somethndif
Posts: 136
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
If the guy scored 90 then he should get the job over the woman who scored 80 - there's no issue there. To give the job to the woman would be what would happen under affirmative action - and to be honest I wouldnt want to benefit from that.
If the woman scored 90 and the man 80, and he was then given the job - there's a problem in that as its prejudicial discrimination against the candidate because she's a she. This is what is happening all over, all the time.
I am more than prepared to be judged on my own merits - but I wont be overlooked or demeaned because of my gender. Like I said before, the best person for the job, not the best white middle class male.
Ellen,
A perfectly understandable response. But let me try to make the case for at least a limited form of affirmative action.
Lets stick with my example of the employer who gives all candidates a test and that the qualifying score is 60. Lets say further that the employer has been sued for sex discrimination and the evidence shows that the employer has 1000 employees and that over the last 10 years the employer has hired no women, although women have applied and many have achieved scores which at the time qualified them for employment, but lesser qualified men were hired. Lets say further that 200 such women are identified who were discriminated against; not hired although they were better qualified at the time they applied than the men who were hired. Lets say further that the employer only needs to hire 50 employees a year. And lets also say that if the employer had been hiring fairly and without discrimination, that its work force would be roughly 50/50 men and women.
Under the discrimination laws, all of the 200 women who were denied jobs for which they were the best candidates are entitled to back pay, and to jobs with this employer. But, as we can see, there are not enough openings for all of them right away.
So, what is a fair and just remedy for this employer's clear history of discrimination? First, the employer should be required to hire all of the 200 identified women who were not hired because of discrimination, in the order in which they applied, and to hire no men until all of them are employees. There may be men applying during those 4 years who score higher than some of these women, but still these women would have been hired earlier, had the employer been hiring fairly.
At the end of 4 years, the work force would be 800 men, and 200 women. Is hiring the 200 women who we were able to identify as victims of sex discrimination a sufficient remedy for the employer's history of unlawful sex discrimination, if without the history of sex discrimination, the work force would be 50/50?
Some would argue that that is not enough and that the employer should be required to give some preference in hiring to women until the work force is 50/50. That could be done by, lets say, ordering the employer to hire at least 30 women each year, of the 50 new employees hired each year, or 60% of all new hires, but only if the employer has at least 30 qualified women candidates who score at least 60 on the test. The employer would be required to do this until its work force is 50/50.
Now I understand the argument against this kind of affirmative action. The men applying now and in future years were not responsible for the employer's past discriminatory practices and they should not be disadvantaged now. But keep in mind that no one is suggesting that the 200 less qualified men who were hired instead of the 200 women who were discriminated against, should be fired to make room for these women. In addition, there were probably many more well qualified women who would have been interested in jobs with this employer, but never applied because they knew that the employer only hired men.
So, what is the best way to remedy the employer's long, unlawful history of sex discrimination? I think that some form of preference, affirmative action, is needed in a situation like this.
Of course you may disagree. I am sure that MM will. *grin*
Dan
|
RE: Controlling Women's Sexuality - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread