Unemployed? Don't bother applying.

[JerichoHill]

@Murky
Just because someone is down on their luck does not indicate that they aren't a good candidate.
--Of course not. But, to argue differently, why was it that when I put a wedding ring on my finger, ladies flirted with me more (In general, this has been shown to occur across Western populations and is documented in journal articles, so its not just my one experience). We find that this occurs because the ring sends a signal. Whereas a single guy may be good or not, a married guy must have been good enough, raising the probability that he's really good (invert the genders if you will, but the income signaling effect isn't there." Given that HR departments have limited personnel and limited time, and given that in a recession we are getting more job applications per opening, arbirtrary criteria will be used because it is a logistical impossibility to interview everyone.

For instance, in my office we received approximately 200 applications per opened law analyst position. There were 10 openings. There is no way that an HR division / our bosses, can interview 2000 people within 3 months (unless you want a very big governemnt). As best as I can tell, an initial filter was applied to eliminate a majority of the applicants (whether they had a law degree). Were there some good candidates without a degree? Absolutely? But it is more likely that a good candidate has a law degree than doesn't, and given limited budget and time, these cutoffs will occur. Unless you know of a system where basically 6 people can determine the quality of 2000 applicants in individual intervals within months. That's what we're talking about here.


I also disagree with the idea that people who are in debt or have bad debts would be easier to bribe or show a lack of ethics.
--Of course in the specific this may not hold, but in general it raises red flags, and when dealing with sensitive information, the government is going to act in a risk averse manner. All other things being equal, a person with credit problems is more of a risk. That's it.

It is the richest, greediest people that are the most unethical and thus more likely to take payment in exchange for looking the other way. There are many people who have poor credit that have a strong work ethic.
--I am talking about government employees. These are not the richest people, contrary to USA Today's biased reporting.


Often times a person's bad credit is the result of something beyond their control like a sudden illness in their family. College students often fall into debt traps too. What these sort of filters do is make it more difficult for people to get a job and out of debt.
--Yes, they do. But, when you are dealing with clearance jobs with sensitive information, the government isn't going to take chances. It probably isn't in the profit motive for businesses to do differently, either.

[/QUOTE]

@@Mise
In the case of the Icelandic sales job, the Icelandic candidate would have to prove that he had sufficient knowledge of local tastes to be qualified for the job. A Norwegian candidate would have to prove the same thing. If the job was for a sales role in Iceland, a sensible candidate would highlight relevant experience in their CV or covering letter; a sensible recruiter would scan the CV/letter for such experience. A stupid recruiter would assume that an Icelandic person magically has sufficient knowledge of local tastes to qualify, and that a Norwegian candidate has insufficient knowledge of local tastes to qualify. And this is further assuming that the candidates are equally qualified on other fronts, which is obviously never going to happen.
Correct. But again, while not true for the individuals, in the aggregate it is more likely that a random Iceland candidate to be better prepared than a Norwegian candidate for an Iceland sales job. Unless living in a country doesn't make one more likely to understand that countries quirks better.


As for forbidding Muslims because you're trying to create a tight-knit organisation of like-minded people, then you can use this to discriminate against anyone. What if you want to create a tight-knit organisation of 80,000,000 white, blue eyed, blonde haired men and women? No Jews, of course Obviously, there are obligations levied on large organisations that aren't expected of small organisations. This is because, to some extent, a company is operating in the public sphere and not in its own little bubble world. There are thus certain responsibilities and obligations that society expects of it. A tiny organisation of 2 or 3 people can legitimately claim, for its recruiting policies at least, that it doesn't operate in the public sphere, especially if it chooses not to advertise its jobs in some public place, or that it operates in public to such a limited extent that the laws shouldn't apply. So yes, it's okay for a self-employed plumber to employ his son rather than a black disabled Muslim lesbian, because his recruiting isn't acting in the public sphere. But it's not okay for Ikea to only higher Swedes or something. The point is, things that are open to the public (shops, restaurants, hotels, public beaches, parks, etc) have different levels of expectations to things that aren't open to the public (private clubs, private beaches, private parks etc).

