Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 82

Thread: Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

  1. #1
    June

    Default Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

    So, I'm sure many of you are well aware of a bill known as the Employee Non-Discrimination Act. This bill forbids people to be denied employment based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. It protects people from bigotry in the workplace. This seems like an easy pass, even in America, right?

    Well, and it turns my stomach to know this, but there are actually people that oppose this bill. That absolutely baffles me, in all honesty. I thought this bill would be something even anti-gay groups wouldn't dare stand up against, but I was pretty foolish. The counter-argument is that because people own the company, they should decide who gets to work there or not. People are actually concerned that having gay people or transgendered people working in their workplace would be bad for business.

    The way I see it, they are saying that because they own the company, they should be able to discriminate their employees. They deserve the right to leave people jobless because of something about the employee completely irrelevant to the position. I find it very, very arrogant. If it is illegal to deny employment to someone due to race, religion, sex, or mental disability, why should it be legal to do so for sexual orientation? That's completely illogical.

    But, I'm going to refrain from rambling too much, and ask for some other input. What is your opinion on this bill, and what is your response to the current opposition?

  2. #2
    Cherub

    Default

    As with most laws that govern the work place, many can be skirted around. If an employer doesn't want to hire someone or wants to fire someone for a reason that could spark an outcry of discrinination; all the employer has to do is use a different reason (that is within legal law) to accomplish the same goal.

    Just for example: say you are at work and see someone do something that they should not be doing. You blow the whistle by going to human resources or administration. Yes, you might have done the right thing, and the law says the company can not retaliate against you for what you did by blowing the whistle. Well, the employer can still get back at you by perhaps firing you over something totally non-related to what you blew the whistle on. According to the law, the company never retaliated against you for being a whistle blower. Yet you know that is exactly what they did. They just used a different approach to get the desired result.

    Thus, welcome to the world of semantics and politics. where laws and rules and be skirted despite what the law actually states.

    Just my

  3. #3

    Default

    Considering some mainstream politicians in the US are publicly against all anti-discrimination laws that apply to the private sector (Rand Paul) this can't really be that big of a surprise...

    Of course, they will use freedom as their argument. While I'm willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, I'm very very skeptical about those that are against this due to "individual rights" but aren't willing to extend that logic to currently protected classes. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quack like a duck it's probably a duck.

  4. #4

    Default

    The way I see it, they are saying that because they own the company, they should be able to discriminate their employees. They deserve the right to leave people jobless because of something about the employee completely irrelevant to the position. I find it very, very arrogant. If it is illegal to deny employment to someone due to race, religion, sex, or mental disability, why should it be legal to do so for sexual orientation? That's completely illogical.

    As someone who owns and everyday runs their own company I would like to know what gives YOU the right to control who I hire or for that matter fire.
    I already have enough intervention from the government and outside people who think they know better than I do about running my buisness.
    I'm always open to suggestions as to how to improve but remember I'm the bottom line. It is and for that matter should be my decision. There is an old saying "You are always your own worse boss." And being boss isn't easy.
    When I hire someone I look at a few factors.
    First; can they do the job. I'm not in the welfare business. I'm in it to make money and I'm willing to pay anyone who can help me accomplish this goal.
    Second; can they follow orders and or do what is best for me their employer
    Third; how do they look. Because of the nature of my buisness I have people working in my customers homes. That means no piercings, pink hair and torn jeans. And most of all can they be respectful to my customers.
    Fourth; I don't care about your sexual orentation as long as it isn't overt. This has nothing to do with the job I'm hiring you for but I do have to respect my customers opinion.
    For all this I have a decent wage and benefit package.

  5. #5

    Default

    I'll second what ringer said, and add a couple of thoughts on unintended consequences.

    1. Someday I may have to let this person go because of economic conditions or performance. Am I going to have to deal with lawyers and government agencies because of this person's 'class'? I know I've considered this when making hiring decisions. I can't think of any cases where that was the deciding factor in hire vs. no hire, but I'd be a liar if I said I didn't think about it.

    2. Every law like this increases the cost of doing business via recordkeeping and reporting. Yes, the cost is small for this law by itself, but these laws keep adding up, and none of them go away. Ever.

    Higher cost = higher prices = less demand = fewer jobs

  6. #6
    June

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Ringer View Post
    As someone who owns and everyday runs their own company I would like to know what gives YOU the right to control who I hire or for that matter fire.
    I already have enough intervention from the government and outside people who think they know better than I do about running my buisness.
    Why do you think the government has regulations and requirements for businesses? I'll give you a hint: it's not because they're power-hungry fiends that wish to make your life as miserable as possible. It's because your business chips into the welfare of the nation's economy. It is not equal to, say, a television you bought at your local store.

