A Rational Solution to Discrimination in the Workplace?

[Juice Box]

Im working on a paper for AP Humanities, and I picked the topic of Discrimination in the workplace. We need to examine the problem, and come up with a rational solution to it based on evidence that it will work. Im having trouble thinking of something rational, other than just referencing Gattaca, and say that using science to discriminate would make it more rational than simply basing it off of ones skin color or religion. Any ideas?

(my argument being based on that fact that everyone discriminates wether they choose to or not)

 

[HardcoreRobot]

a business is stupid if they employ or dont employ someone based on anything other than their ability to do the jobs

i dont expect these businesses to survive

 

[Juice Box]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
a business is stupid if they employ or dont employ someone based on anything other than their ability to do the jobs

i dont expect these businesses to survive

no, from a true businessmans perspective, they would then chose from the people that have the ability, and pick the people that are most able to work the longest for them

 

[vi edit]

You can't eliminate discrimination. It simply isn't possible. If it isn't color, it will be gender. If it isn't gender it will be looks. And the list goes on and on.

Discrimination is a survival concept built into us.

 

[Juice Box]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
You can't eliminate discrimination. It simply isn't possible. If it isn't color, it will be gender. If it isn't gender it will be looks. And the list goes on and on.

Discrimination is a survival concept built into us.

right, which is why Im saying if thats the case, we might as well hive people reasons to discriminate (like in gattaca, where people who are scientifically enigineered are better off)

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
a business is stupid if they employ or dont employ someone based on anything other than their ability to do the jobs

i dont expect these businesses to survive

that might work in perfect competition, but it doesn't work so well in the real world.

 

[ElFenix]

oh, and forcing people to discriminate in a scientific manner isn't going to work either.

 

[Juice Box]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
oh, and forcing people to discriminate in a scientific manner isn't going to work either.

it wouldnt really be forcing them, but more giving them rational reasons to

 

[Siddhartha]

The company I work for use to hire mostly white guys that were similar to the people who ran the company. It promoted mostly white guys and laid off mostly people who were not white guys.

Eight years or so ago. the company made a commitment to have a workforce that reflects the makeup of the US. For example the last five new hires have been Europian Indians and people with Pacific rim ancestry.

This company has a some form of head count reduction every two or three years.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: Juice Box
Im working on a paper for AP Humanities, and I picked the topic of Discrimination in the workplace. We need to examine the problem, and come up with a rational solution to it based on evidence that it will work. Im having trouble thinking of something rational, other than just referencing Gattaca, and say that using science to discriminate would make it more rational than simply basing it off of ones skin color or religion. Any ideas?

(my argument being based on that fact that everyone discriminates wether they choose to or not)

One rational approach might be to come to agreement as a society or community which forms of discrimination are going to be accepted in the workplace (e.g., discrimination based on talent, education, ability to do the job) and which forms of discrimination are not going to be accepted (e.g., discrimination based on race). The first type of discrimination (on talent, ability, etc) is going to improve business success. The second type of discrimination (discrimination on race, gender, etc) isn't going to do much for business, it might result in excellent candidates for a job being passed over, it makes the workplace a less pleasant environment for some people, etc.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Juice Box

Originally posted by: ElFenix
oh, and forcing people to discriminate in a scientific manner isn't going to work either.

it wouldnt really be forcing them, but more giving them rational reasons to

well, first you have to define rational. in economics it could mean well ordered preferences. if you wanted an accounting definition it would mean whatever adds the most to the bottom line, discounting for risk and time. assuming businesses are in it for the money, then they should already be discriminating that way.

 

[vi edit]

What good does science do to prove you would be a good candidate for an office or desk job?

Yeh, I might have good vitals, strong genetics, and a 145 IQ, but that doesn't mean I know dick about the job I'm trying to get. While, some guy who is 50 pounds overweight and has an IQ of only 110 has done this same job for 15 years and is a master at it would get passed over.

If you want to get away from discrimination here's two steps that have to take place -

1) Dump Affirmative Action and EEO. All that is doing is make ME (white male) a minority any more and shuffleing me to the bottom of the pile. People are getting hired for reasons BESIDES the ability to do the job.

2) Revamp the HR process and get people that actually UNDERSTAND the job/duties when doing the resume reviews and initial interviews. Too many companies have some bird brained HR person picking through piles and piles of resumes looking for buzzwords and shoving that resume to the top.

Too many candidates get passed over for the wrong reasons. They didn't have the right EEO info filled in, and they didn't have the right keywords on their cover letter or resume. Even though they would be ideal candidates for the job.

 

[Amused]

Discrimination will never truly end until you change the hearts and minds of the people.

You can pass all the laws you want banning it, but it's largely unenforceable. This brought about quotas, which is unfair and leads to a sense of inferiority among the benefactors.

What kind of mentality do you foster when you make a whole group of people believe they need unfairly inflated test scores and hiring quotas to succeed rather than just their own accomplishments?

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my children growing up with that over their heads. Never knowing if they truly earned what they have, or it was given to them by a society that feels they cannot earn it on their own.

At any rate, institutionalizing discrimination by listing what you can, and cannot discriminate against like in the OP's post does nothing but make passing fads and fancies laws. Bad idea.

A better idea is freedom. Freedom is always preferable to micro management.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The company I work for use to hire mostly white guys that were similar to the people who ran the company. It promoted mostly white guys and laid off mostly people who were not white guys.

Eight years or so ago. the company made a commitment to have a workforce that reflects the makeup of the US. For example the last five new hires have been Europian Indians and people with Pacific rim ancestry.

This company has a some form of head count reduction every two or three years.

I say let the courts deal with this subject. If it becomes too expensive to discriminate, companies will stop doing it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

I say let the courts deal with this subject. If it becomes too expensive to discriminate, companies will stop doing it.

Would it be fair if the courts mandated that 75% of pro basketball players had to be white?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

I say let the courts deal with this subject. If it becomes too expensive to discriminate, companies will stop doing it.

Would it be fair if the courts mandated that 75% of pro basketball players had to be white?

one of the requirements for a successful discrimination suit is that you have to be at least as qualified as the people they hired, i would think.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

I say let the courts deal with this subject. If it becomes too expensive to discriminate, companies will stop doing it.

Would it be fair if the courts mandated that 75% of pro basketball players had to be white?

one of the requirements for a successful discrimination suit is that you have to be at least as qualified as the people they hired, i would think.

This isn't a lawsuit, it's a quota. It's the end result of lawsuits and laws based on something that would otherwise be largely unenforceable.

And the end result of quotas IS the hiring of lesser qualified people and passing over more highly qualified people to fill the quotas.