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

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I've mislead you. I am neither excusing nor justifying it, and we don't do such things in the company where I work. I'm trying to find solutions rather than just grumble about it. Thus, fear of litigation is an impediment, remove the impediment.

[paft.livejournal.com]

You're doing both. You're claiming that the fear of litigation is "real" when it's not. It's jut a handy excuse.

The "solutions" to this kind of discrimination lie in the very laws you and others here are blaming. Most disabled people, most black Americans, who remember what it was like before the passage of those laws will cite them as an improvement -- not an impediment.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

"You're claiming that the fear of litigation is "real" when it's not. It's jut a handy excuse."

I'm not claiming that I'm definitively saying that. It is discussed all the time. The actual risk of litigation is another matter.

"The "solutions" to this kind of discrimination lie in the very laws you and others here are blaming."

By your very claim the law is easily usurped, so there is definitely a problem with it. Mine is to take away a known argument, so what is your solution given that enforcement is so difficult?

"Most disabled people, most black Americans, who remember what it was like before the passage of those laws will cite them as an improvement -- not an impediment."

I never disagreed with that, I just stated what I believe can be done to improve compliance.

If the purpose of your post was simply to bitch moan and complain about the situation then fine, forget what I said. If your purpose was to try and do something about it, then please offer a solution or tell me why mine won't work.

[paft.livejournal.com]

e: By your very claim the law is easily usurped, so there is definitely a problem with it.

Your claim is similar to saying that since laws against murder and theft are still sometimes broken, there's a problem with the laws.

e Mine is to take away a known argument, so what is your solution given that enforcement is so difficult?

Except, you see, enforcement is not really that difficult. Many employers often barely even bother to hide the fact that they're discriminating.

Paft; "Most disabled people, most black Americans, who remember what it was like before the passage of those laws will cite them as an improvement -- not an impediment."
e: I never disagreed with that, I just stated what I believe can be done to improve compliance.

Your solution is to remove a protection. Limiting liability is the equivalent to giving major corporations permission to screw their employees -- they'll just pay a small fee for doing it and count it as the cost of doing business.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

I don't understand your position. On one hand you are saying that the threat of liability upon hiring disabled is not real, on the other hand you say that we need this threat to keep businesses 'in line.'

[paft.livejournal.com]

I'm saying that the threat of liability is not so great that employers are afraid of firing or laying off any women, minorities, and the disabled.

What's unclear about this?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

That is because almost everyone even small business HR departments take courses in exactly how to fire people with little to no risk of an employment lawsuit. Most of this is already settled law. The problem with ADA compliance is not so simple because of the large volume of lawsuits still being made. Even companies that try to do everything they can to comply can still run afoul of something.

[paft.livejournal.com]

You still haven't explained exactly what workplace alterations you envision this business having to make for hiring a hard of hearing person for kitchen work.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Well one thing that comes to mind would be changing the fire and other alarms to include strobes. I'm sure a good lawyer or ADA consultant could think of a few dozen more.

[paft.livejournal.com]

e: Well one thing that comes to mind would be changing the fire and other alarms to include strobes.

First of all, fire alarm systems are typically the responsibility of building owners rather than businesses who rent space in the buildings. Second, many restaurant and cafe customers are deaf and/or hard of hearing, so it would hardly require hiring deaf or hard-of-hearing employees to put a business (or building owner) at this presumed risk of litigation if they lack strobes.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

That isn't how the process works. You've obviously never had to deal with it.

[paft.livejournal.com]

So explain specifically what I've gotten wrong here.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

For that answer you'd have to google 'ada compliance consultants' and see what kind of a deal they could make you.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Uh, no, for that answer I've asked you. It's your claim. Back it up.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

I will if you will.