Do you have a right to a job????

[ditchdj]

In light of an age discrimination lawsuit for being fired for being too old, ABC News looks at whether or not anyone should have a right to a job??? You can't discriminate based on color, creed, or age. But what if you ran an Italian restaurant and you wanted to make the setting more realistic by hiring only Italian waiters. Can you do it???? Federal says, "No!"

http://abcnews.go.com/business/stossel/story?id=5444494&page=1

[AFPheonix]

The byline has John Stossel in it. He's kind of a moron.

[Sylvia727]

The article made a good point with the Hooters girls. Like it or not, there is precedence for hiring people based on appearence. Howver, I think the regulations for firing ought to be stricter than those for hiring. Once one has a job and has made commitments, possibly even a career, based on this job, then there should more of a commitment on the employer's part. Fire them for making mistakes, having poor attitudes, or even just being inefficient. But don't fire them for things they can't change like age or appearence.

As for an Italian restaurant only hiring Italian waiters, or a Hooters restaurant only hiring young, sexy women-- I don't like it, but it makes sense. A preppy or high end store isn't going to hire a goth or a punk. A plus size store isn't going to hire an anorexic Barbie. Ideally, it wouldn't matter. But it does to the customers, and so it does to the employers.

[Boozy]

I don't have much of a problem with these places hiring based on appearances, because these places don't have a monopoly on that industry.

For example, I'm not going to get hired at Hooter's because I'm flat-chested. Nor am I going to be hired at an "authentic" Italian place, because I'm not Italian. But that doesn't effectively lock me out of the serving industry, because there are hundreds of other restaurants in my city that would have no problem with my appearance.... and might even prefer it.

Where I feel we need to have laws governing hiring practices is in situations where all men, or all women, or all overweight people, or all homosexuals, are not permitted a career in an entire industry. For example, if the Hooters chain bought out every single restaurant in North America, and said, "We will only be hiring heterosexual thin women with large breasts", then we'd have a problem, because a gay fat guy would never be able to fulfill his dream of waiting tables.

Also, it would be really difficult to get table service on a Saturday night.

[ditchdj]

The way I see it is that too much government regulation of businesses is not good. One example is anti-smoking laws in some places. My buddy says that it's now to the point that he can't even smoke a cigar in his own office. That even though he PAID for that office and it's his private property. If people dont like his cigar smoke they can go somewhere else. Just like if you don't like the smoke in a bar you can choose not to go there.

[Slytovhand]

I haven't read the article, but my first thought on going through these posts is 'relevance'.

For Hooters, big breasted girls are relevant to the restaraunt, for an authentic Italian restaraunt, ethnicity is relevant. For most other jobs, most things about a person are completely irrelevant. My long hair and lack of fashion sense is completely irrelevant to an inbound only call centre :D

Slyt

Oh - no smoking in your own office? That's relevant to everyone else's health (and the air conditioning).

[Seshat]

Your secretary (if you have one) can't just go elsewhere. Your customers may have a limited ability to go elsewhere (depending on your industry).
Other people in your building, who share your air conditioning and your air currents, shouldn't be forced to leave the offices they pay rent on just because you want to smoke.

[BlaqueKatt]

Your secretary (if you have one) can't just go elsewhere. Your customers may have a limited ability to go elsewhere (depending on your industry).
Other people in your building, who share your air conditioning and your air currents, shouldn't be forced to leave the offices they pay rent on just because you want to smoke.


There is a lawyer here in My town that has his office in his house-because he has his office there he can't smoke anywhere in his own house. He has no employees, and rents a separate office/room to meet with clients-his office is only for his work, and his filing. Pizza delivery drivers cannot smoke in their own car-EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT WORKING!!!!!

How would you like the government telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home and car?

[blas87]

Going off of what BlaqueKatt said, it gets beyond the point of ridiculous when people can no longer smoke in their own vehicles or homes (save for if they are renting and the landlord forbids smoking, but then they should be allowed to do it outdoors).

Back on topic.......do you have a right to a job? Well lots of people tend to certainly act like they are "owed" a better job when they really don't have the qualifications or the brain cells or capacity to do more than lick envelopes and package stuff up.

People like some of my former trainees....oh I could go on and on and on...