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine the law already draws the line somewhere... Maybe someone else can enlighten us?
--In the US, no discrimination based on age, gender, race, sexual orientation, veteran status, qualified disabilities, religious background.


So it's okay to discriminate against people based on religion, since that's something you can choose to follow? Homosexuality isn't a choice - you're born with it, so you can't discriminate against people who are homosexual.
--See above. US Labor law prohibits discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation. Employers are not allowed to inquire on these.

 

[Mise]

That's uhh, quite a way to miss the point.

Correct. But again, while not true for the individuals, in the aggregate it is more likely that a random Iceland candidate to be better prepared than a Norwegian candidate for an Iceland sales job. Unless living in a country doesn't make one more likely to understand that countries quirks better.

You don't recruit aggregates, you recruit individuals. What happens "on aggregate" has bugger all to do with what an individual's talents are. You don't recruit aggregates, so why even talk about them. All you're proving is that an Icelandic person is more likely to be able to prove that he's suitable -- you're not telling me why all non-Icelandic people are incapable of proving they are suitable, and should be summarily eliminated from the list. Seriously, you're not normally this slow...

--In the US, no discrimination based on age, gender, race, sexual orientation, veteran status, qualified disabilities, religious background.

I wasn't asking what you can and cannot discriminate on.

See above. US Labor law prohibits discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation. Employers are not allowed to inquire on these.

Again, I wasn't asking about the law, but about your opinion on what's right and wrong. You might want to, you know, actually read my posts before responding in the future.

 

[illram]

In my experience government (State, no experience with Feds) generally will have some sort of initial screening process involving a rudimentary test, or Q&A related to the position, and score each applicant. Which is still a lot of work, but it narrows down the field of 2,000 applicants to 200 or so, who are then interviewed. Depending on the position the interview process can go through multiple sessions, some with panels, some with more testing, etc. California, for instance, utilizes a Civil Service Exam which you have to take before you even apply, and then hiring positions send you applications based on your rank on the list.

Hiring is really subjective though, there is no way around that. That's why on the private side it's more about who you know then what is on your resume. People often discriminate subconsciously (or consciously, and get away with it because they can make something else up.)

While unfortunate, due to the number of people applying these days private firms are going to turn away applicants based on unemployment because they can afford to be picky. It's kind of a catch-22. I think it's unfair but I get why they are doing it.

Before this, employment history was still used: long gaps in employment, constantly changing jobs, etc. Being laid off, while not always related to your work, is one of those things that an employer who is totally in the dark about an applicant will likely consider. I bet many of you would think of it if placed in the position of screening people.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Yes, but the rate at which the applicant pool diminshes (i.e. the rate at which unemployment falls) is affected by the presence of such discriminatory actions! If people are actively avoiding recruiting newly unemployed people, and are picking those already employed first, it reduces the rate at which unemployed people can get back into work (since it will take longer for them to do so). In otherwords, it increases unemployment.

1) the applicant pool is size S
2) the applicant pool diminishes at rate r_normal
3) X occurs when there is a large applicant pool (S > some value Sx)
4) X acts to reduce the rate at which the applicant pool diminishes; i.e. rx < r_normal
5) therefore, when the size of the applicant pool is greater than Sx, X acts to increase unemployment above the level it would otherwise be without X.

