Discrimination

[Macca]

Hi,

Personally I don't see why employers can't aim for happy and contented staff. The employers is aware of the foibles of his existing staff and to my mind, should seek to find someone who will fit in and enjoy their workday.

If that means he/she needs to ask questions that enable them to make a sound judgement of the applicants potential then they should be allowed to.

Why put an applicant through the emotional turmoil of getting a job and then being sacked after the trial period. Quite often the unsuitability shows up in the first week or two and could have been avoided if the boss had been allowed to ask the necessary questions.

Lets face it, if a place is looking for a 24 yr old female with a bright personality, why can't they say that ? All the poor blokes who apply for the job are just wasting time and enthusiasm, it is extremely demoralising to apply for jobs and not even get any feedback. The employer might get 200 applicants, 180 aren't suitable so they all wasted their time, for the employer to notify them all takes money and time and most small businesses don't have much to spare of either

Most small places that have a position "know what they want in a person" if they were allowed to say that in an add it is much easier for everyone.

Political correctness causes a lot of unnecessary problems IMO

 

[pennyk]

Hi Marc,

When I eMployed people for management roles, I would prefer a person with a morgage, married with kids vs a "younger" person who doesn't have ties in one spot. Yes, this is a generalisation but true most of the time, IMO.

GG

I agree with GG.. I find this also. Kids and a mortgage are a great way to get people to stay in the one spot.

You can ask people questions in an interview, in a roundabout way... eg "this job does not offer a lot of flexibility in working hours. you will need to start at 8am and finish at 4.30pm and we can't manage flexible working hours. Is that likely to cause a problem for you?"
We use this approach to check for how someone will manage physical requirements of the job as well as regular travel etc. Of course, people can say "yes' and then not follow through, but at least you've made it clear at the beginning.

I find it interesting that you have really discounted the effect of being a manager on this person. Perhaps the flexibility was just an excuse to cover up the fact that he didnt enjoy being a manager. I often see this with technical people who are promoted.. they often hate it. My hubby was in this situation a few years ago. It was the first management role that he had, and he found supervising others completely soul destroying. I was really surprised how much his mood/ attitude changed when he got out of managing and back into the technical side and also being one of the team ....... As a manager type myself, I had no idea how stressful it was for him. I'm very aware of this with my own team. Several of them are fantastic at their job, but have no potential as a manager. So, I need to look for alternative "promotions" which are more suited to their strengths and don't require such a heavy decision making responsibility.

Good luck finding a replacement!

cheers
Pen

 

[BayView]

Hi,

Personally I don't see why employers can't aim for happy and contented staff. The employers is aware of the foibles of his existing staff and to my mind, should seek to find someone who will fit in and enjoy their workday.

If that means he/she needs to ask questions that enable them to make a sound judgement of the applicants potential then they should be allowed to.

Why put an applicant through the emotional turmoil of getting a job and then being sacked after the trial period. Quite often the unsuitability shows up in the first week or two and could have been avoided if the boss had been allowed to ask the necessary questions.

Lets face it, if a place is looking for a 24 yr old female with a bright personality, why can't they say that ? All the poor blokes who apply for the job are just wasting time and enthusiasm, it is extremely demoralising to apply for jobs and not even get any feedback. The employer might get 200 applicants, 180 aren't suitable so they all wasted their time, for the employer to notify them all takes money and time and most small businesses don't have much to spare of either

Most small places that have a position "know what they want in a person" if they were allowed to say that in an add it is much easier for everyone.

Political correctness causes a lot of unnecessary problems IMO

Thankyou.

This is exactly what I was getting at.

Let's all be able to ask all the relevant questions which will allow everyone in the equation - the Boss and the Employee - to make the correct fit for the role.

In my case, it has been shown that someone who is in the role as manager of my business needs to be able to do the hours without other encumbrances which will affect that.

It was mentioned that he probably didn't like being the manager...this may also be true. I do believe that the kids factor did contribute to the angst.

I also have had young kids which greatly affected my ability to do my job (in golf) and as a result I stood out of the industry for a number of years, rather than try to do a job which I knew was going to be unsatisfactory to all concerned.

I certainly don't want someone who is unhappy and under stress due to their outside of work issues in my current situation. It's not good for them, or me.

I'd much rather to be able to freely discuss all the factors and make sure both myself and the employee being interviewed will be happy with the position.

I don't regard asking about kids as discrimination; it is a factor in deciding job suitability.

If two employees are exactly the same in quals, and one is free from the problems of school drop-offs, babysitting etc, they would probably be more suitable.

Now, if you are talking race, religion, or gender - then yer talking discrimination.