[Greenday]

Going off of what BlaqueKatt said, it gets beyond the point of ridiculous when people can no longer smoke in their own vehicles or homes (save for if they are renting and the landlord forbids smoking, but then they should be allowed to do it outdoors).

The government isn't saying you can't smoke in your home. The government is saying you can't smoke in a place of business. Not the government's fault the person chose to make their house into their place of business.

NJ's smoking ban, as far as I know, doesn't include smoking inside a delivery car for pizza or Chinese or anything. That wouldn't make sense. But banning inside a place of business makes sense.

[crazylegs]

How would you like the government telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home and car?

Uh, the government already does tell us what we can and cannot do within our own homes, ie kill others, beat them, embezzell them etc.

Back on topic.

Where would legislature draw the line? How would it be enforced? Without having an overly large bearucratic division making an individual desicion on each case I would rather there be a blanket ban on all types of discrimination. A guy wants to work and wait tables at hooters? Great but the lack of tips will very quickly mean he has to look elsewhere.

[The Shadow]

The government is saying you can't smoke in a place of business. Not the government's fault the person chose to make their house into their place of business.

NJ's smoking ban, as far as I know, doesn't include smoking inside a delivery car for pizza or Chinese or anything. That wouldn't make sense. But banning inside a place of business makes sense.

I don't think it's the government's place to dictate what businesses can and can't do in their establishments. The decision to allow smoking or not should be up to the owner(s) of said business and no one else. If they decide it's more profitable fo them to allow people to light up, they should be allowed to do so. Alternately, if they decide to forbid smoking in order to cater to consumers who want to be in a smoke free environment (which could be just as profitable), they should be allowed to do that too.

Of course the justification for banning smoking on private property (and a restaurant or bar is still private property) rests almost entirely on the supposed dangers of second-hand smoke. But there's growing evidence to suggest that these dangers are exaggerated and people ought to be a bit more skeptical of these claims. At the very least, more research needs to be done on this subject.

This link is definitely worth checking out:

http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest6.html

[Slytovhand]

@Shadow - I'm one who suffers from 2nd hand smoking.. and I have a few times. Lays me up bad til my body gets rid of whatever irritant has gotten inside. And trust me, I'm not normally a sufferer of anything (well - except for idiots at work :p)

Crazy - A guy wants to work and wait tables at hooters? Great but the lack of tips will very quickly mean he has to look elsewhere.Don't bet on it! If he's as 'well-built' as the girls, I reckon a lot of women would tip him quite nicely...

Slyt

[Greenday]

I don't think it's the government's place to dictate what businesses can and can't do in their establishments. The decision to allow smoking or not should be up to the owner(s) of said business and no one else. If they decide it's more profitable fo them to allow people to light up, they should be allowed to do so. Alternately, if they decide to forbid smoking in order to cater to consumers who want to be in a smoke free environment (which could be just as profitable), they should be allowed to do that too.

Of course the justification for banning smoking on private property (and a restaurant or bar is still private property) rests almost entirely on the supposed dangers of second-hand smoke. But there's growing evidence to suggest that these dangers are exaggerated and people ought to be a bit more skeptical of these claims. At the very least, more research needs to be done on this subject.

There's no doubt about it, second hand smoke is harmful. Besides the carcinogens being released, the smoke itself is harmful to those with respiratory problems. And there are a decent amount of businesses where if you don't choose that one, there isn't another company of that type for awhile. So let's say I need someone to help me with my taxes. There's only one accountant in my area. That means I'm stuck going to him/her for help. If that accountant smokes, I'm being affected by it. I have no choice. The smoke is being forced on me if I go. So why should I be forced between choosing among going to that accountant and dealing with the smoke, not getting help and possibly screwing up my taxes, or driving a ridiculously long distance in order to properly do my taxes?

Right...so on topic, no, I don't think you have a right to a job. If it's an Italian restaurant, and they want to appear authentic, they should be within their rights of hiring only Italians. Same thing for Hooters. It's what makes Italian restaurants Italian restaurants and Hooters Hooters.

[blas87]

And while we're back on track to right to a job, how about people like Sheriff, my annoying neighbor, and people like my most infamous trainee, DipShit.