You are thinking too short term. If a company hires a previously employed person than there is less 'employment' then until the vacated job is filled. I suppose you can consider that as increasing unemployment but that doesn't seem to be useful to do so. For instance, the company I work for is expanding. We are of course trying to poach the talent from well established companies as every company does when in or not in a recession. To consider this this increasing unemployment I think is absurd. When a major league baseball team takes over a player's existing contract instead of bringing up a new player from the minor leagues to fill a position one doesn't think 'oh wow, there are fewer major league baseball players now'

 

[Mise]

@Fugitive Sisyphus: You misunderstood. I'm not saying that it increases unemployment per se, but rather that it causes unemployment to be higher than it otherwise would be at any given time. The reason is simple: if employers hire those already employed before they start hiring the unemployed, then it will take longer for an unemployed person to become employed, meaning that it takes longer for unemployment to start falling after the recession. This is especially true since it can take months between a vacancy appearing and it being filled.

I'll give a noddy little example. Say there are 5 companies (A to E). In companies B, C, D and E, there are employed people who want a new job. In month 1, company A advertises for a job. By month 2, those disgruntled/bored/underutilised employees from companies B to E have applied, along with 10 or 15 unemployed people. By month 3, Company A decides to eliminate the unemployed people from the running, and only interview applicants who already have jobs in B to E. At the end of month 3, Company A decides to hire the applicant from Company B.

Now, there is a vacancy at Company B. At the start of month 4, company B advertises the vacancy. By month 5, applicants from companies C to E apply, along with 10 or 15 unemployed people. Again, by the end of month 6, company B has eliminated the unemployed and decided to hire the applicant from company C.

Now there is a vacancy at Company C.... and so on. It's already 6 months and no unemployed people have been accepted for a job. It will be another year before any of those unemployed people get jobs at companies A to E.

I'm not saying it's anywhere near as bad as this. But then again, nor do I have to, since my argument is motivated by a desire to stamp out discriminatory employment practices, rather than a desire to reduce unemployment... But you can still see how hiring only those who are currently employed would make unemployment take longer to start falling?

 

[Murky]

@Murky
Just because someone is down on their luck does not indicate that they aren't a good candidate.
--Of course not. But, to argue differently, why was it that when I put a wedding ring on my finger, ladies flirted with me more (In general, this has been shown to occur across Western populations and is documented in journal articles, so its not just my one experience). We find that this occurs because the ring sends a signal. Whereas a single guy may be good or not, a married guy must have been good enough, raising the probability that he's really good (invert the genders if you will, but the income signaling effect isn't there." Given that HR departments have limited personnel and limited time, and given that in a recession we are getting more job applications per opening, arbirtrary criteria will be used because it is a logistical impossibility to interview everyone.

I can understand about preferring the most desirable person first. That's why people say "all the good ones are taken" when it comes to dating. The perception is that if someone is single they must have something wrong with them. It could be just the person is shy or not that good at dating. I would guess that the person who is single is going to be less of a hassle to get, no angry-X to deal with. Work is slightly different, but still if you snipe from someone else they won't have any problems sniping from you.

For instance, in my office we received approximately 200 applications per opened law analyst position. There were 10 openings. There is no way that an HR division / our bosses, can interview 2000 people within 3 months (unless you want a very big governemnt). As best as I can tell, an initial filter was applied to eliminate a majority of the applicants (whether they had a law degree). Were there some good candidates without a degree? Absolutely? But it is more likely that a good candidate has a law degree than doesn't, and given limited budget and time, these cutoffs will occur. Unless you know of a system where basically 6 people can determine the quality of 2000 applicants in individual intervals within months. That's what we're talking about here.[/B]

There certainly do need to be ways to pair down the stack. I'm just saying that should be about qualifications and presentation, not about how bad of hand they got dealt in life.

If I were hiring this would be my criteria.

1) How qualified is the candidate
2) How well did they present their information (look for obvious errors, padding, etc).
3) How badly do they want or need the job. The more enthusiasm for the work the better they are likely to perform.
4) Work history, do they have some working knowledge/skills that could be useful.
5) Logistical practicality, how difficult would it be in terms of location, commute, etc.

There would also be some degree of first-come-first-serve. If you sent your resume at the last minute, it will probably be reviewed last.

