This came up in the "NJ Bans Smoking" debate....

Most members felt that private business owners should be the ones who decide if smoking is allowed or not in their bar or restaurant, and that free market forces should be allowed to control the situation.

In other words, if there is a need for smoke-free bars and restaurants and they were economically feasible, people would open them, and eventually there would be enough of each to meet the public's demand for each.

The question of government interference in our personal lives has come up in other discussions, too, involving "victimless crimes" such as marijuana use and prostitution.

Anyway, with respect to private businesses, I have a pet peeve of my own, which is probably quite unusual and controversial for someone with my political views.

Current anti-discrimination laws prohibit the hiring or firing of employees based on age, sex, race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or prior military service. There are, I believe, other grounds which I've omitted.

I believe that the owner of a private business should have the right to hire or fire anyone they choose to for whatever reason they choose to.

Here's a real example from my own personal experience, which illustrates my point:

For about 20 years I in worked in management of a few different NYC corporate car services ("Black Car" companies, for those of you from the area).

One of my responsibilities was the hiring, scheduling, and training of employees for the Dispatching part of the operation.

I was once looking for a dispatcher, and I ran an ad in the industry trade paper, and had several qualified applicants.

The most qualified was a woman with more experience than any of the others, who seemed to have a better mindset in her thinking about drivers (very important), and, best of all, who was willing to work for a bit less that I was willing to pay.

The ony problem from my POV was that she was quite visibly at least seven months pregnant.

Now, the anti-discrimination laws prohibit asking job applicants about their marriage and family status and child-care arrangements (which is stupid, IMO, since those factors can affect a person's ability to show up on time to work every day), so I didn't ask if she planned to come back to work after having her baby, or who would take care of the baby if and when she did, and she didn't volunteer any information.

Although she was quite qualified, and most companies handled their dispatching in the same manner with basically the same procedures, every company ha their own quirky little way of doing dozens of different things slightly differently and, more importantly, to be truly effective at the job, a dispatcher must be familiar with all of the different requirements of the clients, and even more importantly than that, the various levels of ability and personalities of the drivers.

In other words, there was a training period involved before I, as the manager, would feel comfortable in leaving a dispatcher to work alone and without supervision, which is very often necessary in a 7-day, 24-hour operation.

All of this is not to mention the fact that a high percentage of the drivers were Muslims, which experience had taught me often had problems with women in positions of authority over them, which was a handicap before we even got started.

So I wound up not hiring her.

Had she made a complaint to the appropriate authorities and said that she had been discriminated against on the basis of the fact that she was a pregnant female, I imagine that I would have had a problem, because, in fact, I had made my decision on that basis.

Plaw, you ignored my request for you views on this in the first page of that smoking bad discussion. I wish I'd spoke to you about this two weeks ago.

You would argue that there's no other role, other than as a defensive practice, for equal opportunities in business. I would personally hate to envision a world without these laws and protection. Discrimination is bad enough at the minute with these laws. Ethnic minorites and women are clearly under represented in higher paid work (this is the UK but I bet it's the same in the US). Our equal pay act (1970) has been a positive step but 35 years there's still difference in pay for genders for like for like work. I could cite many more examples. This is with these equal opportunity laws. And you'd be in favour of removing them? Surely everyone deserves a fair chance.

I understand the pregnancy case though. Employ a woman to work for about month and half, allow time off for anti natel care then provide temporary work relief for maternity provision. 7 months is quite far on. My guess is that she'd know all this and was after a free ride. But where do you draw the line. Allow discrimination for pregancy? What if it's undetectable? Allow discrimination for all women of child bearing age? There's a few words you like in these situations - slippery slope? :p

Male chauvinist pig! (plaw)

What I find somewhat baffling is that New Jersey's air ALREADY stinks. Do those anti-smokers there really think this ban will make a difference?

Let me get this straight. If I have a positon opening up within my company, and I am interviewing job applicants for this position, you're saying that if one of those applicants walks in and I don't like the color of their skin, that is grounds enough for my not hiring the person? That I should have the right to decide if a person is qualified for that postion solely based on their color or ethnicticity?


Don Cardi

Sorry, Turi, I must have missed that post in the other thread. I just looked and saw it.

Naturally, had I seen it the first time, I would have been more than happy to give an opinion.

Feel free to bother me anytime.

As far as your arguments in that thread and this one go, of course they made sense and this is a tricky question with good arguments that can be made for either side.

But as far as my opinion goes, I can't see why, after investing my money in a business, I should be forced by law to do things that may be detimental to my business.

Obviously, we need laws. And if I owned a factory, for example, I wouldn't argue that I have the right to violate pollution laws.

