I am playing devil's advocate, btw, if that wasn't clear.
3. There are certain characteristics that are ok to discriminate upon, while others objectively aren't. This one is sooo subjective, even though I wrote the word "objective" in there.
This is what you're saying right? Like it's ok to discriminate against someone based upon male hair length?
The who decides what a protected status is and isn't?
Why are pregnant women protected, just curious (is relevant), does anyone know?
"If a topic that clearly interest noone needs to be closed to underline the "we don't want this here" message, is up to debate."
-NudeRaider
Well if you want to assume good faith...
Its because employers see a pregnant woman and the first they think of are the future costs of a baby - medical leave, home leave, possible complications - and then when the baby grows up even more - vaccinations, summer break/fall break issues (think: daycare), timmy-threw-up-at-school-and-needs-a-ride-home-so-can-i-leave...etc. Women are incredibly hormonal or unable to work while pregnant (and usually right after, too) due to things like hey-I'd-rather-not-crack-my-baby's-head-open-trying-to-lift-that. On top of this, a lot of women abuse their motherhood status and use it as a cop out, so it works two ways.
The problem with this rule, and many many others, is that its not like an employer will say that they are not being hired or are being fired for it. If they really want to get rid of you they'll find a way or reason. Maybe one of your references never picked up the phone, or someone else applied and they were on the fence. As long as you being pregnant isn't in the notes, and isn't brought up, you can't prove anything. And if the mother (or any protected class, for that matter), threatens legal action or pursues legal action they're pretty much blacklisted on the job market, because no one wants to hire someone who could cost a company millions, so action is rarely pushed.
Which is kinda why I'm okay with settlements being so big (sometimes), because I think its assumed that this includes not being employable for the rest of their life.
I was thinking about this myself yesterday. Why should some class be protected and another not.
I think the answer is that the protected classes are those which someone is incapable of changing (sex, skin colour, orientation) or it is decided to be unethical/unreasonable/unfair for them to change (relationship status, pregnancy).
That is to say, it's unethical to force a woman to have an abortion if she wants to work for you, and her being pregnant doesn't actually stop her performing the work (eg, a desk job). But it is ok to force someone to cut their hair.
The thing is, though, even though we have all this anti-discrimination stuff, if a heavily pregnant woman (7-8 months) turned up to a job interview, even if they had exactly the same qualifications as another candidate, they'd be highly unlikely to be hired, and essentially it would be discrimination because she was pregnant. The problem is, the woman must prove it was because she was pregnant that she was not hired. Generally that's hard to do. One case where it might be easy is if she had had a series of phone interviews and made it to the final rounds of the interview process where she finally had a face-to-face interview and was dropped like a sack of bricks, especially if they eventually didn't hire anyone for the job and she was the only applicant to reach the final stage (essentially a done-deal).
None.
As I've hinted at earlier, don't throw around the term "human right" (or more properly, person right) so recklessly. Use the term "civil right". With human right, the meaning is construed as a fundamental basic "right" or entitlement; that is to say, we are granted these rights for merely being persons. This is something no philosopher has quite established, but not for lack of trying.
The term civil right is less confused with a basic fundamental entitlement, and is to protect an individual's freedoms and their safety. It is not fundamental and is created by governments and groups the same as laws are created, and they rest in the same shaky plateau of
de jure authority.
---
Now then, if you claim that employment is not a civil right, you would be mistaken. There is legal precedence for employment, since employers are
legally required not to discriminate. The issue is if the employer is
illegally discriminating against Payne. I'm unfamiliar with how courts define unfair discrimination (fair discrimination being hiring only males to be male strippers); perhaps someone knowledgeable in the field can elaborate.
None.
If you wish to play the game of capitalism you must play by its rules. You must not be sore at them for rejecting you because of your hair but you also have the right to exploit every loophole there is: make complaints about human rights violations, make bad press about the company via this thing called freedom of speech (essentially legal blackmail), etc. So either play the game to its fullest without being sore at anything or don't play it at all.
None.
Okay, for the light discussion topic, let me state clearly what my point is:
Why should women be allowed to wear pony-tails, but not men, in the context of a job that doesn't REQUIRE having short hair as a safety rule or something related? It is discrimination based on gender (sex).
Moreover, I am also advocating a more progressive society: why the hell does the society consider man with short hair to be more approachable? Rationally, this makes absolutely no sense.
Also, it is yet another Act violation to discriminate someone based on the fact that this person has filed a complaint.
P.S. We are talking of me applying as a Lift-Operator. It is rather clear why the hair appearance shouldn't affect my employment: people will see me only from the front, and I will wear a tuque 100% of the time.
If I wasn't -extremely- qualified for this job (social, smiling, VERY good snowboard and skier (which somehow is a good thing to have when you apply as a lift operator?!), etc.), I wouldn't be an ass to them. It's just that I know I would have gotten the job if it wasn't from me refusing to cut my hair because it made no sense to me.
For my appliance as a server, I do understand their point a bit more, but it doesn't change the fact that people shouldn't judge males based on their hair-lenght, and anyways, clients will be obligated to talk to me, and will realize I am a nice guy...
I think the answer is that the protected classes are those which someone is incapable of changing (sex, skin colour, orientation) or it is decided to be unethical/unreasonable/unfair for them to change (relationship status, pregnancy).