Sheriff was assigned a job aid (or someone who helps out mentally disabled employees I guess?) at his job at Wal-Mart. Sheriff could not keep up with answering the telephones and properly manning his department. He also bothered several employees with his talking (same thing as he does at home here) and kept several people from work, and I'm guessing he also turned off several customers with the way he cannot stop talking and hunts people down and generally makes people uncomfortable. He was fired from Wal-Mart for those reasons. He then got a job at the local Holiday Inn Express. He worked there for a month or two and was fired because he could not keep up with cleaning rooms, his other duties, and again was a pain to other employees and kept them from doing their work with his chatter.

He was fired from Holiday Inn, but surprisingly, a while later, was rehired. His job aid somehow had pulled some strings (or most likely threatened a discrimination suit against the hotel) and got him his job back. Now I don't know if this person works with him every day or just keeps tabs on how many hours he gets and makes sure he doesn't get screwed over. Naturally, they fired him once before, they most likely DIDN'T want him back...so for a couple of weeks, he only worked 2 days a week.....and then all of a sudden he was working almost every day. The job aid must have caught them trying to cut his hours.

So even though he was a worthless housekeeper and a pain in the ass to customers and coworkers alike........the hotel HAS to keep him around. God only knows if they will EVER be allowed to let him go. Maybe Sheriff got help with getting better at cleaning rooms or leaving people alone, but I highly doubt it..as that's too hard for him not to do. So he can take as much time as he needs, or another housekeeper has to do double duty helping him AND doing their own stuff....just because someone felt that Sheriff was entitled to a job.

Sure....there's no reason mentally handicapped people can't have jobs. But it's not discrimination if you are let go because you CAN NOT perform your duties to the level that they need to be completed. Sheriff could NOT answer the phones and run his department at Wal-Mart. He could not and STILL CAN NOT clean rooms or keep up the way he should. But he still gets to keep working there.

Just the same....DipShit never made it past phase 1 (of 4) training with me. He worked at the factory for almost 2 months before he was finally fired. I have done my research and DipShit holds the record for the longest time a person EVER was allowed to continue training without progressing without being fired or assigned to another trainer/area. I am dead serious.....no other newbie was ever allowed to fuck up that much, treat their trainer like garbage, refuse to listen, refuse to learn...and be allowed to keep working there. Just because SOMEONE felt that they owed him a job.

It makes me ill.

[Boozy]

Sheriff was assigned a job aid (or someone who helps out mentally disabled employees I guess?) at his job at Wal-Mart. Sheriff could not keep up with answering the telephones and properly manning his department. He also bothered several employees with his talking (same thing as he does at home here) and kept several people from work, and I'm guessing he also turned off several customers with the way he cannot stop talking and hunts people down and generally makes people uncomfortable. He was fired from Wal-Mart for those reasons. He then got a job at the local Holiday Inn Express. He worked there for a month or two and was fired because he could not keep up with cleaning rooms, his other duties, and again was a pain to other employees and kept them from doing their work with his chatter.

He was fired from Holiday Inn, but surprisingly, a while later, was rehired. His job aid somehow had pulled some strings (or most likely threatened a discrimination suit against the hotel) and got him his job back. Now I don't know if this person works with him every day or just keeps tabs on how many hours he gets and makes sure he doesn't get screwed over. Naturally, they fired him once before, they most likely DIDN'T want him back...so for a couple of weeks, he only worked 2 days a week.....and then all of a sudden he was working almost every day. The job aid must have caught them trying to cut his hours.

So even though he was a worthless housekeeper and a pain in the ass to customers and coworkers alike........the hotel HAS to keep him around. God only knows if they will EVER be allowed to let him go. Maybe Sheriff got help with getting better at cleaning rooms or leaving people alone, but I highly doubt it..as that's too hard for him not to do. So he can take as much time as he needs, or another housekeeper has to do double duty helping him AND doing their own stuff...just because someone felt that Sheriff was entitled to a job.

Sure....there's no reason mentally handicapped people can't have jobs. But it's not discrimination if you are let go because you CAN NOT perform your duties to the level that they need to be completed. Sheriff could NOT answer the phones and run his department at Wal-Mart. He could not and STILL CAN NOT clean rooms or keep up the way he should. But he still gets to keep working there.

Sorry for the uber-long quote, but I have questions about this whole thing.

