A month or so ago a female British banking exec was testifying before some kind of government inquiry. She made the comment that, in her opinion, banks would be foolish to hire women because of the legal grief those hires have the potential to create by leveraging anti-discrimination laws. Once you let them in the door you’re stuck with them. On the other hand if you hire white males you are never “stuck” with any you don’t like, you just show ‘em the door - nbd.
Ditto blacks - all the government interference in the labor market increases the risks in hiring minorities. You almost hope you don’t get a resume from a minority, and if you do it goes straight to the shredder (”which resume? What are you talking about?”)
These anit-discrimination laws can provoke as much discrimination as they prevent - perhaps even more! - because of the risk they create.
all the government interference in the labor market increases the risks in hiring minorities. You almost hope you don’t get a resume from a minority, and if you do it goes straight to the shredder (”which resume? What are you talking about?”)
Sounds like you are not familiar with OFCCP. It is a Dept. of Labor standard that requires you to retain ALL job applications, keep detailed records by RACE, and be prepared to document which candidates where interviewed/considered by RACE and ultimately hired by RACE. This info is subject to reporting to the Federal Govt. and they can come and inspect your files at any time.
For example, if you hired an engineer, you would have to document that you received 155 applications, 44 of which were blacks, 59 femaile, 21 Hispanic, 12 Asian, etc. You would have to indicate that you selected 20 for interview: 9 white, 6 black, 2 Hispanic, 3 Asian, 5 Female. You would then justify why you chose to hire the one you did (particularly if a white male)
First they forced this onto Federal contractors, then onto anybody who got TARP or bailout money. Coming to the rest of us soon...