You say that you are always required to sign a paper stating that you can do the basic job functions. How does that help the employer if you are a scrawny little girl and get injured on the job? Who pays the workman's comp. insurance? That money comes right out of the bottom line. With enough little 'feel good' restrictions on business owners, we can eventually drive them out of business and ruin the economy. Sometimes things that feel good are actually bad for society.
BTW, I'm not familiar with how VS gets around discrimination laws?
I heard explained once that some places can request only female bartenders (that was the topic at hand) because they classify some jobs the same way as acting jobs. You need a blonde large-busted female to play certain acting jobs so they can hire only that type of woman and not be sued for discrimination because they are looking to fill a certain role. Also at VS often the ladies are measuring for bra fitting and you can hire certain genders for that type of work as well. I dunno, ask VS if you want to know but I'm pretty sure they have some way around it.
A more appropriate thing to say would have been something like, "Thank you for applying, we have a few more applicants to interview and we'll let you know something soon".
Also, employers doing whatever they want with their own businesses is why we have EEOC laws, and unions, and ....
Just watch a few documentaries on the Industrial Revolution, and the conditions the Robber/Barons made their employes work in and it really starts to make sense.
I gotta agree with stanislaskasava. He who signs the checks makes the rules.
Yeah, its to bad she did not get the job, and yeah, it was unprofessional to make the comment he made. But, at the end of the day, he has to decide what is best for his shop. And apparently, you friend was not the best for his shop. She might be a great worker and a talented welder, but if she is going to cause problems for everybody else then that needs to be considered.
I don't believe women have a place in combat and never will agree with it and to this day women still cannot enter into a combat MOS in the military other than some flight combat jobs.
I do believe this particular employer could have picked a better way to eliminate the girl from the employee list if he really didn't feel she would work out.
I agree that the employer should have the right to choose. However, if I was the employer, I'd hire the best qualified. I sure as heck would not punish her because Billy Ray might harass her. If that's the case, Billy Ray can find a new job.
In the case of discriminatory practices, our society has a long long history of allowing discrimination for gender, for religion, for ethnicity, for national origin, for race. We collectively looked around one day and decided NO MORE. Of course, there are holdouts who care nothing about obeying the law or right and wrong. Who would --as happened to my dad one time-- tell someone "we don't rent to Jews and dogs." Or, "we don't rent to Irish." Or, "we don't rent to Catholics." Or, "we don't hire Moslems." Or, "we don't admit Hispanics." Or, "we don't serve black." Or, "women can only work here as waitresses."
The thing to keep in mind is that we must all get along and allow each other to make the most of our lives, or our whole minimally civilized world will come crashing down on us.
I'm almost always going to side with a property owner in a situation like this. You have no right to force them to hire you as much as they have no right to force you to work for them.
I suggest all here who are confused by the concept of property rights to read the following link in it's entirety. It is the most true and succinct expounding on the concept of "Man's Rights" if ever there was one.
Manís Rights,Ē from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. Copyright (c) 1946, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966 by Ayn Rand
Linking to Ayn Rand as support of a position is, in general, a really bad move. She's required reading for young adolescents, but then once you grow up, you get over that brand of selfish myopia.
The complaint that the employer "should be able to hire whomever he wants" is, in this case, an obvious dog whistle. It means, between the lines, "I want to be able to discriminate against black people." In a somewhat lesser vein, it means you want to be able to exert prejudice against women, gays, and anybody else you personally dislike.
And in small companies, that's still how it is and there's no big bad evil government that says you can't do exactly that. And so a lot of employers routinely hire only those they favor. Where the government steps in is with companies with over 50 employees, where systemic discrimination causes societal problems that affect everybody.
Now, this case is really egregious because the female welder is being denied employment solely on the basis of things she cannot control and things that do not bear upon her fitness to perform the task in question. She's qualified, expert, and has no demerits. The reason for denial is that the other coworkers in the shop are a bunch of lewd animals who just can't be counted on to control themselves. A gang of wild dogs that grunt and slobber. So, sorry lady - hit the road.
I've read everything Ice Queen Ayn ever wrote from her nicotine-stained fingers, but it doesn't change my perception that what happened here was wrong. If you don't think there was a problem and that this was a just and fitting outcome, then you probably need to widen up your reading list.
A lots changed since 1946.Quote:
Man’s Rights,” from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. Copyright (c) 1946, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966 by Ayn Rand
One EEOC hearing and this interviewer will never make a bone headed commit like that again.
Or, perhaps: "If you're going to unlawfully discriminate against someone, don't be so stupid as to tell them you're doing it."
Sorry, I just couldn't resist!!