First off, how do you know these things? Did you hear about them from your neighbour? Certainly his former and current places of employment aren't calling up this man's neighbours and telling them all about his job performance. His social workers and job aids can't breach his privacy without losing their jobs. So I question how much of this is actual fact and how much you are just filling in the pieces to match your own presumptions.

I've bolded the parts where you freely admit that you are just speculating.

Second, so what if the housekeeping takes him all day? My friend used to work as a hotel maid, and they had the same rule...you start at 7 am and work until you are finished. She got paid per room, not per hour, so it was in her best interest to work quickly. My friend was rewarded for her efficiency by finishing work everyday at noon. Her slower co-workers took until 3, but as long as those rooms were finished, the hotel couldn't care less.

Finally, a word about the mentally disabled. This man was not blessed to be born the way you were. Your brain allow you to work quickly and read social cues correctly. His does not, and that's not his fault. Despite these obstacles, he gets up everyday, goes to work at a job he "doesn't deserve" and tries to connect with people who find him "annoying". I choose to find that inspiring. I'm sorry that you choose to find it infuriating.

[Slytovhand]

Firstly, I freely admit this is a 'story', in that I didn't personally experience this, but I was told by the person who did.

It's about an aboriginal student who desperately wanted to become a mechanic. His grades and aptitude/skills weren't up to scratch, so he didn't get accepted into the course through the normal route. So, he pulled the race card, and was accepted into this 3/4 year apprenticeship course, and putting out someone else who did have the grades/aptitude.

3 weeks later (or so), he pulls out of it - sufficiently into the course that they can't start a new person because it would be too difficult to catch up.

I think this qualifies to fit into this thread - yes??

[blas87]

I am awfully sorry if I come across as someone who is heartless and cannot stand people like Sheriff. However, any of you are welcome at any time to have a stay at my place, especially smokers, and try to go outside or enjoy an evening on the porch without being harrassed by him or try to have a leisurely smoke while he spies on you out of his window. Please feel free to throw your mud at me and make me out to be an awful heartless person with no empathy.

Despite how I feel about him and how my personal opinion is that someone more qualified and professional should be in his job, I am glad that he's out of our hair a few days a week. I'd rather have him working than not.

But considering when most people get fired, they are fired, never to be rehired again or placed on a DNR list, and he can just be fired then rehired......yes, that's quite fair, isn't it?

[Seshat]

I don't think you're entitled to a job.

Money is how we, as a society, choose to divide our resources. It's a set of tokens which entitle us to that share of society's goods and services. We earn our tokens by contributing to the creation of those goods and services, (or in some other way contributing to society).

A business is a legal fiction - a fictional 'entity' representing a collection of people who create goods & services. Each member of the business has a task to do that is part of that creation. If you can't or won't be part of making those goods and services available to society, you have no reason to receive some of that business' share of social tokens (ie, money).
No business 'owes' anyone a job just because that someone exists.

That said, I believe very strongly in equality of opportunity. I believe that when a business has a job vacancy, everyone with the appropriate qualifications, within a reasonable distance, should have an equal chance at the job. Or at least, as equal as is feasible.

Additionally, a society which finds ways to gainfully employ as many people as possible, is going to be the richer for it. So society should (IMO) accept that some folks sit on stools to work factory machines or check out customers. Sometimes a cook is deaf, and communicates with his co-workers through the written meal orders. Sometimes the person working drive-through is visually impaired (& relies on coloured currency to take the money properly).

As someone said: it's all about relevance. A fitting room attendant in a bra shop should be a female with a no-nonsense, reassuring demeanour about her. An actor in the title role of a play about Martin Luther King should not be an Asian female. Unless it's a farce.


But yeah. Unless race, gender, ability, or education are relevant, let everyone have a go at any job they want. Where a reasonable accommodation to ability can be made, let ability be considered irrelevant. With education, give everyone an equal chance at it.

And I'm ranting. So... eh. I'll trail off lamely.

[AdminAssistant]

An actor in the title role of a play about Martin Luther King should not be an Asian female. Unless it's a farce.

