Zip Napalm wrote:So you would be in favor of laws and restrictions on hiring practices that are only job relevant?
Is this how you have conversations in real life? Take one sentence in isolation from the rest of the discussion, and then take that statement in as poor a light as possible? It isn't a very practical means of conversation. Because there have already been a few posts in this thread talking about how the law at present only became an issue when the non-relevant criteria has a racial impact. Did you not read them, or did you just find it easier to ignore them in order to make your point?
But if you need me to spell it out again, the law at present states that if you include criteria in your selection process that is not relevant to the job, and that selection criteria impacts some ethnicities more than others, this is racial discrimination. While it would be more equitable to extend this additional criteria to non-racial impacts, that is not remotely practical. I think the law at present is a sensible compromise.
As an employer I could not ask "What's your favorite TV show?", unless of course the job entailed work in television. Would your "legal requirement" be enforced by police or civil court? What army of bureaucrats do you intend to oversee and monitor adherence to the criteria, whether direct or indirect? Who will decide what is relevant? You? Me? A particularly wise latina women?
What on Earth are you talking about? What I mentioned was the law is it is right now, as has already been pointed out in this thread. So the police and legal involvement would be the exact same as it is now (that is to say none at all and only if there is a racial impact). Which is a sensible middle ground, ensuring equity in employment opportunities, without wasting the time of businesses and the legal system in checking every single employment process undertaken.
There is your reality.
It's everyone's reality. Well, the part where I pointed out what the law is right now is reality. The part where you envision police checking every single employment is apparently part of your reality, on whatever alternate dimension it is you're posting from.
Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Maybe. I suppose the less objective means of comparison utilized during the hiring process, the more difficult any discrimination case would be to make.
It's an odd one. Normally the response is that when in doubt, formalise the process to make it more objective. But when the law requires no intention of bias, I'm not sure that's going to help.
Over here you'll often see formalised scoring of candidates, so you give candidates scores out of five for different criteria like 'communication skills' and 'technical knowledge', but that's about as far as it goes.
