of the person hiring or choosing?

For instance - gender should not be a factor for hiring a new doctor, and antidiscrimination laws make using such factors in making a decision illegal. But should gender be a factor for hiring a new waitress for a Hooter's restaraunt? I would surely hope so.

If you own a Christian bookstore, do you have a right to hire only Christians, or at least those who can present an appearance in accordance with Christian beliefs? Not according to the law.

If you ran a gay-rights organization, would it be illegal to turn down a skin-head applicant if they were otherwise qualified and polite?

If you need to hire workers to dig ditches, is it unethical to only hire strong, fit, young males?

If you own a house, and advertise a room for rent, do you have the right to choose a roommate based on whatever criteria you deem makes them an appropriate person to share your house with? Not according to the law.

If someone has an attitude problem, but is otherwise qualified for the job, do you have to hire them? If they are in a minority and have a bad attidue, would you be afraid of facing discrimination lawsuits?


What do you guys think about this issue?

 

[PT]

I think you should be able to hire anyone you think is best for the job. If that makes someone that will obviously not get along with the majority of the other workers upset, so be it.

As for the room for rent scenario, I'd definitley pick someone who I thought I would get along with. That's ridiculous to say that you are discriminating against someone there.

 

[woodman19_99]

Need I bring up the case at Augusta National? I know that it is somewhat of a different situation in that a private club is not really hiring someone, but they are allowing entrance of a person into THEIR club. It seems as though people representing private institutions should without a doubt have the right to admit whomever they want.

As for the decision about hiring someone, it is my opinion that employers should be able to higher whomever they feel will be the most productive and who is the most qualified.

I feel like I have to bring Affirmative Action into the mix here. This has got to be one of the dumbest laws currently in effect. Essentially this forces employers to higher minorities, even if their qualifications are less than satisfactory. I think it is a very poor idea to force companies to fill a quota for the number of minorities they must employ at certain positions.

I probably came accross pretty badly here, but these are my opinions, and are subject to change without warning.

 

[Aunty Em]

Of course it depends on the position being offered, but I think employers need a certain amount of flexibility when hiring. In a teamwork situation they need to hire someone who is not only approproiately qualified but will get along with the rest of the team, otherwise it can have a very negative effect on productivity, and that isn't always the most qualified person at interview. In a managerial positon the criteria is different but still requires the person to get along with fellow managers. Plus the majority of people are usually on the best behaviour at interview so it's often difficult to tell.

Personally, I don't think that anti-discrimination legislation should have any place in the process, but then I realise that a lot of people aren't like me and will base their judgements on superficial observations such as ethnic origin, disability, etc. rather than their qualifications and whether or not they can do the job.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The reason why anti-dscrimination laws came to be is exactly this. Otherwise qualified people were being denied livlihood, education, medical care, voting, and even housing, based soley on their color/race/gender, thus creating a permanent underclass, if you will. This went on for at least 100 years after the emancipation proclamation for blacks, and still goes on in quite a few areas. Seems that every few years, somebody gets upset with the idea of affirmative action, and likes to say that they know somebody who didn't get hired because of it...as if affirmative action was the only reason behind their apparent unemployment. Funny how, for at least 100 years when sgments of the population were denied the basic right to a living, nobody cared, but, now when one, or two, folks complain that somebody who, in their eyes, is less qualified got a job they should have gotten, then affirmative action is wrong...

 

[chcr]

and still goes on in quite a few areas.

Here, for instance.
An interesting thing has been happening at work lately though. Our retread plant manager hired two hspanic guys (one from Mexico, the other Guatemala) because they were the best two applicants. For some reason, he gets a lot of ex-cons and deabeats. Anyway, one of the black employees, who has been with the company quite a while, had a fit. He doesn't want to work with those.... I guess I just don't understand. I understand that their are blacks who are prejudiced against whites (not always without justification), and hispanics or what have you, but he actually refused to work with them. At least until they said, "Sorry to see you go."

 

[PT]

At least until they said, "Sorry to see you go."

That needs to be said more often, imo.

 

[chcr]

I need to make 'em say it to me, but I hate to drive twenty or thirty miles to work.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I have no problem working with, or for, anybody, as long as they respect me as a human being. It's when I don't get the respect I deserve that I get an attitude.

 

[HeXp£Øi±]

What i get tired of are the piddly arguements for or agiainst things like affermative action. In a racist environment affermative action works. In a non-racist environment it discriminates. It's that simple although not all inclusive. Communities are different all across America. In some places it's needed in some places it's not.

 

[Aunty Em]

I have no problem working with, or for, anybody, as long as they respect me as a human being. It's when I don't get the respect I deserve that I get an attitude.

I think that goes for most people Gato, including me.

 

[freako104]

hire the best qualified not the least qualified.

 

[outside looking in]

And who gets to define "most qualified," you or the government?

If you own a Christian bookstore, wouldn't you consider non-transvestite Christian to be "more qualified" to make recommendations on Christian books and materials to customers? Even supposing that a transvestite was actually more qualified (degree in Theology perhaps), does the best interests of the business (selling more stuff) constitute a legitimate reason to discriminate against such an individual?

If all the "service" employees at Hooters were big, ugly men, don't you think that would hurt their business (put them out of business most likely)? What defines the difference between selecting the most qualified (having hooters?) and discriminating to protect business interests (no male waiters)? Is there really a difference?

Shouldn't "most qualified" be cached in the context of "most qualified to perform a certain task" or "most qualified to add value to the business, in a very real financial sense?"

Stick question.

 

[freako104]

And who gets to define "most qualified," you or the government?

depends on the situation. for your question about the christian bookstore it would depend upon how well he/she knows christian authors and such.

Shouldn't "most qualified" be cached in the context of "most qualified to perform a certain task" or "most qualified to add value to the business, in a very real financial sense?"

yes that was what i was saying

 

[RD_151]

You know what struck me as odd. When my wife was applying for a jobs back home, it was REQUIRED to include a photo with your resume at nearly every firm. I couldn't believe it. Why does a big 4 accounting firm need your photo with your resume? Could you imagine them trying to get away with that here. Although, for Hooters, it could definitely make the hiring process more efficent. Maybe for the christian book store too. They could just not bother interviewing the drag queens

 

[PT]

Where is back home, RD?

 

[RD_151]

Slovakia. I guess its common in most of Central Europe. Not sure about the rest of Europe though. I always get in trouble for generalizing about Europe and Europeans

 

[ris]

i stopped putting my photo with my cv 4 years ago, in the uk its something that most agencies and job recommending people recommend you leave off.

 

[Luis G]

Antidiscrimination laws are unethical.
But then again, discrimination is amoral.

IMO, children should be taught that discrimination is just stupid (proving that discrimination is stupid does not belong to this thread).

But if they still want to discriminate, their problem. However, goverment organizations should not discriminate, because the goverment is supposed to be fair, ethical and moral.

 

[chcr]

However, goverment organizations should not discriminate, because the goverment is supposed to be fair, ethical and moral.

That's a little naive, I think.

I didn't make the world, I'm just trying to live in it.