I also disagree with the idea that people who are in debt or have bad debts would be easier to bribe or show a lack of ethics.
--Of course in the specific this may not hold, but in general it raises red flags, and when dealing with sensitive information, the government is going to act in a risk averse manner. All other things being equal, a person with credit problems is more of a risk. That's it.

It could certainly be a "ding" but it should not eliminate someone for consideration.

It is the richest, greediest people that are the most unethical and thus more likely to take payment in exchange for looking the other way. There are many people who have poor credit that have a strong work ethic.
--I am talking about government employees. These are not the richest people, contrary to USA Today's biased reporting.

I didn't say that government employees are the richest, greediest. It is probably true that people with a lot of money and lack of ethics are more likely to attempt bribery or accept a bribe.

Often times a person's bad credit is the result of something beyond their control like a sudden illness in their family. College students often fall into debt traps too. What these sort of filters do is make it more difficult for people to get a job and out of debt.
--Yes, they do. But, when you are dealing with clearance jobs with sensitive information, the government isn't going to take chances. It probably isn't in the profit motive for businesses to do differently, either.

Given the recession we're in, the government should take into consideration that many people are just down on their luck. Just having poor credit doesn't make you a bad person. It's a temporary situation that getting a job can help fix.

There's lots of ways to monitor a person's activities at work. If you are paranoid about people with bad/poor credit just monitor those people's activities more closely, but it still should be "innocent until proven guilty."

 

[Adrogans]

Sadly irrational superstitions can and do permeate all walks of life. This is just another unfortunate stereotype that has taken hold. Some times true, more often not.

 

[JerichoHill]

@Mise
First, it is not respectful to call someone else "slow".

Secondly, I am referring to aggregate decisions because when you get 200 applications for 1 position there is no way to expect there to be enough time to properly review all 200. A shortcut will be made based on some arbitrary criteria. You have yet to present an argument as to why, when there is not enough time or manpower to evaluate all applications, you wouldn't use a shortcut that is true in general but perhaps commits an ecological fallacy for an individual.When you play sports, you do not select the most inept to be your teammates first, you pick based on muscle,height speed/. You don't observe how good they are until you actually play.

That's uhh, quite a way to miss the point.


Again, I wasn't asking about the law, but about your opinion on what's right and wrong. You might want to, you know, actually read my posts before responding in the future.
You might want to read mine. I am agreeing with the law as it stands today

@illram
In my experience government (State, no experience with Feds) generally will have some sort of initial screening process involving a rudimentary test, or Q&A related to the position, and score each applicant.
This is true at the federal level as well. Normally a keyword score based on your resume and KSA's.

Which is still a lot of work, but it narrows down the field of 2,000 applicants to 200 or so, who are then interviewed. Depending on the position the interview process can go through multiple sessions, some with panels, some with more testing, etc. California, for instance, utilizes a Civil Service Exam which you have to take before you even apply, and then hiring positions send you applications based on your rank on the list.
For federal positions, basically you have to meet a threshold on the score, then if there are still too many, they'll just start at the top and go until they've offered their number of openings. The keyword score clearly isn't a great method, but it is known by all who apply. So it's fair, sort of.

Hiring is really subjective though, there is no way around that. That's why on the private side it's more about who you know then what is on your resume. People often discriminate subconsciously (or consciously, and get away with it because they can make something else up.)
It's like that once you get in the interview stage in the federal case too

While unfortunate, due to the number of people applying these days private firms are going to turn away applicants based on unemployment because they can afford to be picky. It's kind of a catch-22. I think it's unfair but I get why they are doing it.

Before this, employment history was still used: long gaps in employment, constantly changing jobs, etc. Being laid off, while not always related to your work, is one of those things that an employer who is totally in the dark about an applicant will likely consider. I bet many of you would think of it if placed in the position of screening people.
Yeah, that is still used as a screening tool. You have to account for unemployed periods. If there is no accounting, your resume will be filed into Bin #13

@Murky

Given what you say below, say you have 200 applications for 1 position and you have time at your firm to interview 10 of them in depth. How do you go from 200 to 10?