 

[kathryn d]

I believe there should be no rules on who you can discriminate against when it comes to personal business.

When it comes to government, they should not be able to discriminate.

Sometimes you just get tired, trying to politically correct all the time.

 

[D.T.]

BayView - I think it's not difficult to get what you want without discrimination.

Don't take one employee as a conclusion to your thoughts on this. Just because he couldn't manage his time or organise stuff doesn't mean everyone else can't either. There are plenty of parents who work full time.

On the job ad, if you're specifying start & finish times and number of days a week that would filter out majority of people who would have childcare issues.

In the interview, it's perfectly legal to ask what sometimes short term and long term goals / plans are. This helps to ensure they're on the same page as you.

 

[Luv2Travel]

I believe there should be no rules on who you can discriminate against when it comes to personal business.

Disagree with that comment entirely. Without rules, people discriminate for reasons that will not affect their business in any way. As a female wanting to one day enter a male dominated area, I'm thankful the laws have changed from 30 or so years ago when it was almost impossible for women to work in the area, due solely on the fact they were female - not because they couldn't do the job just as well. I agree with Bayview that disciminating on the basis of gender, race etc. is not on, however if it is something that will interfere with the job such as a parent having to leave all the time for their kids, or someone of another nationality whose English is very hard to understand, then it's fair enough to make that an issue in my opinion.

 

[jaycee]

I believe there should be no rules on who you can discriminate against when it comes to personal business.

When it comes to government, they should not be able to discriminate.

Sometimes you just get tired, trying to politically correct all the time.

Really ?

Why do you reckon the govt shouldnt dicrimminate ? I'd have thought what's good for the goose, whoever's in charge at the time, it's their job why should they not be allowed to discrimminate like any other hiring managers in a job(?)

 

[kathryn d]

Really ?

Why do you reckon the govt shouldnt dicrimminate ? I'd have thought what's good for the goose, whoever's in charge at the time, it's their job why should they not be allowed to discrimminate like any other hiring managers in a job(?)

Concerning a person's buisness, that person needs to make decisions that are appropriate for them.

A government is suppose to take care of everyone's interest.

 

[andrew_de_a]

I believe there should be no rules on who you can discriminate against when it comes to personal business.

When it comes to government, they should not be able to discriminate.

Sometimes you just get tired, trying to politically correct all the time.

Please tell me you are joking

 

[kathryn d]

Please tell me you are joking

Completely serious.
Government should be, and probably is required to have have a % of workers who cover the spectrum of the population.This would be color, race,disabilities,age, gender etc.

When it comes to personal business, it is up to the owner to make a profit.
Everyone here seems to agree Bayview could possibly get the applicant he wants by asking "the right questions". All this is, is a polite way of saying, discriminating against the type of appicant that would not be good for HIS business.

For example:
When going to a Japanese restaurant you would expect to see japanese wait staff, chefs, etc. Do you think it would be odd to have someone with a burka working there?

At a Hooters restaurant would you want a 60 year old man with a beer belly or a 22 year old attractive woman who filled out the uniform, as it is intended to be. Would you want a stick thin anorexic serving you at Hooters (if you ever went there.I haven't been as yet, only what I see on TV)

If you had a salon where they bleached/lightened skin would you hire a receptionist who was very light skin or black as a Jamaican.

At a health resort would you hire a 400 lb woman? No, you would want to a slender, fit, attractive person who would represent the clientelle you are trying to attract.

Would you go to a tattooist who didn't have any, was about 60 years old and looked like the typical cookie baking grandma from children's books?
No..you would want someone who fit the image.

When you go to a hairstylist do you want the stylist bald? No, you generally look at their appearance, and see if it will work into your lifestyle. Someone who has hot neon green hair is not who I wanting cutting my hair. But it would be great for the younger crowd.

When a telemarketer calls, do you want some who speaks English, without a thick accent? No, you want someone who you can easily understand.

So, yes, I think we all "discriminate". Even people who say they are discriminated against, do it themselves.

All I'm saying is when it comes to personal business, let that owner do what is best for their business. If it isn't what the people want, it won't be there long.

I watched a TV show last month about a restaurant in Australia (forget which state) The promos for the show made him sound terrible.
No kids after a certain time, no highchairs,buffet people can't sit with other people ordering off the menu etc.
When this gentleman explained his rules they made sense.He had limited seating, and people without kids ordered more and left sooner.He didn't have the space to accommodate highchairs.Buffet patrons were not permitted to share food. If they left food on their plate, they were charged for the food wasted.This kept prices down.
This place had been in business for many years, and is going strong.
I'm sure some people considered him terrible.Is this discrimination..maybe.


