Private Discrimination

[blike]

Should private companies have the right to discriminate against potential employees based on race/sex/religion/anything they want? I was listening to people argue over this on the radio today. I can see where both sides are coming from, but I tend to go with "yes".

[TimeTraveler]

Should private companies have the right to discriminate against potential employees based on race/sex/religion/anything they want? I was listening to people argue over this on the radio today. I can see where both sides are coming from, but I tend to go with "yes".

 

Initially I would say no, but I need to hear the other side of the arguement as to why they should.

[Phi for All]

I say no, since it wouldn't be fair to let employers discriminate if no one else could. Once you open the door to employers, you'd have to let apartment owners rent only to those they wanted to. And retailers shouldn't have to sell to a minority group they didn't feel comfortable with. And since it's a well known fact that the British use more shampoo than anyone else, they should get charged higher rates in hotels. And fat people take longer to eat in restaurants, so they should have to give up their seat to me if I'm thin.

 

You are opening the door to the gaping pit of doom, do you hear me?!

[TimeTraveler]

Yeah, thats what I am thinking. We have, and still are, working very hard to get rid of discrimination. Why would we open the door for it. It sounds like backwords progress.

 

Now if someone is unfit to perform the job duties required for some reason or another thats a different story.

 

But I am very interested in hearing Blikes arguement since he says yes, I get the impression he wouldn't say yes unless he felt he had good reason too. I just can't think of what that reasoning might be. /Curious

[Cadmus]

Should private companies have the right to discriminate against potential employees based on race/sex/religion/anything they want?

I think that private companies currently do discriminate. As long as they do not tell the applicant that in direct terms, they can get away with it pretty easily I think.

 

As much as I am against discrimination, I don't see why a private company must pretend for the sake of the law (if indeed it is illegal, which I am not sure of). I think that people should be able to hire those people that they think will contribute to the atmosphere that they want to create in their private company. If customers don't like that atmostphere, then they can shop elsewhere.

 

Does anybody think that a person who wants to hire 5 employees and who doesn't like xyz people cannot find a way to end up only hiring non xyz people? I have nothing against it. If I were to hire employees, I would only want to hire people that I feel would improve my work environment for me and the other employees.

[Deathby]

I dislike discrimination intensely. And yet I do not feel hatred towards stereotyping.

 

Eg. If you walk up to me dressed like a hobo and rapping, would it be acceptable for me to think you are of a lower intelligence? I say yes. And that's why I think that any black person who dresses like that should be looked down upon, not because they are black, but because they have a stupid way of talking, are much more likely to commit a crime and take drugs.

But if a black man in a suit approached me, I would treat him as I would any other business man I would meet.

 

I don't see why people should discriminate because of race, but I can see why they should discriminate despite race. It is incredibly difficult to fire a homosexual at times if they are unwilling to leave because they can claim discrimination. All things being equal, it is easier to fire a white, heterosexual male between the ages of 30-40 than anyone else. To me this is discrimination, not anti-discrimination gone too far.

[Newtonian]

Yes,Its their company,their money,their business.

Why should they have it forced on them whom they employ.In the competative world of business surely a company would want the best workforce possible.This wont neccersarily descriminate against a disabled person,or an ethnic person.Ability and aptitude to do the work to a high standard has no racial boundaries.

But to force a company to have a quota of persons,that they would not usually employ is ridiculus.

[atinymonkey]

Does anybody think that a person who wants to hire 5 employees and who doesn't like xyz people cannot find a way to end up only hiring non xyz people? I have nothing against it. If I were to hire employees' date=' I would only want to hire people that I feel would improve my work environment for me and the other employees.[/quote']

 

You'd be right, if you worked at a company who enjoyed being sued.

[syntax252]

I just think that a private company should have the right to make the decision on who to hire, based on whatever criteria it chooses.

 

Further, I think that a restaurant should have the same right.

 

This idea that we can eliminate discrimination by passing laws against it is an example of tring to right a wrong by imposing another wrong.

 

If we allowed restaurants, for example, to discriminate against black people, it would not be very long before those restaurants would be out of business. Sure, there would be a few (beaneries) who survived, but the freedom to choose our associates--regardless of the method--is, in my opinion, more important.

[Hellbender]

Should private companies have the right to discriminate against potential employees based on race/sex/religion/anything they want? I was listening to people argue over this on the radio today. I can see where both sides are coming from, but I tend to go with "yes".

 

well, provided the comapnies are privately-owned, and have nothing to do with the government, I believe they have the right to discriminate if they desire. Doesn't make it right though.....

[Bettina]

I go with no. Laws should apply to all companies, private or held. If the person can do the job and do it well, he should not be turned down because of his race. This kind of thing keeps discrimination alive, and it should be dead. I also would like to hear blikes reasoning.

[swansont]

If we allowed restaurants, for example, to discriminate against black people, it would not be very long before those restaurants would be out of business. Sure, there would be a few (beaneries) who survived, but the freedom to choose our associates--regardless of the method--is, in my opinion, more important.