    So, tell me. Why should someone be able to leave a potential employee jobless simply because of their sexuality, or anything else that does not affect their job performance? Their bigoted decision leaves a potential employee without work even longer. And I'm not suggesting that employers should be forced to hire anyone and everyone. I'm saying they shouldn't refuse to hire an employee because of something that is so irrelevant to the job.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    2. Every law like this increases the cost of doing business via recordkeeping and reporting. Yes, the cost is small for this law by itself, but these laws keep adding up, and none of them go away. Ever.

    Higher cost = higher prices = less demand = fewer jobs
    That is absurd. There is no extra recording or reporting to do following this act. What, you have to hire a person to keep track of everybody's sexuality? No, you don't. The idea is simply that you can not deny employment to someone because of their sex or sexuality. And I feel sorry that you keep in mind somebody's sexuality when hiring them, and convinced yourself that it's even probable for them to come back with a lawyer charging you when you let them go because they didn't do their job.
    Last edited by June; 23-Aug-2012 at 19:04.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by June View Post
    So, tell me. Why should someone be able to leave a potential employee jobless simply because of their sexuality, or anything else that does not affect their job performance? Their bigoted decision leaves a potential employee without work even longer. And I'm not suggesting that employers should be forced to hire anyone and everyone. I'm saying they shouldn't refuse to hire an employee because of something that is so irrelevant to the job.
    Except it's not irrelevant to the job, if it involves talking to customers, for instance. If they are an overt stereotype of a "gay" person, there are some customers that will refuse to shop there. Their very presence deters customers away, regardless of how "good" they are at their job. So it's not about whether the employer is bigoted, but whether their clients are. To that degree, I do believe that employers should be able to pick an applicant that is better suited to the job, which includes an applicant that the customers will best respond to.

    But, more importantly, there's really no way to enforce anything like this. If this law does come to exist (and it's already covered in Canada under the Charter, I believe), then Near is right, employers will find a way around it. You were thirty seconds late? You're fired. That simple. Unless you are an absolutely 100% perfect employee, you will be fired if they want you fired. As long as they don't outright say it's because of your orientation, then you have no proof. They don't need to give a reason for NOT hiring you either, so they just won't say anything in that case.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by June View Post
    That is absurd. There is no extra recording or reporting to do following this act. What, you have to hire a person to keep track of everybody's sexuality? No, you don't. The idea is simply that you can not deny employment to someone because of their sex or sexuality. And I feel sorry that you keep in mind somebody's sexuality when hiring them, and convinced yourself that it's even probable for them to come back with a lawyer charging you when you let them go because they didn't do their job.
    in your long business career, how many people have you hired and fired? How many years have you spent working in Human Resources? How many file cabinets (or gigabytes...) have you filled with EEOC documents? How many phone calls have you taken from an attorney regarding "discrimination"...... after you allowed someone to resign rather than calling the police and firing them for theft? In fact, the instance I'm thinking of was a black guy I considered a friend (vacations together, etc). I didn't have the heart to have him arrested even though my office manager caught him cold.

    Absurd? Sorry, it happens every day. Just passing a law making everyone "equal" doesn't magically make it so, and it has a lot of unintended effects, some of them the opposite of those desired. And whether its a good law or not, inevitably I've got more paperwork to do.

  9. #9

    Default

    It is just more completely pointless legislation that will not accomplish anything. No company is required to keep a record of why they did not hire a potential employee, nor should they be required to do so. As stated before, even the existing laws are incredibly easy to circumvent when it comes to firing someone. Everyone has, at one point or another, broken some part of their employment contract. It is an easy matter for HR or a manger to document a little bit and toss them based on that, even if they have previously been allowed to get away with it. Then there is the case of at will employment, where a reason is not even required for termination.

    In short, useless law that is solely designed to look good on the 6 o'clock news cast.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by June View Post
    So, tell me. Why should someone be able to leave a potential employee jobless simply because of their sexuality, or anything else that does not affect their job performance? Their bigoted decision leaves a potential employee without work even longer. And I'm not suggesting that employers should be forced to hire anyone and everyone. I'm saying they shouldn't refuse to hire an employee because of something that is so irrelevant to the job.
    For every job filled in this economy, there are hundreds of submitted resumes left unread, and hundreds of phone calls unanswered. If half a dozen people are interviewed for one opening, five are still jobless at the end of the process. Every business owner or hiring manager wants to hire the person who will make his job easier. Yeah there are a few fools who use criteria that have little to do with performance. Darwin deals with these in time. Since its nearly impossible to prove discrimination in the hiring process, well meaning laws just increase overhead for everyone while not really doing anything to change the Neanderthals who don't get it yet.

Similar Threads

  1. Discrimination against fat people?
    By Chillhouse in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 11-Sep-2008, 18:47

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.