I can't tell you exactly why - I'd have to think over my rationale some more - but for some reason this employment discrimination stuff seems different to me.

And I can think of loads of hypothetical scenarios why in addition to the real-life experience that I had.

As far as pay goes, in principle I believe in equal pay regardless of sex.

However, again drawing on my personal experience, women are not as tough as men in salary negotiations (boy, I'm I gonna get myself in trouble here), and since my responsibility is to the bottom line of the company, if I am able, through my negotiating skills and the ability to take advantage of this knowledge and experience, why shouldn't I be allowed to hire a woman for the same job for less than I would pay a man?

If the man out-negotiates a woman, what am I supposed to do? Pay her more than she asks for?

The salary requirements of a job candidate should be legitimate factors in the decision making process, shouldn't they?

I believe that if it's your company, you should have the right to hire or not hire anyone you choose for any reason that you choose.

Just as I believe that if you live in half of a two-family house that you own, you should have the right to rent the other half to anyone you choose for any reason you choose.

You don't?

I'm not saying that any of this is morally right or correct.

Actually, I don't believe that it is.

But I believe that people should have these rights nevertheless.

And if you choose to not hire the most qualified person because of the color of their skin, that's silly and will ultimately be your loss.

But in my case of the pregnant dispatcher, I think I had good reasons not to hire her, not merely that "I don't like to hire women (or Blacks, or Jews, or homosexuals, or whomever)."

Damn! Damn! Damn! I've spent the last half hour writing a somewhat lengthy post and I accidently lost it just before I was gonna post it. Boo hoo!!

Have to get ready for work so I'll try later. Damn, I'm mad.

TIS

plaw, I know thw laws are different on the two sides of the ocean, but I do have occasion to refer to employment law in my work.

In the UK had you employed a woman who was seven month's pregnant she would have been entitled to maternity leave but not full maternity pay and benefits (which in the UK & Ireland are generous). In the UK and Ireland the law makes provision to basically stop a woman deciding she would like to become employed in the latter stages of her pregnancy simply to access maternity benefits and pay. Basically a woman must have been in a job for 15 weeks prior to the due date to receive any benefit and indeed must have worked for 26 weeks prior to that in order to be eligible for full maternity rights.

Something tells me I'm gonna be glad that you lost it.

Oh, where oh where do I begin? Unfortunately, I have to concede some points. I, also, as much as I would've wanted to, not have hired the pregnant woman. Why? Well, if she's seven months pregnant, isn't she going to go on disability in about 6 weeks? Wouldn't that barely give her time to start, with training, etc.? And wouldn't that mean that she would be out for a minimum of 6 more weeks after delivery? Why would I want to disrupt the training and the necessary rapport-building that a driver and dispatcher would need to build? As a businessperson, hiring this woman would be a very bad business decision.

As for salary negotiations, I would think that many women are reluctant to be aggressive in such negotiations, as in many other instances. Women are often reluctant to be aggressive, lest they be labeled a bitch. Fortunately for me, I have no such fear .

As for a private businessowner's ability to make decisions based on whatever they feel like, then I do have to disagree. I understand that it's not a policy you're comfortable with, but I understand that you're saying that if it is a private business, then the owner should have the right to discriminate or not. But I can't bring myself to agree with that. There are certain reasons for anti-discrimination laws, and, although some of them might be silly (for example, did you know that if your home is near a train station and you want to rent or sell it, the words "walk to public transportation" in an ad can be a violation of Fair Housing Laws, as it discriminates against someone who can't walk?) as we strive for that irritating political correctness, I believe in their necessity. However, I think that quotas are wrong.

Amazingly the answer to that question is (over here)...yes! Provided they do exactly the same job.

Senza, my problem with the pregnant woman was that I would have had to spend maybe 3-4 weeks in time and paying her to get her trained to the point where she would have been fully productive, and then she could have left and never come back.

Of course, I took that risk with everyone I hired.

I made mistakes, and people I hired didn't work out for whatever the reason, either their POV or mine, and I wound up losing them during or shortly after the training period, but hiring a pregnant woman simply increased those chances.

The question of maternity benefits or leave wasn't the issue.

My company had a reasonable policy with respect to that which was in compliace with the law, that applied to existing employees.

Amazingly the answer to that question is (over here)...yes! Provided they do exactly the same job. [/b][/quote]How about experience and longvity with the company?

If you have multiple slots for the same job and there's someone who works for the company for many years and has worked their way up the pay scale, and a position opens up doing the same job, the new person has to be hired at the same rate as the long-time employee(s)?

And I can hire a man for less than another man doing the same job, but not hire a woman for less than a man doing the sme job?