Biggles,
Maybe only discriminate when it doesn't affect you? You stated you are female but you wouldn't want to be discrimated on the fact you are ofchild bearing years. By informing an employer you won't be having children, you are asking them to pick you over another woman, and discriminate against her.

 

[Luv2Travel]

By informing an employer you won't be having children, you are asking them to pick you over another woman, and discriminate against her.

Only because of the ridiculous laws that keep coming in whereby an employer has to run his business arond someone's family. Is it true that they are bringing in breaks now for women to express milk during work hours? It's insane, and I don't want to be discriminated against as a woman, because if someone didn't want to employ me because they are scared I'll have kids soon and they'll have to cater for those kids, I wouldn't blame them! All these laws to "protect" women are going too far the other way, and I believe will put employers off hiring them.

As I said, discrimination is fine if it affects one's ability to do the job which is what all your examples are above Kathrynd, so I agree with you in those examples. It's not fine if it's simply because of the employers own personal preference which has nothing to do with the job.

 

[kathryn d]

I think society will get along quite well without any of these laws.
The affected discrimated group will then start their own businesses.

Government controls too much of our lives now.
It is taking responsibility away from individuals who commit wrong acts
(I killed her because I was abused as a child etc)

Nothing wrong with lactating mothers who express milk on thier regular break. They can hook up to the pump while they eat their lunch.
Special breaks..no.

If there were no discrimination laws, there would be fewer lawsuits.The courts would be able to focus on more substantial cases, that really do matter.

Firing without just cause.
Hmm..my business and if I just don;t like them, because of a personality clash, I would want to be able to terminate their employment. If they signed a contract stating I would provide 2 weeks notice, or payment in lieu of, then so be it.

 

[Luv2Travel]

I think society will get along quite well without any of these laws.

Really? So I would have no problems being an airline pilot back in the 70's? I'm certainly not going to start up my own airline!

 

[kathryn d]

Really? So I would have no problems being an airline pilot back in the 70's? I'm certainly not going to start up my own airline!

Maybe you wouldn't. Another person might, and only want to hire female crew. Just because you and I may not have the funds to start a business, doesn't mean someone else doesn't.

 

[Luv2Travel]

This is why laws are required, not everyone plays the game fair without them. A famous case against Ansett (they no longer exist but I don't think the reason is because they were forced to employ women ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Lawrie

 

[wylie]

Nothing wrong with lactating mothers who express milk on thier regular break. They can hook up to the pump while they eat their lunch.
Special breaks..no.

The sooner they stop people having a break for a "quick puff" the better to!!!

 

[weg]

The sooner they stop people having a break for a "quick puff" the better to!!!

Absolutely, that 'quick puff' was often 15-20 min all up, away from the work area, in work time x quite a few times a day, for years on end.

There is no smoking whatsoever in or around my workplace now .

 

[kathryn d]

Absolutely, that 'quick puff' was often 15-20 min all up, away from the work area, in work time x quite a few times a day, for years on end.

There is no smoking whatsoever in or around my workplace now .

My former co-worker who keeps in regular email contact me, has just informed me starting 1 Dec, our workplace is going smoke free..for the second time. The first time, the staff and supervisors had a difficult complying.Then they started allowing workers to leave the property on their break (we are not permitted to, only staff) supposedly to walk..but it was to smoke.
Then they brought in smoking booths, that was only permitted during the 30 min lunch hour, then it stretched to include the 2-15 min breaks.
They brought in smoke cessation programs..and i think only 2/150 actually quit.
Now it will be 1st breach =1 day suspension
2nd breach=3 day suspension
3rd breach=termination

Wonder how many will survive 6 months?

How things have changed. When I stated working there in 1977, smoking booths were provided for workers to take a break while smoking, but us non smokers were not allowed. then it went to ashtrays installed at our machines..at break tables etc.
Non smokers were the minority.

I always said, the employer should be able to ask if an applicant smokes

 

[Jen_PFR]

I always said, the employer should be able to ask if an applicant smokes

In WA, at least, any employer can ask this. Smoking isn't one of the grounds of discrimination under the EO Act. (Different jurisdictions are different, but I also don't recall smoking being a ground of discrimination in any other Australian jurisdiction that I'm aware of.)

 

[kathryn d]

In WA, at least, any employer can ask this. Smoking isn't one of the grounds of discrimination under the EO Act. (Different jurisdictions are different, but I also don't recall smoking being a ground of discrimination in any other Australian jurisdiction that I'm aware of.)

It could be that way in Canada too..but in all the job applications/interviews I've seen, that question is never asked.