Ah, casting. *strained smile* My "ahem" physical features prevented me from being able to be an actress. Curvy girls only get to play the 'funny maid' or 'funny friend' - and if you're curvy and don't have comic timing - you're screwed. I was screwed. Oh, I could have starved myself down to the 120 lbs. that my professors said I needed to be at. (I've seen me at 120, folks, it ain't pretty). I didn't lose the weight, I didn't get cast, and therefore I didn't get the experience I needed. Instead, I went another course that allows me to be involved in something I love without quite so much discrimination - beyond the "nobody will take you seriously as an academic with a Southern accent" bullshit.

I will say that the theatrical world is diversifying and it's not as focused on 'typecasting' as it used to be. Now the pendulum has swung in the other direction. I absolutely would not be surprised to see a show with MLK being played by an Asian woman. Directors will do anything these days to draw some attention to their show and get folks to the theatre.

[Boozy]

Please feel free to throw your mud at me and make me out to be an awful heartless person with no empathy.

blas, I didn't mean to make you feel unduly singled out as a person or make you feel like I was attacking your character. I was trying to address your points.

You made several assertions in your post about "Sheriff" with absolutely no evidence to back them up. I was challenging those assertions, not your character.

I recall you posting a story or two about Sheriff on CS, and I also recall feeling sympathy for your situation. While it's no picnic being Sheriff, it's no picnic being his neighbour either. I can appreciate that.

With that said, I think your annoyance with Sheriff, while completely understandable, might be colouring your opinion on this issue...which is why I'm challenging you on this. You've presented the Sheriff scenario as a possible example of someone who only has a job because of unfair government intervention, but you're a long way from proving that point. So far, it's all hypothesis and extrapolation.

[Dark-Star]

Does one have a 'right to a job'?

*Maybe.*

Not having a job really puts a crimp in ones right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

See, our society runs on money, and if you don't have any you're a nobody. And unlike back in the day, there are really no options other than to try and compete for most people. There's no more 'wild land' to go stake out. If it hasn't been turned into cities, farms, or something already owned by now, trying to live out of the mainstream is darn well near impossible. The days of Joe Sixpack being able to move West and start anew if he became unemployed or just unpopular are GONE.

As much as I hate those who willfully live off welfare when there are 'now hiring' signs all over...American capitalism has proven for me to be a lie. A big, fat, expensive lie. I was told things like "study hard in school so you can get a scholarship to go to college. Graduate from there and you'll be successful! Don't be afraid to start at a min-wage job, it's the first step on a ladder."

LIES. ALL OF THEM. LIES.

I've done everything I've ever been told to the bleeding letter. Shouldn't I have a right to some kind of employment?

[Sylvia727]

No one has the right to a job...but everyone has the right to have an opportunity for a job. Everyone deserves an equal bite at the apple. Employers should consider only fitness to do the job when they try to decide who to hire. This can be more than just ability in some cases. Someone hired for a sales position shouldn't have foul language issues; someone hired for a management position shouldn't have anger management issues. But when employers create a mental image of who they want to hire, this image shouldn't include any irrelevant factors. Race is almost always irrelevant (actors and models). Sex is usually irrelevant. And so on.

[rdp78]

Well, about people like Sheriff, I work for a non-profit company whose main purpose is to help people with disablities or other disadvantages with employment and is known for its thrift stores. The store I work at has a group of special needs folks come in every workday from 10 to 2 and they have instructor with them all the time. They help keep the store clean, put out stock and help employees when needed. Pretty much they are a blessing for us and it seems to me this is a program Sheriff should be in instead of working at a hotel. Petty much every store has group of special needs people working there from 10 to 2. They also have a workshop where special needs people do various industrial jobs and they have someone suprivising them all the time. Something else he could do and he isn't around alot of people. Now the thing is the company I work for (starts with a G) is everywhere in the US and Canada but every region has it's own independently-run organization but it's still under one umbrella with the same mission. So they could have different programs in your area for people like him.

Okay, on the subject of discriminating because of age, well, a few of my co-workers are nearing or over retirement age and one is way past retirement age. Yes, they might move a little slower (well, not all of them) then me and the other younger employees but they are still do good work. It has never been an issue and I think one of the reasons is because the company also makes an effort to make sure older workers are able to find employment.