I'll get my post count up to 1,000 today at this rate.

I'm a self employed person. I firmly believe that the rights of the employer and employee are fully protected. As a small business person, one factor I want to avoid is the possibility of legal action by an employee ("Tom, I'm a business man and lawyers are a big expense") However I have to admit I would have tried to avoid hiring a woman who was 7 months pregnant for the same reasons as SB outlined above.

Does that make me a hypocrite...hey I'm a liberal

But this is where the law helps. Most of the time it's a perceived detriment to the business based on predjudices and stereotypes. To me, that muslim example was weak for these reasons.

So can I. And most of them are argued based on costs. In my eyes costs are a weak reason. In the long term you'd find that organisations based on valuing diversity in the workforce, or at least reflecting the environment its in, enhances themselves. You'd probably find it's a happier workforce, increase retention, productivity, decrease sickness and absenteeism. This route is likely to be more financially effective in the long term.

Unless the female in these cases have been treated unfairly then there can't be a problem. Fact is, they often are.

Ok, let me try again. :p The shorter "quickie" version for PLaw.

Actually I can understand both sides, as far as a private business owner goes. What if I owned a business, and an applicant simply "looked" shady and left me with a distrustful feeling, for whatever reason, but was otherwise qualified. Should I be able to choose not to hire him on that basis?

As far as the pregnant woman goes, I can understand the employer's concern, but I really don't think that there is much that can be done about it. My own daughter, being still a "newlywed", just got promoted, trained and relocated to another work location. She plans to hopefully get pregnant and have a baby within the next year or so. Of course, she didn't tell them that when she was interviewed, and they didn't ask. She does hope to quit to raise a child when the time comes. Naturally, I'm on her side, but I too can understand the employers position, after hiring/training her, only to have to do it again. Yet, this scenario is really a natural part of life.

One of my "true" stories was in the early seventies when I worked at an insurance company. They were hiring for an Insurance Adjuster. A man came to interview, my boss interviewed him. On the application, the question was asked, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" Turns out the man was just released from prison serving time for statutory rape. The man no sooner walked out the door, and my boss threw his app in the trash and told us what occurred. Being an office of mostly woman, needless to say we felt comfortable that he did that, but was it discriminating??? The man served his time and was honest about it.

Let me add I think it's just as discriminating to hire someone simply because they "are" in a "minority" status as it is to hire someone because they are not a minority.

Why should it be so difficult to interview, and check former employers for work performance, ethics, etc. and base your decision on what's important, without letting any other factors come into play?

TIS

Amazingly the answer to that question is (over here)...yes! Provided they do exactly the same job. [/b][/quote]How about experience and longvity with the company?

If you have multiple slots for the same job and there's someone who works for the company for many years and has worked their way up the pay scale, and a position opens up doing the same job, the new person has to be hired at the same rate as the long-time employee(s)?

And I can hire a man for less than another man doing the same job, but not hire a woman for less than a man doing the sme job? [/b][/quote]plaw...if it's exactly the same job then then experience and loyalty to the company are irrelelvant.

Man A has worked with the company for 20 years, starting off opening the mail and has now worked his way to be a Senior Marketing Executive. He's paid $100,000 pa because he's a really good marketing executive not because he's worked for the company for 20 years.

Woman B graduated from college 8 years ago yet has risen to Senior Marketing Executive with your biggest competitor. She applies for the post of Senior Marketing Executive. youn interview her and are really impressed. She asks for $100,000 becuase that what Man A gets and they're doing the same job...fair enough or, will you offer her $60,000 because she has only 8 years experience and has never worked for you before??

BTW, here at least, you cannot pay a man less than another man for doing the same job either.

My ex-wife went back to work about two weeks or so after giving birth, so I don't think there's any 6 week requirement..

If I had had a guarantee that this woman would have definitely come back within a reasonable time period, I very well might've hired her, but of course I didn't, and legally could not even discuss that with her.

Furthermore, suppose I did hire her and she didn't work out after 2-3 weeks? If I fired her, she might've claimed that I fired her because of her pregnancy.

Of course, you run that risk with every employee: That they might claim that they were terminated for prohibited reasons, but still.....

Should that be the employer's problem?

I know of at least one job I had in my life where I wound up settling for less than some of the other managers in similar positions were making because I was miserable in the job that I did have at the time and a little more desperate to make a change than if the employer had come looking for me.

It's strictly business. Nothing personal regarding the woman.

Well, as I said, there are good arguments that can be made for both sides, and I can make up numerous hypothetical scenarios in which I'm sure you would agree with me.

How do you feel about my two-family house scenario, and you having the right to discriminate with respect to who you rent your apartment to?