 

Restaurants and hotels (mainly in the south) who refused service to blacks for many decades would seem to refute this argument.

 

Freedom of association is for private gatherings.

[syntax252]

Restaurants and hotels (mainly in the south) who refused service to blacks for many decades would seem to refute this argument.

 

Freedom of association is for private gatherings.

 

My thought is that once the problems of segregation in government sponsored services was solved' date=' the rest of the problem would have come along better, actually, if it had been a voluntary thing rather than the government forcing it upon anyone.

 

My second concern is one of government authority over private business.

 

While I would agree that an integrated society is much to be preferred over a segregated society, I do not think that the federal government actually had the authority under the Constitution to force businesses to adopt hireing practices and service providing practices that met federal criteria--absent any government contracts or federal assistance of course.

 

I just think that a man's business [b']is[/b] his business and I further think that the Constitution limits the authority of the federal government and both of those things trump the so-called right to be hired--or served--indiscriminately, regardless of how honorable the goal may be.

 

Now, on the state level that might be different, because the 10th amendment does grant rights to the states that he federal government does not have.

[swansont]

Article I, section 8, clause 3.

 

The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce ... among the several States

[syntax252]

Article I' date=' section 8, clause 3.

 

The Congress shall have Power ... To regulate Commerce ... among the several States[/quote']

 

Yes, I know.

 

And that has come to mean that if it is paid for with money that it involves interstate commerce. I even know that the SCOTUS has pretty much rubber stamped it.

 

However, since the opening post in this thread included the word "should," I am merely expressing my version of "should" and am not trying to argue the legalities of my position.

[coquina]

But, there are different rules that apply depending on how many employees you have.

 

Here is a fact sheet about Federal laws that prohibit job discrimination:

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

 

When you get down to the bottom, and read what companies it applies to, you will see that it covers companies with 15 or more employees. Part of the reasoning behind this is that you need one employee just to file all the paperwork that shows you are in compliance.

 

Most of you know I own a machine shop - it is located in a very rural area - there is no public transportation. Several years ago, before the Challenger disaster, we had about 30 employees. Everytime I had a job opening, I filed it with the state employment commission. I would have happily hired any person who could do the job, even if they were purple with yellow polka dots.

 

One of the problems we ran into was that many people were eliminated, not by us, but because they did not have their own transporation, and the end of the bus line was more than 10 miles away.

 

When one mandates laws that include hiring "quotas" of minorities, one must assume that there are sufficient people available that have the training required, and that they have means to get to your job site.

[Tetrahedrite]

Should private companies have the right to discriminate against potential employees based on race/sex/religion/anything they want? I was listening to people argue over this on the radio today. I can see where both sides are coming from, but I tend to go with "yes".

Race, no.

Sex, possibly.

Religion, no.

Ability, absolutely yes!!

I am a strong believer that affirmative action is just a form of discimination against those who are better qualified to do the job.

[YT2095]

Race' date=' no.

Sex, possibly.

Religion, no.

Ability, absolutely yes!!

[/quote']

 

what about Weight? or disability?

smoker/non smoker?

[Sayonara]

Tattoos, haircuts, facial piercings...

[YT2095]

I say discriminate where it effects (in the negative) Health and Safety, to the employee, the public, other employees and asociated materials and/or property of the employer.

 

other than that (apart from the grey area of profit) discrimination shouldn`t be allowed.

 

 

the profit side of things is real toughy though, I`de have to go with a coverall of, If a company is running at a Loss because of an employee (as in LESS than before hiring them) then they should go. this does NOT extend to Potential Profits to be made, only where an employee is an "EXISTING Profit" liability.

[swansont]

Yes' date=' I know.

 

And that has come to mean that if it is paid for with money that it involves interstate commerce. I even know that the SCOTUS has pretty much rubber stamped it.

 

However, since the opening post in this thread included the word "should," I am merely expressing [b']my[/b] version of "should" and am not trying to argue the legalities of my position.

 

But that's not what you were arguing.

 

"I just think that a man's business is his business and I further think that the Constitution limits the authority of the federal government and both of those things trump the so-called right to be hired--or served--indiscriminately, regardless of how honorable the goal may be."

 

That is written as a statement of fact, not opinion.

[Lance]

I dont have a problem with it. What exacly are the laws regarding private discrimination?

[Phi for All]

Here's some links to some of the federal anti-discrimination laws in the US:

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/A12C8632-3538-4497-AFB1D219C6FC732C/111/259/283/ART/

http://fatty.law.cornell.edu/topics/employment_discrimination.html

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

[syntax252]

But that's not what you were arguing.

 

"I just think that a man's business is his business and I further think that the Constitution limits the authority of the federal government and both of those things trump the so-called right to be hired--or served--indiscriminately' date=' regardless of how honorable the goal may be."

 

That is written as a statement of fact, not opinion.[/quote']

 

You did notice the first 3 words, didn't you?

 

And the 12th, 13th qnd 14th?

[Aardvark]

You did[/b'] notice the first 3 words, didn't you?

 

You can think a statement of fact. Thoughts are not necesarrily just opinions, they can be facts.