If I were hiring this would be my criteria.

1) How qualified is the candidate
2) How well did they present their information (look for obvious errors, padding, etc).
3) How badly do they want or need the job. The more enthusiasm for the work the better they are likely to perform.
4) Work history, do they have some working knowledge/skills that could be useful.
5) Logistical practicality, how difficult would it be in terms of location, commute, etc.

There would also be some degree of first-come-first-serve. If you sent your resume at the last minute, it will probably be reviewed last.

This isn't done at the federal level because they are mandated to post jobs for X days and ignore when in that period the application was sent.


It could certainly be a "ding" but it should not eliminate someone for consideration.
Bad credit doesn't end it, but it makes it very difficult and when there is great demand for a job it pretty much is a killer.

Given the recession we're in, the government should take into consideration that many people are just down on their luck. Just having poor credit doesn't make you a bad person. It's a temporary situation that getting a job can help fix.
So, basically, what about the person who didn't get into debt for whatever reason managed to live within their means (either through luck or design?) Sounds like you are not rewarding that. There isn't a good answer here.

There's lots of ways to monitor a person's activities at work. If you are paranoid about people with bad/poor credit just monitor those people's activities more closely, but it still should be "innocent until proven guilty."
Security is expensive. Recently some hires in DC government were found to have moved millions into private accounts, committing fraud. 30 million dollars when a simple security check would have seen that they had done small scale stuff before? Moving further, would you trust sensitive national intelligence on fleet movement to someone with a gambling problem? It may not be fair but its practical thinking

 

[Mise]

@Mise
First, it is not respectful to call someone else "slow".

Secondly, I am referring to aggregate decisions because when you get 200 applications for 1 position there is no way to expect there to be enough time to properly review all 200. A shortcut will be made based on some arbitrary criteria. You have yet to present an argument as to why, when there is not enough time or manpower to evaluate all applications, you wouldn't use a shortcut that is true in general but perhaps commits an ecological fallacy for an individual.When you play sports, you do not select the most inept to be your teammates first, you pick based on muscle,height speed/. You don't observe how good they are until you actually play.

Err, I have presented an argument: It's discriminatory. It's no less discriminatory than discriminating based on race, gender, or religion. You can't say, "well it's okay to discriminate based on employment status as long as there are 200 applicants to 1 position" any more than you can say, "well it's okay to be racist as long as there are 200 applicants to 1 position". You, on the other hand, have failed to respond to any criticisms of your own arguments.

That's uhh, quite a way to miss the point.


Again, I wasn't asking about the law, but about your opinion on what's right and wrong. You might want to, you know, actually read my posts before responding in the future.
You might want to read mine. I am agreeing with the law as it stands today

So why don't you address the specific objections to your position? Namely, that "being born with it" is an utterly stupid, pathetic way of deciding when it's okay to discriminate? It doesn't work on any level; there are countless counterexamples that you failed to respond to. And you even failed at the most basic level -- we were all born unemployed.

And I read your posts. There is nothing that says you agree with the law as it stands. In fact, reading your posts, you said that you disagree with the law as it stands:

Should one be allowed to discriminate based on employment status? No.

 

[illram]

Discriminating in and of itself is fine. It depends on what you are discriminating against. Some types of discriminative decisions are justified. Some are questionable. Some are completely irrelevant (and some are illegal).

I'd say discriminating based on employment history may in some cases be justified, may often be questionable, but will very rarely be completely irrelevant.

 

[Mise]

Employment history or employment status? There's a difference between assessing an individual's employment history for worrying patterns and eliminating perfectly qualified candidates based on their current employment status.

 

[illram]

Eliminating unemployed people is basically a way to decrease the pool of qualified applicants but I only see it happening in limited professional sectors. Lots and lots of people are qualified to apply for a position, the problem is getting that list down to something manageable. I agree it seems arbitrary but you're removing candidates whose performance may have contributed to their lay off.