Actually, I think experience and long service can be used as an employer defense in the UK. Look up genuine material differences on equal opportunies.

Plaw I'll admit that maybe there's too many laws regarding equal opps in business nowadays and here it doesn't look to get any simpler for employers. The UK has our own laws but because of our involvement in Europe if our laws contradict with theirs UK law is overriden. Some laws are getting rediculous but the basic sex, racial and disability laws are there to protect people. You're well know for protecting the rights of people. Shouldn't the right to work without being discriminated against be protected too?

But this is where the law helps. Most of the time it's a perceived detriment to the business based on predjudices and stereotypes. To me, that muslim example was weak for these reasons.[/quote][/b]

But my Muslim eample was absolutley not based on stereotypes and pejudices.

It was based on real-life experiences.

If I were prejudiced against Muslims, I could never have been a successful manager in an industry where maybe two-thirds of the driver population is Muslim.

And my concern here was for the feelings and sensitivities of the Muslims involved.



In business, everything in the end comes down to costs and the bottom line, but here's just one of many scenarios I can think of that have nothing whatsoever to do with costs:

I own a small contracting company with a crew of four rough and tumble very sexist male workers.

We specialize in laying expensive tile work in floors in homes and places of business.

It's very difficult and specialized work, and requires that the crew on the job work very closely together to do the job well.

I have an opening on my crew, but don't hire a very well qualified male homosexual because I can't see how the rest of my employees, given the fact that in the past they have made many derogatory comments and jokes about homosexuals, I don't see how they could possibly feel comfortable working closely and together with one.

If you want to ay that it comes down to costs because now it may take longer to complete a job and become more expensive for me, well sure, that's what I'm thinking about.

But the decision to not hire the homosexual was not based on any dislike that I personally have for homosexuals, or the desire to discriminate against them.

That, I think is the difference.

If i was hiring an assistant to work in the office or something, or a salesperson - someone who didn't have to work together with the rest of my crew - I absolutely wouldn't care.


That may very well be true in a large company wich requires many employees to operate, but I don't think that it necessarily applies to small companies with very few employees.

Apologies there. I should have put more thoughts into my words. I never meant to imply you holding any kind of prejudices but suggest there's a lot of people in positions similar to yours that do. My experience of muslims must be different then - maybe 2nd generation muslims have intergrated into our societies better.



This example is one I'd actually agree with. When I learned employment law I was completely shocked that better integration with the workforce cannot be a decisive factor in the hiring of staff.

I've paid my dues in blue collar work, I know what kind of cultures they are. I'd hate to prove this example in court though. A prejudiced workforce aint a good defense.

If a high percentage of your drivers were racists, would that be a good reason not to hire a black person? I'm sure you were in a very difficult position, and I make this comment from the comfort of my armchair, but the fact that the dispicable attitude of your Muslim employees towards women was even a factor that operated in your decision smacks of moral cowardice.

That's a good point about the second generation, Turi.

The problem is way, way more pronounced and obvious with the older drivers who came to the U.S. as adults, as opposed to the younger ones who came as children.

Of course, for all I knew the younger ones might've felt the same way, but if it didn't show or create problems, I didn't care.

I can make up examples like that all day long. That's one of the reasons why I think these laws are wrong.

And I shouldn't ever have to defend myself in court.

My workforce is what it is. I can't help that.

My job was not to be morally brave and make inroads against prejudice by standing up for people and not being a moral coward.

It was to run the company in the most efficient, and therfore profitable, manner as possible.

So the answer to your question "If a high percentage of your drivers were racists, would that be a good reason not to hire a black person?" is, sadly, "Yes".

Never mind Muslim drivers and homosexuals what's the world coming to when you can't pat that good looking secretary on the ass anymore?!?!?!

That reminds me of a story.....

During one of the frequent interruptions in my college education, I had a job on Wall Street. 1967-68, I believe

My boss, Jim, had a secretary, Angela, who wore these really short skirts.

Jim had his file cabinets (no computers then, everything on paper) positioned in such a way so that they were maybe 30-40 away and facing his desk.

He set up his filing system set up so that the most important stuff that he needed most often was kept in his bottom drawer.

Whenever he had a bunch of the "good old boys" in his office for some reason, he would ask Angela to go get something from the bottom drawer.

She had a funny habit of bending over to get the stuff....I think she knew what she was doing.

I'd like to see Jim try and get away with that today. :rolleyes:

Good one PLAW, and just think that was in the pre-thong days. It would be even better now.

Yeah, goold old Angela had a host of........never mind

He's not a male chauvinist pig.

He's a perverted male chauvinist pig!


Don Cardi