Another job hunting question

[birdname]

Where I live, it is illegal to hire based on age, gender, ethnicity or religious background. It is also illegal to require applicants answer questions related to such.

I am finding that A LOT of applications I've been filling out ask anyway, but state after the question that this field is not mandatory.

Again, reputable, publicly known companies. I actually bet most of you regularly shop at or use services provided by a lot of these companies.

so if you aren't allowed to base any type of decisions on these factors, why even have them on the application?

My suspicion is that they ARE considering these things, and just using their little (optional) note as an excuse in case they get called on it. However I really hope someone in the know can tell me I am wrong on this one.

[DN]

I imagine if someone complained or sued most jurisdictions would make them change that practice which is clearly an attempt to circumvent the law.

[birdname]

I imagine if someone complained or sued most jurisdictions would make them change that practice which is clearly an attempt to circumvent the law.

That's what I figured as well. However, still secretly hoping for an innocent explanation o.0

[thejigsup]

Sometimes the employer is really looking for a certain "type" and just throws those questions with the disclaimer in to help the selective process. As long as they make the questions optional, they are following the law.

[birdname]

but they AREN'T following the law if they actually hire based on the answers to these questions, at least not where I live.

You aren't allowed to hire someone over another because they are a woman, or because they are christian for example.

[birdname]

therefore, technically they may be allowed to ask, but they aren't allowed to care about the answer. So then, if the answer doesn't matter, why even ask?

According to the law here it SHOULD be equivalent to asking someone what they had for breakfast... irrelevant.

 

I'm getting the impression that the way it SHOULD be and the way it REALLY is, aren't jiving.

[LaKings55]

I've read numerous articles of cities, businesses, etc being either forced to hire based on race, which in my opinion is condescending to the individual they hire if in fact they were hired based on race, gender, age, etc and not their merits. For example, in Los Angeles, the city has made a simpler, easier version, of their fire fighter exam in the hopes of having more minorities pass it. If I were African American, Hispanic, etc, I would sue the city for discrimination just for assuming I'm too dumb to pass the standard exam. Things have gotten so bad out here in California, they've eliminated the Other option on employment applications, and you are forced to put your race. I've known more than a few people who have picked a race other than White and said "how will they know?" or "as long as it gets my foot in the door?" Is this what we've come to? We now live in a country where we believe minorities need special hiring circumstances because we feel they're incapable or unlikely of having the proper qualifications? We have white people who still make up 80% of the US population, lying on applications in the hopes of getting hired? Might be getting time to leave for me.

[Firiel]

I've always heard/assumed that those optional questions were used to collect data. For instance, you can find out what the percentage of employees of a certain race is for a company versus the percentage of mangers of a certain race. Of course, I can't prove that's the only way employers use this data, or even that they use it for that at all, but that's always been what I've heard.

 

If you are uncomfortable answering the question, you can always just check "prefer not to say."

[DN]

No one can say "they are following the law" unless they know where you live and what the particular law is in your jurisdiction.

[birdname]

No one can say "they are following the law" unless they know where you live and what the particular law is in your jurisdiction.

Not asking if it's legal or not, asking if there are any possible explanations for it other than the obvious.

[birdname]

I've always heard/assumed that those optional questions were used to collect data. For instance, you can find out what the percentage of employees of a certain race is for a company versus the percentage of mangers of a certain race. Of course, I can't prove that's the only way employers use this data, or even that they use it for that at all, but that's always been what I've heard.

 

If you are uncomfortable answering the question, you can always just check "prefer not to say."

But there's a difference between an applicant and an employee.

[Firiel]

Right, I know. But the application is where they get all your other info unnecessary to hire you but that needs to be known (like address and phone number, for instance)... so I just assumed that's where they found any race/gender info that they might be interested in for company surveys/studies/whatever.

 

Like I said, I don't have proof that they don't racially profile, and I'm sure some companies do. But having the question itself doesn't necessarily indicate they are. I've seen the race question on pretty much every application I've filled out.

[DN]

I think the most obvious explanation is the most likely. They don't need any statistics related to profiling unless they hire someone and if the questions are optional they are useless for statistical purposes anyway.

 

I also think it likely that if anyone doesn't answer the optional questions they won't get an interview.

[Ariel85]

Most of this is used for mining and marketing info. Like, if you applied to a job from Monster and you are Hispanic, versus the same job from Careerbuilders and you are White, they just like to know how to target marketing.

 

Also, most companies are subject to affirmative action quotas so yes, sometimes they HAVE to interview and hire someone of color to get the law off their backs, even if that person is not the best qualified. But, this is where the AA movement is an abject failure. It often forces the wrong person into a job for legal reasons, and not because they can do the job.

 

 

It is an optional question, and you don't have to answer it, though.

[LaKings55]

Also, most companies are subject to affirmative action quotas so yes, sometimes they HAVE to interview and hire someone of color to get the law off their backs, even if that person is not the best qualified. But, this is where the AA movement is an abject failure. It often forces the wrong person into a job for legal reasons, and not because they can do the job.

 

So true, and frankly I consider it another form of racism. A, because it's discriminating against potentially qualified candidates based on race, and B, it's demeaning and belittling to minorities if they know they're being hired based on their race. My aunt for example was outraged and quit her job when she learned she was hired for her last name (hispanic name by marriage, she is in fact, white) I've seen college groups lately exemplifying AA by setting up stands selling various items at price points based on race. For example, one group set up a cupcake stand. They had a sign that said Whites- $3.00, Asians- $2.50, Blacks/Hispanics- $1.50. Now, we all realize the example is a poor way of bringing attention to an issue, but the message was the same. Many individuals who were interviewed were outraged. Numerous African-Americans found it to be belittling.

 

Also, here in California, many employers do require you to answer the question and I have personally had some rejected for refusing to answer them. I won't begin to point out the short comings of this state, but you catch my drift. When I saw a report on LAFD using different tests based on the race of applicants, I almost lost it. I can understand concern over a lack of minority firefighters, but to actually lower standards for minority applicants while rejecting other qualified candidates potentially puts lives in danger. To say "you're too stupid to pass the standard test" is demeaning. I understand the logic behind political correctness, but it has been taken way too far imho. Frankly, as far as statistics go, I would support even having specific ethnic backgrounds. If I could put European American of Italian descent, I would be completely for it. But unfortunately, they're not always used for that, they're used to screen people out. The same goes for age and gender. It seems the further we "progress," the less ground we actually gain.

[DN]

This thread has run its course.