As far as I know this particular issue is limited to niche sectors like big financial institutions, big law firms, etc. etc., where recruiters typically operate and where "lay-offs" often take performance into account when decided how to cull the herd. These employers can afford to be picky. If an auto plant refused to interview applicants who were laid off from, say, another shut down auto-plant, I agree that would be ridiculous.

 

[Whomp]

Regarding the OP, there are two candidates that companies will pursue to fill a position. One is passive (a person not looking for a job but maybe has a specific skill set that's needed) and the other is active (those actively looking for a job).

Just for the record I'm watching in disbelief a new business model that's growing at warp speed because of the companies they do business with are massively ramping up their hiring and fast.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

@Fugitive Sisyphus: You misunderstood. I'm not saying that it increases unemployment per se, but rather that it causes unemployment to be higher than it otherwise would be at any given time. The reason is simple: if employers hire those already employed before they start hiring the unemployed, then it will take longer for an unemployed person to become employed, meaning that it takes longer for unemployment to start falling after the recession. This is especially true since it can take months between a vacancy appearing and it being filled.

I'll give a noddy little example. Say there are 5 companies (A to E). In companies B, C, D and E, there are employed people who want a new job. In month 1, company A advertises for a job. By month 2, those disgruntled/bored/underutilised employees from companies B to E have applied, along with 10 or 15 unemployed people. By month 3, Company A decides to eliminate the unemployed people from the running, and only interview applicants who already have jobs in B to E. At the end of month 3, Company A decides to hire the applicant from Company B.

Now, there is a vacancy at Company B. At the start of month 4, company B advertises the vacancy. By month 5, applicants from companies C to E apply, along with 10 or 15 unemployed people. Again, by the end of month 6, company B has eliminated the unemployed and decided to hire the applicant from company C.

Now there is a vacancy at Company C.... and so on. It's already 6 months and no unemployed people have been accepted for a job. It will be another year before any of those unemployed people get jobs at companies A to E.

I'm not saying it's anywhere near as bad as this. But then again, nor do I have to, since my argument is motivated by a desire to stamp out discriminatory employment practices, rather than a desire to reduce unemployment... But you can still see how hiring only those who are currently employed would make unemployment take longer to start falling?

I agreed that it would take longer for the unemployment to start falling. But that is not the same thing as causing unemployment. You have to look beyond the short term.

A few random observations:

If it takes months before a vacancy is filled when there is an oversupply of labor it seems to me that there are far deeper problems to be worried about. ( Which probably is the case in our economy )

You are overstating the problem. People change jobs because it is in their best interest to do so. That makes it difficult to have a merry-go-round of job changes among employed people especially in a bad labor market.

I don't see what all the fuss about discrimination is - Discrimination not OMG RASISM!

 

[Elrohir]

JH -- why not randomly select a certain number to interview, out of the "possibles"? That is, take out everyone who obviously won't work ("You've managed a Dairy Queen for seven years, and you want to be a legal analyst? Um...cool.") and select, say, 10 per spot at random to interview.

Sure, that would probably exclude some really qualified people (Maybe even some of the best people!). But then, so does excluding the unemployed. And at least a lottery type system would have the benefit of not penalizing people for things which may or may not be their fault. Legally, it's probably OK to do so in this instance, but I don't see why you ethically should when there are reasonable alternatives.

 

[Archbob]

Mise, its not practical to do what you want them to do, to interview all 2000 applicants. The firm simply does not have the time or the money.

People who are currently employed are the ones that have performed decently on the job or are valuable enough that they cannot be laid off -- which means they are good. People who have been laid off either have performance problems or where not deemed important enough to be not expendable.

As a company, you want to hire the "non-expendible" people because on average, they are going to be of higher value.

 

[Mise]

Again.... Just because it's inconvenient to follow ethical recruitment practices doesn't mean they shouldn't.... And nobody's saying they should interview 2000 people, don't be ridiculous.

