Employers and hiring

[monocrat]

OK, I posted a thread about this before but people didn't understand what I wanted to state.

Shouldn't employers be allowed to discriminate against potential employees? Positive discrimination legislation stops employers from TRULY employing whom they choose. In essence, employers should have the right to be discriminatory in their hiring.

Is this prejudiced? Yes. Who is to say that a person cannot be prejudiced? Ultimately if a company is overly discriminatory in its hiring processes, it will get punished in the market place.

[KoolCat]

i did this one not very long ago

right here (http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48415&highlight=positive+discrimination)

and no, i think it's wrong.

[KoolCat]

um, i also notice that when i posted on it, you took the complete opposite point of view :confused:

Originally posted by monocrat
Positive discrimination is unjust.

People should attain positions on merit, not for the simply fact that they are of a certain race, gender or sexual orientation.

[monocrat]

I'm not solely talking about positive discrimination.

I'm stating that an employer should have the right to openly discriminate in terms of hiring.

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by monocrat
I'm not solely talking about positive discrimination.

I'm stating that an employer should have the right to openly discriminate in terms of hiring.

yeah but positive or negative, what you've just said totally contradicts what you said in my thread!

[monocrat]

No it doesn't.

I oppose positive discrimination because it prevents an employer from truly hiring whom they wish. Also, it's unjust to people who are truly qualified for the role.

[KoolCat]

if you are using the term discrimination to mean selcting one person over another on the basis of one particular factor, then the only factor that should count in recruitment should be the person's suitability for the job.

if that means turning down a black woman, who has not got the required qualifications, over a white man, who has, then that's not racial discrimination. that's ability discrimination, otherwise known as the job interview.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by KoolCat
if you are using the term discrimination to mean selcting one person over another on the basis of one particular factor, then the only factor that should count in recruitment should be the person's suitability for the job.

No, I mean that an employer should be able to discriminate in terms of sex, race, etc.

if that means turning down a black woman, who has not got the required qualifications, over a white man, who has, then that's not racial discrimination. that's ability discrimination, otherwise known as the job interview.

That's not my point.

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by monocrat
No, I mean that an employer should be able to discriminate in terms of sex, race, etc.

Why?

[monocrat]

Why not?

Why can't employers have full discretion over whom they employ?

[KoolCat]

they can ,their job is to find the person who fits the bill the best.

[monocrat]

Perhaps, but employers shouldn't be obligated to fairly select employees on the basis of race, gender, etc.

[KoolCat]

your logic is flawed. are you saying that it is ok to turn someone down for a job because they are black but it is not ok to turn someone down for a job because they are white?

how can you say:

People should attain positions on merit, not for the simply fact that they are of a certain race, gender or sexual orientation.

and then say:

Perhaps, but employers shouldn't be obligated to fairly select employees on the basis of race, gender, etc.

i fail to see the logic :confused:

[monocrat]

What I am saying is not contradictory at all.

I've already stated the reasons why I oppose positive discrimination. It shouldn't be used to make employers more politically correct nor should it be used to unfairly recruit people.

[KoolCat]

i understand your point on positive discrimination, i too don't agree with it. because i think people should be hired purely on the basis of merit.

but to say that employers should be free to negatively discriminate kind of messes that argument up doesn't it? i mean, how is that recruiting someone purely on the basis of merit?

[MWF]

i fail to see the logic

The logic is monocretin is only interested in dissagreeing with what you or anybody else says.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by KoolCat


but to say that employers should be free to negatively discriminate kind of messes that argument up doesn't it? i mean, how is that recruiting someone purely on the basis of merit?

It doesn't 'mess up' the argument.

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by monocrat
It doesn't 'mess up' the argument.

so explain it to me

[monocrat]

Explain what? I've stated TWICE why I think positive discrimination is wrong.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by monocrat
Perhaps, but employers shouldn't be obligated to fairly select employees on the basis of race, gender, etc.

Gender DOES come into it in certain professions.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by KoolCat
so explain it to me

Shall I explain it in words of one syllable or less for you?

Monocrat is arguing that discrimination, "positive" or otherwise, is wrong, but that being wrong should not make it illegal. In a perfect world an employer would choose the best candidate, and if an employer valued his business he would not choose an incompetent white man over a competent black woman, but Monocrat is arguing that the law should not FORCE the employer to choose the competent black woman over the incompetent white man.

Please point out the inconsistencies of his viewpoint.

[Kermit]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
Gender DOES come into it in certain professions.

But it is illegal for it to do so. Point being?

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Kermit
But it is illegal for it to do so. Point being?

Meaning in some professions it is preferable to have a certain gender. Like a family planning clinic working with young girls in my opinion that job would be more suited to a female, purely because the young girls would be at a lot more ease than if it was a male.

Or another way to look at it is when I was pregnant when I had to go for hospital appointments I was once going to be seen by a male nurse. He was quite young, very tasty to be honest but I just did not feel at ease with him giving me a full maternity examination, so I asked for a female nurse. Yeah you might think it sounds silly but for me i just did not feel comfortable with him giving me a full examination, maybe it was because he was a student nurse I honestly dont know. Ive had no problems with the Gynaecologist (sp) doing anything to me, he was male but I suppose in my head he had seen it all millions of times and did not bother me, he also knew what he was doing.

So thats what i meant :)

[Kermit]

Originally posted by BeckyBoo
So thats what i meant :)

Dont mean to be nasty, but then its just totally irrelevant.

[BeckyBoo]

Originally posted by Kermit
Dont mean to be nasty, but then its just totally irrelevant.

My 1st reply to this thread was to monocrat who mentioned the gender of someone, thats when i replied saying what i did.

In my view some jobs are suited for female as in some professions more for the male population, I then went on to give my reasons for the comment I made, which you asked me for.

Why is it irrelevant anyway?

[KoolCat]

Originally posted by Kermit
Monocrat is arguing that the law should not FORCE the employer to choose the competent black woman over the incompetent white man.

but he also said that people should be hired purely on the basis of merit - so which side is he on?

[Man Of Kent]

Originally posted by Kermit
But it is illegal for it to do so. Point being?

Er no it isn't There are some professions/jobs where gender discrimation is legal.

[monocrat]

Originally posted by MWF
The logic is monocretin is only interested in dissagreeing with what you or anybody else says.

I like disagreeing. :)