NC bans anti-discrimination

[Florida173]

So they should be able to not hire someone because they are black? Latino? Come on dude, that is fucking ridiculous.

I'm not seeing your point. Do a little critical thinking here. A business doesn't hire who they don't want. If a business doesn't hire someone because they are a black or latino, that will happen regardless of what the government says is can or cannot happen. Unless you are advocating for government mandated diversity.
Now if the business starts advertising that they are discriminating against certain groups, than what? Hit them for discrimination, or let the free market work itself out and people won't go because they don't agree with it.

Businesses should be hiring whomever they feel is best for the job, not on a mandated diversity kick. There's already unfair hiring practices on protected classes in the STEM industries.

 

[Florida173]

I have to disagree with you on this. Maybe I should not take you literal, but the way you put it, a business person should have the right to not hire someone based on race/gender/orientation. As a person who does a lot of hiring, I can tell you that I do not need laws to make me hire (or not hire) someone based on those criteria. But I know A LOT of folks who would make their decision based on it.

Maybe you are taking me too literal. A business should be able to not hire someone. Their basing is their own reason and business have zero obligation to inform anyone why they didn't hire. This happens now. Are you advocating hiring someone solely based on race/gender/orientation?

Let the market figure itself out.

 

[Devildoc]

I think the whole thing could have been avoided, completely, if instead of taking the issue of LGBT/bathroom use to the state they took it to court. There is no discrimination in requiring biological males and biological females to use bathrooms commensurate to their biological gender assignment. The issue of discrimination would come into play if they were flatly refused ANY bathroom use because of their sexual orientation. I don't give a flying rat's ass what gender you think or feel you are.

And I imagine that aside from the I-85 corridor in North Carolina that if I beat the living crap out of someone who looked at my kid sideways in a LGBT-friendly bathroom that couldn't be in said bathroom before the law was passed, I would be acquitted.

 

[Devildoc]

Maybe you are taking me too literal. A business should be able to not hire someone. Their basing is their own reason and business have zero obligation to inform anyone why they didn't hire. This happens now. Are you advocating hiring someone solely based on race/gender/orientation?

Let the market figure itself out.

I have been in this position, twice actually, and for the same reason: As a hiring paramedic supervisor, and as a hiring nurse manager, I was told that I would hire an employee with partial hearing loss not because they were the best candidate but because if we did not they could sue (they were both middle-of-the-pack candidates). The medic actually left the job because he couldn't hack it; the nurse, well, once hired he got the hospital to pay for hearing aids. he eventually quit because he couldn't hack that particular job, but was successful in another, slower, less acute unit in the hospital.

 

[Florida173]

I have been in this position, twice actually, and for the same reason: As a hiring paramedic supervisor, and as a hiring nurse manager, I was told that I would hire an employee with partial hearing loss not because they were the best candidate but because if we did not they could sue (they were both middle-of-the-pack candidates). The medic actually left the job because he couldn't hack it; the nurse, well, once hired he got the hospital to pay for hearing aids. he eventually quit because he couldn't hack that particular job, but was successful in another, slower, less acute unit in the hospital.

And that is the problem. Like I said before, certain protected classes get preferential hiring into communities for diversities sake. That in itself should be criminal.

 

[Gunz]

What kind of pillow cases would be the most popular around those parts, fuchsia or aquamarine..?

Fuchsia was a big seller when I lived there. And doilies. doilies were a hot item.

 

[TLDR20]

I'm not seeing your point. Do a little critical thinking here. A business doesn't hire who they don't want. If a business doesn't hire someone because they are a black or latino, that will happen regardless of what the government says is can or cannot happen. Unless you are advocating for government mandated diversity.
Now if the business starts advertising that they are discriminating against certain groups, than what? Hit them for discrimination, or let the free market work itself out and people won't go because they don't agree with it.

Businesses should be hiring whomever they feel is best for the job, not on a mandated diversity kick. There's already unfair hiring practices on protected classes in the STEM industries.

So in your mind there is no discrimination? It is a slippery slope to "no blacks need apply" from today forward.

And that is the problem. Like I said before, certain protected classes get preferential hiring into communities for diversities sake. That in itself should be criminal.

Affirmative Action programs are different than anti discrimination laws. I feel like you are confusing the two.

 

[DocIllinois]

No employer in any state is required to tell an applicant why they weren't hired. Most don't tell the applicant anyway in case they suddenly decide the "real" reason was discriminatory, or because of the fact that having an awkward conversation with someone who isn't working for them is a bad use of time.


IME, I take the subject from a utilitarian perspective; the decision on who to hire into my office is mainly based upon how useful I think one will be in the job they're hired to do. There can be other factors within the bounds of the law, but that's the biggie.

Paying attention to other BS like race or whether you're a lady who loves the ladies is just needless distraction, and illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967.

 

[Florida173]

So in your mind there is no discrimination? It is a slippery slope to "no blacks need apply" from today forward.


Affirmative Action programs are different than anti discrimination laws. I feel like you are confusing the two.

Sure there is discrimination. But it's not overt. No amount of legislation will fix that. It's also a slippery slope to blacks must hired. I don't see what you are getting at. The discrimination will be there regardless.

The anti discrimination could lead to an affirmative action.

 

[Florida173]

No employer in any state is required to tell an applicant why they weren't hired. Most don't tell the applicant anyway in case they suddenly decide the "real" reason was discriminatory, or because of the fact that having an awkward conversation with someone who isn't working for them is a bad use of time.


IME, I take the subject from a utilitarian perspective; the decision on who to hire into my office is mainly based upon how useful I think one will be in the job they're hired to do. There can be other factors within the bounds of the law, but that's the biggie.

Paying attention to other BS like race or whether you're a lady who loves the ladies is just needless distraction, and illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967.

Also why i can't specifically ask in an interview how old someone is or which race they are. Among plenty of other questions. I hire from merit, or potential alone.

 

[TLDR20]

We are getting into the discrimination plenty, but the riders are still a huge pet of this. Taking away a city's rights to impact their own economy is fucking crazy. I cannot believe that part went through.

 

[AWP]

You can reject people based upon X all day long and until the end of time with the right wording. You can say the technical interview didn't go well or another candidate had better "soft skills" or one of a billion reasons.

If you want true equality you remove any possible connection to race, gender, age, etc. from a resume. All of it. Volunteered at the local NAACP office? "Volunteered x hours for political action group" or some such nonsense. Strip all of it away. Make a resume a "plug and play" format to remove those pesky qualifiers or just fill out a questionnaire.

You can refuse people of certain groups and maybe a law suit will catch up to you, maybe not, but using the right verbiage will go a long way towards safely rigging the game.

 

[Florida173]

We are getting into the discrimination plenty, but the riders are still a huge pet of this. Taking away a city's rights to impact their own economy is fucking crazy. I cannot believe that part went through.

A city's job is to administrate the city and encourage the economy, not dictate it.

 

[Brill]

There is nothing like taking away the ability of a people to govern themselves.

Whoa there. Isn't that EXACTLY what the Democrat party endorses (strong government to take care of the people)?

 

[TLDR20]

http://FunnyOrDie.com/m/abux?_ccid=false&_cc=__dbbl

 

[nobodythank you]

A business should be able to not hire someone.

Sorry for the late arrival. I agree with this statement. However,

Their basing is their own reason and business have zero obligation to inform anyone why they didn't hire.

This I strongly disagree with. If you are not going to hire someone there needs to be a documented reason why. As someone who has spent several years going through oral boards, interviews, tests, and more it is frustrating to no end to not get any constructive feedback on what is happening. For the past five years I have applied to every law enforcement agency within 50 miles of me and have only once been given a reason why I was not hired. Now, I am not blaming all of them or even most of them, but some constructive feedback would be helpful, and it would allow me to determine if a previous employer is actively sabotaging my efforts for employment.

Quite frankly, it is bullshit for businesses or agencies to not provide a legitimate reason as to why someone is not an acceptable candidate. It costs the company nothing to provide the reason as whoever does the hiring has already singled them out for one reason or another. Is it wrong to know that reason? How else is the work pool supposed to grow and support the market? How else do we stop people from discrimination and keep the system in check? As @Freefalling metioned, there is a way to minimize the odds against being sued, but at least the individual will have a simpler time going up against a corporation/business that will have vast more legal resources than the applicant. Forcing companies to interact better with the applicant pool will save them liability in the long run, and help to increase the quality of the applicant pool. It will also help to deter people from applying for jobs that they are not qualified for.

Are you advocating hiring someone solely based on race/gender/orientation?

No, never. In a perfect world these would not even be a consideration, but let's face it. This world is anything but.

Let the market figure itself out.

The idea that the market can self correct a problem is wishful at best. There are rare instances where it has, but overall it does not. How do you propose a large company like Microsoft, Apple, or Google correct itself when they are leaders within their respective fields? As we see in politics, the public (also sometimes the market) has a very short memory. As with anything in life, balance is the key. Companies do not need free reign to do as they please, but they also do not need to be constricted to the point of being micro managed. Make it an even playing field for all to succeed on their merits alone. Additionally, what if the hiring body is government, then what recourse is there for correction?

Sorry for the split quoting, but there were parts I agreed and disagreed with. This made it easier to split them out.

 

[TLDR20]

Whoa there. Isn't that EXACTLY what the Democrat party endorses (strong government to take care of the people)?

Apparently that is also what the GOP is doing here in NC. I have found that most often democrats want to add services, while the republicans want to legislate morality through government. Both want to add government, don't get it twisted.

 

[nobodythank you]

Apparently that is also what the GOP is doing here in NC. I have found that most often democrats want to add services, while the republicans want to legislate morality through government. Both want to add government, don't get it twisted.

Agreed, although not typically in a benign manner. Usually it is to add services whether the public wants/can afford them or not. Both do it to line their pockets at the expense of the electorate.

 

[TLDR20]

Agreed, although not typically in a benign manner. Usually it is to add services whether the public wants/can afford them or not. Both do it to line their pockets at the expense of the electorate.

I agree.

 

[Gunz]

You can reject people based upon X all day long and until the end of time with the right wording. You can say the technical interview didn't go well or another candidate had better "soft skills" or one of a billion reasons.

If you want true equality you remove any possible connection to race, gender, age, etc. from a resume. All of it. Volunteered at the local NAACP office? "Volunteered x hours for political action group" or some such nonsense. Strip all of it away. Make a resume a "plug and play" format to remove those pesky qualifiers or just fill out a questionnaire.

You can refuse people of certain groups and maybe a law suit will catch up to you, maybe not, but using the right verbiage will go a long way towards safely rigging the game.

Absolutely.

And you'd have to have interviews through an intermediate surrogate so potential employers wouldn't be influenced by a candidate's features or voice.

Ask anybody over 50 what kind of excuses they get when they're turned down for employment. Rampant discrimination--for whatever reason--exists and as far as I can tell there's very little anybody can do about it without an outlay for legal help.