Also,

People who are currently employed are the ones that have performed decently on the job or are valuable enough that they cannot be laid off -- which means they are good. People who have been laid off either have performance problems or where not deemed important enough to be not expendable.

You have clearly never worked in any kind of job before... This is just... plainly false.

I agreed that it would take longer for the unemployment to start falling. But that is not the same thing as causing unemployment.

It's causing unemployment to be higher than it otherwise would be. That's the same thing as "causing unemployment". If the government enacts some regulation A, unemployment would be X; if it doesn't, unemployment would be Y, where Y < X. It doesn't matter what X and Y are, or whether both X and Y are falling or rising; if X > Y, then A has caused unemployment (of X - Y).

As far as I know this particular issue is limited to niche sectors like big financial institutions, big law firms, etc. etc., where recruiters typically operate and where "lay-offs" often take performance into account when decided how to cull the herd. These employers can afford to be picky.

This argument that employers can afford to be picky is getting kinda frustrating... Employers can probably afford to do a great deal of unethical, immoral things, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to. I'm not sure if that was a substantial part of your argument though, or whether you were saying, "it's not that big a deal, so it's not worth caring about".

 

[JerichoHill]

JH -- why not randomly select a certain number to interview, out of the "possibles"? That is, take out everyone who obviously won't work ("You've managed a Dairy Queen for seven years, and you want to be a legal analyst? Um...cool.") and select, say, 10 per spot at random to interview.

Sure, that would probably exclude some really qualified people (Maybe even some of the best people!). But then, so does excluding the unemployed. And at least a lottery type system would have the benefit of not penalizing people for things which may or may not be their fault. Legally, it's probably OK to do so in this instance, but I don't see why you ethically should when there are reasonable alternatives.

Random selection won't yield a pool with a higher probability of good fit.

@Mise. I wouldn't discriminate based on employment status (currently employed or unemployed). I understand that this could be used in the current environment.

Where I disagree is using employment status as a basis for offering a JOB, not in offering an interview.

PS: Reading your recent posts you are really bordering on flaming your fellow posters. Please keep things non-personal.

I believe I have not seen your argument with respect to Fallen Angel Lord above, which is entirely my point here.

PSS: I currently have a submission out there for a supervisory economist role ( a nice promotion if I get it). Should I be disqualified because I'm currently working? That seems odd.

 

[Mise]

@JH: I didn't present an argument to FAL, I presented a counterargument:

FAL's argument: It's costly and time consuming to do X.
My counterargument: All regulations and legislation imposes costs on business, but we still need to regulate and legislate when businesses engage in unethical employment practices.

I notice, however, that you haven't presented any kind of counterargument to any criticisms of your position on what discrimination should be illegal. I mean, you've read all the examples and counterexamples proving why "being born with it" is a stupid way of deciding what kind of discrimination is ethical, and yet you don't even bother to respond.......

Random selection won't yield a pool with a higher probability of good fit.

Again, lots and lots of discriminatory practices, such as filtering by age, sex, race, religion and sexual orientation, could easily lead to a pool with a higher probability of "good fit". And yet these things are illegal and unethical. You contend that they are illegal and unethical because they were "born with it" -- yet, as the numerous counterexamples have shown, this is a load of nonsense.

You really need to come up with a decent way of deciding what it's okay to discriminate on, because "being born with it" is just plain nonsense.

 

[downtown]

People who are currently employed are the ones that have performed decently on the job or are valuable enough that they cannot be laid off -- which means they are good. People who have been laid off either have performance problems or where not deemed important enough to be not expendable.

I think this depends a lot on your industry. My Parish was in the process of layoffs right as I left teaching, and I was informed that I would have been laid off too...not because of my performance, just because of my seniority (last hired, first fired in my area). In other districts in Louisiana, some of the better teachers were laid off, simply because they were more expensive. Can't really do anything about that...