That is to say, it's unethical to force a woman to have an abortion if she wants to work for you, and her being pregnant doesn't actually stop her performing the work (eg, a desk job). But it is ok to force someone to cut their hair.
Isn't it "unfair" to force a male to cut his hair? Like payne said in the first quote
Why should women be allowed to wear pony-tails, but not men, in the context of a job that doesn't REQUIRE having short hair as a safety rule or something related? It is discrimination based on gender (sex).
"If a topic that clearly interest noone needs to be closed to underline the "we don't want this here" message, is up to debate."
-NudeRaider
The difference between him being fit for hiring or not is for him to cut his hair. They aren't discriminating against him based on sex, they're discriminating against him based on hair length, as I've already outlined. If he wants to get a sex change just so he can wear his hair long at this job, then they can't stop him doing that. He'd have difficulty meeting the psychological requirements of sex change surgery if that were his main reason for doing it, though.
As for it being "unfair" to force someone to cut their hair - no more 'unfair' than requiring someone to wear a specific uniform when working at their job. Which is essentially what hair length comes under. Now if Payne's hair length were a result of a religious belief, they'd have a more difficult time asking him to cut it. For example Sikh's never cut their hair but instead bundle it up inside a turbin to hide it from public view. Because you can't discriminate against religion (except on safety grounds etc), the normal "no headgear" part of the uniform policy cannot be applied to them.
If you're
seriously trying to equate forcing someone to get a hair cut with forcing a woman to have an abortion or someone else to get a divorce or put their children up for adoption, then I'd say you would have some very strange views on society in general.
None.
An artist's depiction of an Extended Unit Death
The difference between him being fit for hiring or not is for him to cut his hair. They aren't discriminating against him based on sex, they're discriminating against him based on hair length, as I've already outlined. If he wants to get a sex change just so he can wear his hair long at this job, then they can't stop him doing that. He'd have difficulty meeting the psychological requirements of sex change surgery if that were his main reason for doing it, though.
That doesn't sound right. It's giving one gender a privilege purely based on the fact that they are that gender. That sounds like discrimination based on sex.
Didn't take long to find something relevant in google. This is from the UK, but the same principals will generally apply:
The present laws on sex discrimination do not urge employers to treat males and females the same but to instead implement a fair minded and open approach that is not discriminatory against either gender.
Oregon:
Grooming Standards, Hair Length
Certain employer requirements do not violate fair employment laws even when men and women are treated differently. Different appearance and grooming standards for men and women, especially those involving hair length and facial hair have been upheld by the courts when necessary to the normal operation of the employer´s business and when they do not restrict the employment opportunities for one sex over the other.
Example: As long as it serves a business purpose for the employer, there is nothing discriminatory about requiring that men wear slacks and women wear skirts or dresses to work.
American law firm page on discrimination:
1. Dress Code as Gender Discrimination
As with weight restrictions, employers may adopt dress codes (even unwritten ones) that impose different standards for men and women as long as they do not impose an unequal burden on one of the sexes, have some justification in social norms and are reasonably related to the employer’s business needs. For example, shorter hair length requirements for men than women generally do not violate Title VII. See, e.g., Harper v. Blockbuster Entertainment Corp., 139 F.3d 1385 (11th Cir. 1998); Tavora v. New York Mercantile Exchange, 101 F.3d 907 (2d Cir. 1996); Fountain v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 555 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1977); Knott v. Missouri R.R. Co., 527 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir. 1975); Willingham v. Macon Telegraph Publishing Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975); Batson v. Powell, 21 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 1998); Rivera v. Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, 702 A.2d 1359 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997).
Similarly, appearance policies prohibiting only men from wearing earrings typically do not violate Title VII. See, e.g., Kleinsorge v. Eyeland Corp., 81 Fair Emp. Prac. 1601 (E.D.Pa. 2000); Capaldo v. Pan Am. Fed. Credit Union, 43 Fair Emp. Prac. ¶ 37016 (E.D.N.Y. 1987); Pecenka v. Fareway Stores, Inc., 672 N.W.2d 800 (Iowa 2003).
Now whether you think that discrimination on hair length as payne has described is unfair or not, sure you can argue that as much as you want. But legally, the issue is quite settled.
Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Oct 23 2011, 11:34 pm by Lanthanide.
None.
An artist's depiction of an Extended Unit Death
I'm not saying it's illegal, but I
am saying that contrary to your previous statement, it is a case of discrimination based on sex:
The difference between him being fit for hiring or not is for him to cut his hair. They aren't discriminating against him based on sex, they're discriminating against him based on hair length, as I've already outlined. If he wants to get a sex change just so he can wear his hair long at this job, then they can't stop him doing that. He'd have difficulty meeting the psychological requirements of sex change surgery if that were his main reason for doing it, though.
That doesn't sound right. It's giving one gender a privilege purely based on the fact that they are that gender.
That sounds like discrimination based on sex.
The original post wasn't asking if this was legal; it was asking if this is right (or fair, I suppose). Therefore, your second-to-last sentence is really just getting back to the original point of the topic.
Of course, I skimmed through part of the conversation, and I have a feeling your argument is more oriented towards more recent posts. If this is the case, I apologize and thank you for putting us back on the right track.
It's true, you try running a company where you make women wear short hair for whatever bullshit reason you have.
Good luck in court.
None.
