How Recruitment and Human Resources Define "Discrimination."

[paft.livejournal.com]

Advice on how to handle applications from deaf jobseekers, from people working in recruitment and human resources. You can’t ‘discriminate’ -- instead:

I just probably would have let her fill it out. You write a note on the back of it that said ‘not a fit.’

Just accept it and don’t call. You can’t tell her that. Handicapped people, they have more rights than anyone in the world. You just have to accept her application and then just don’t call.

You have to be very careful. In today’s world, they’ll cut your hands off.

Thanks to Daily Kos

ABC News did its own version of Candid Camera, recently. Several actors enacted a scene in a coffee house – two deaf job applicants applying for a kitchen position, and a manager telling them not to bother. I’m happy to relate that many customers reacted with disgust to what they were hearing. A few even confronted the manager and one coffee-drinker demonstrated the bracing merits of making a scene by doing it from across the room. But…

Three people, all of them in either recruitment or human resources, scurried up to the manager afterwards to advise, in discreetly lowered voices, on the “correct” way to handle it. The correct response, they explained, is to just accept the application and then not call the applicant.

I doubt most black or Hispanic viewers, most disabled viewers, or many female viewers, are shocked by this revelation. Those comments about the influence of the deaf as a group (“they have more rights than anyone in the world, ” “They’ll cut your hands off”) are especially familiar. When I worked in corporate America, I frequently heard wildly exaggerated anecdotes painting women, blacks, the disabled, etc. as powerful forces before which employers must cower. Why this amazing clout has still not translated into equitable income and employment levels is a mystery.

There are two points I’d like to make. First, this is why Affirmative Action is necessary. Employers and recruiters are quite capable of writing “don’t bother” on applications and, when asked about the dearth of minorities, women, etc., batting their eyes innocently and insisting that they just couldn’t find anyone in those groups who were qualified. AA acknowledges that reality. Without it, laws against racial and sexual discrimination would barely be worth the paper they’re printed on.

And second, anyone looking for a job, including white males with no physical disability, should be concerned about this. More and more employers are screening out the jobless or those with credit problems. “Not a fit” can end up being written on your application too, not because of your qualifications or your ability, but because you are unemployed and/or in debt.

Crossposted from ThoughtcrimesThoughtcrimes

Comments

Re: Question for Professor underlankers

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

At the time yes we actually did need it. One point with affirmative action that would probably piss off progressives but needs to be brought up is that capital was not the only side that excluded POCs. Most labor unions were lily-white before affirmative action forced them to start changing that. In fact Labor Unions were some of the biggest backers of the Chinese and Japanese Exclusion Acts mentioned in another thread.

Racial discrimination in the workforce is not so simple as to be on one or the other side of class warfare. Which is the problem with addressing it as the real solutions piss off both sides but there's only been one Western movement that tried to go outside the class warfare box and that ended......very, very, very badly.