Also about businesses hiring certain people like an ethnic restaurant hiring only members of that ethnic group or a speciality store hiring only people who look like they would shop at that store is somewhat obscured. Because sometimes the only people who are applying are people who can fit in with the other employees. So we can't just assume they are discriminating even when no one who doesn't fit the citeria has applied for a job or asked about employment. I mean have ever seen a preppy looking person working at Hot Topic, I mean would someone who looks like they shop at the Gap all the time would even apply for job at a store that sells goth/punk wear probably not.

[Sylvia727]

sometimes the only people who are applying are people who can fit in with the other employees. So we can't just assume they are discriminating even when no one who doesn't fit the citeria has applied for a job or asked about employment.

Considering that I have witnessed a Hot Topic employee telling a cheerleader-esque customer that "you don't look like you belong here", and I have been advised by the clerk of a boutique that "<other, nonrelated store> might have attire more to your liking", I think it's safe to say some stores will discriminate against prospective employees based on appearences. If they turn away customers based on perceptions, whose money is still good no matter they're wearing right now, of course they will turn away applicants based on perceived nonconformity, whose appearences will help sell likely customers on the store. How much is the workforce only applying to places where they are likely to be accepted, and how much is the store weeding out those with undesirable appearences is hard to say.

[wanderingjoe72]

My friends uncle, is physically handicapped. He has skills and works in fields that he can do the work in. He also runs an advocacy group to help the handicapped find work. A big part of his group philosophy is finding the right job for a persons abilities. They may try to place someone and then find they can't meet the job responsibilities, they will move them possibly try another candidate and find another opportunity for the individual. He made it a big point not to try and force a business to retain a person that can't handle the job. Why? It backfires on the group. No business likes to be threatened, so opportunites will dry up.

In a scenario like the Sheriff story, if a discrimination suit is filed or threatened because they want to fire him for being unable to perform the job, that is the same as someone playing a race card when they don't get what they want, policy be damned.

[rdp78]

How much is the workforce only applying to places where they are likely to be accepted, and how much is the store weeding out those with undesirable appearences is hard to say.

Well, I am sure a preppy person might have applied for job at Hot Topic or a size 0 has ever applied at Lane Byrant but of course, I usually see goth/emo/punk kids working in a Hot Topic and plus-size employees in Lane Byrant. Of course, that doesn't mean another location wouldn't hire someone that didn't look like a customer or fit in with the other employees. Now also a businesses might have hired people that probably didn't fit in with the other employees and they quit after awhile so now they are weeding out those people.

Also sometimes discrimination happens for a reason such as Victoria Secret hiring only women for their stores (I'm not sure if they do discriminate against employing men for their stores but the only people I have seen working in VS stores are women). I can see why its okay to hire only women for a lingerie store mainly because they probably will do bra fittings (VS is known for theirs) and most women probably won't like some guy they don't know measuring them when they are half naked. So in this sense discrimination isn't because they want to but because they want to make the customer feel comfortable.

About an ethnic restuarant hiring only members of that ethnic group well, almost a decade ago I worked for a Chinese restuarant and I am European descent. Now I was asked by a co-owner who is a long-time client of my dad's to work for him and I did for a few months before I got another job. I still frequent that restuarant with my family and the waitress who has served us serval times over a year is white not to mention a couple of the hostesses (one when I was workking there, other just recently). Now I think the rest of the staff is Asian with a exception of the Hispanic cook.

I can see why an ethnic restuarant wants to hiring only members of that group and I well, in some way it is discrimination but for a reason. For instances a Indian restuarant hiring only East Indians and not hiring anyone else. Now there is a reason might be that they want their staff to be familiar with the food as well as a cultural and so the best people for are people who were born in that cultural. Not saying an Irish American wouldn't know anything about Indian cultural and that he has never eaten Indian food. He might have several Indian cookbooks, collect East Indian related items and has vacation in India but compare that to someone who grew up in India and all their family is East Indian. The Indian guy probably has more knowledge about the cultural and might eat the food the restuarant is going to serve everyday not once in a while like the Irish guy. The Irish guy might have hard time prenouncing the names of the food and so it might it be better to hire someone who knows how to prenounce. The customers probably have questions about the music and the Indian guy probably knows everything about that artist while the Irish guy only knows what they look like. You can probably get the picture that the Indian guy might be better choice to work in a Indian restuarant than someone who was born outside that cultural.