Why is having a family such a big deal?

ppragman said:
I would agree on that, do you think its ethically right for a company to discriminate against potential employees because of marital or family status?
Click to expand...

I think you're begging the question (both legally and logically) as to if such an employment decision is indeed "discrimination" (used in the colloquial and legal sense).

I do think that employers have every right to use many different pieces of information about applicants (including their marriage and family status) in order to make their decision about whom to hire. Again, that's part and parcel of a free market economy and society. It's not "discrimination" to do so.

Do I sit back and enjoy the thought that people might not get a job because of factors that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job? Of course not. That's nothing to jump for joy about, or be happy with. The unfairness that is inherent to our human existence is certainly nothing to be excited about, either.

That's not to say we, as humans, shouldn't do everything in our power to try and elevate society and make it as fair and equitable as possible. Of course we should.
 
Hacker15e said:
I think you're begging the question (both legally and logically) as to if such an employment decision is indeed "discrimination" (used in the colloquial and legal sense).

I do think that employers have every right to use many different pieces of information about applicants (including their marriage and family status) in order to make their decision about whom to hire. Again, that's part and parcel of a free market economy and society. It's not "discrimination" to do so.

Do I sit back and enjoy the thought that people might not get a job because of factors that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job? Of course not. That's nothing to jump for joy about, or be happy with. The unfairness that is inherent to our human existence is certainly nothing to be excited about, either.

That's not to say we, as humans, shouldn't do everything in our power to try and elevate society and make it as fair and equitable as possible. Of course we should.
Click to expand...

So, just for the record you're saying "yes," its no big deal for them to (let's drop the word discrimination) not hire a person if they have a family, all other things being equal? Or, to put it another way, having kids could be a disqualifying mark against an applicant's record. Is this what you're getting at?

Unfairness is inherent to our human existence, yes, this is true. However, is it in any way excusable to shrug off unfairness, or inequity as "part of the human existence" and leave it at that? Hell no. If something's wrong, then by god, its our job to stand up for those who can't and say/do something about it. As for whether this is discrimination, wiki (I know, I know) defines discrimination as such:
Within sociology, 'discrimination' is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards members of another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.[2]
Click to expand...

The bolded is mine. By definition, this is discrimination. Is it illegal? Maybe, depending on the state. Is it right? I personally, would have to say a resounding "No."

My question to you is why should "employers have every right to use many different pieces of information about their applicants (including their marriage and family status)?" What business is it of my employer's what I do on my own time? What business is it of my employer with whom I have relationships with? My employer doesn't own me, I'm not a slave. I have every right to have a private life, outside of my vocation. See, part of the problem I see with this line of reasoning is that it isn't necessarily based on all the facts. For one, we don't live in a free market economy or society. We, as a people, have determined that we cannot allow the markets to run willy-nilly without some external interference to prevent injustice and monopolies. Prices are not entirely determined by supply and demand, and the state (as elected by the people) has recognized that certain business practices are verboten (like toxic waste dumping, or discrimination in the workplace). By and large, I believe (note the italics, this is an opinion) that this makes our society a better and more equitable place. Yes, in a perfect world, every actor would be acting according to the laws of rational self interest, and would have all the necessary information, but that's not the case. As a result, it is imperative that we have a regulatory structure which looks out for everyone, and discourages discrimination, or foul play.

Would you say that employers could racial status, or sexual orientation to screen (and by screen I mean potentially blacklist) their applicants? What about gender? Religion? Would you say that it's not OK to hire devout Christians because they have to go to Church on Sundays and can't work that day? What about Jews, or Muslims, or Zoroastrians? No thanks, I'd prefer not to live in that world.
 
Hacker15e said:
I think you're begging the question (both legally and logically) as to if such an employment decision is indeed "discrimination" (used in the colloquial and legal sense).

I do think that employers have every right to use many different pieces of information about applicants (including their marriage and family status) in order to make their decision about whom to hire. Again, that's part and parcel of a free market economy and society. It's not "discrimination" to do so.

Do I sit back and enjoy the thought that people might not get a job because of factors that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job? Of course not. That's nothing to jump for joy about, or be happy with. The unfairness that is inherent to our human existence is certainly nothing to be excited about, either.

That's not to say we, as humans, shouldn't do everything in our power to try and elevate society and make it as fair and equitable as possible. Of course we should.
Click to expand...

Again, it is discrimination in over 20 states. And it can be considered Caregiver discrimination. Asking the question itself is not illegal, but what one does with the information can be illegal. It's best not to go there. So it goes beyond the fairness principle. But it's a bad business decision because our top talent can go anywhere even in a bad economy. So, if we want to be rigid we can lose out in the great competition against those that get it right.
 
One again, a little late to the party...

TripSix said:
I have been asked that question once, and in response spoke of my mother, father, and siblings. Clearly not the response that was expected, but was not a lie.

The look on the interviewer's face was priceless, as he knew he couldn't rephrase the question more specifically.

By the way, I did get the job.
Click to expand...


NICE! That's a win right there!
 
ppragman said:
No thanks, I'd prefer not to live in that world.
Click to expand...

Good luck, but that's the one we all live in.

Since you posted that definition of discrimination from the field of sociology, you may enjoy doing some more study in that field about the social behavior of humans. That's what reveals the inherent unfairness in human interaction, and the folly of the idea that society can fiat "fairness".

Again, I'm not saying I like it, or that it meets some objective philosophical standard of how humans should interact, but it is fact none the less.
 
mshunter said:
I have been to many interviews in the last few months, and every time I get asked "So, do you have a family," the interviewers attitude immediately changes. I have even been told by a few people straight up that having a family is going to be a problem. What gives! I don't want to lie about it, but I feel like I should, just to get a damn job!
Click to expand...

Tell them you love families so much that if you get hired you can finally start one in every city!
 
Hacker15e said:
Good luck, but that's the one we all live in.

Since you posted that definition of discrimination from the field of sociology, you may enjoy doing some more study in that field about the social behavior of humans. That's what reveals the inherent unfairness in human interaction, and the folly of the idea that society can fiat "fairness".

Again, I'm not saying I like it, or that it meets some objective philosophical standard of how humans should interact, but it is fact none the less.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. So its ok to use family, or marital status as a mark against a potential applicant?

Also, I've done plenty of research on social interactions of human beings, "fairness" counts more than you'd think. The concept of equity is what has lead us to develop democracy in the first place. The idea that "all men are created equal" is more than just a catchy line on a real old paper. That stuff is the real deal. Look at how societies organize themselves all around the world, people crave fairness.

Complex societies have historically inhibited the "amount" of fairness, or rather, the distribution of power (notice I didn't say resources). As a society grows in complexity, typically the distribution of power becomes more and more stratified, the level of structural violence increases. This has been the case up to modern American Republic, where historically, things have trended from unfair to more fair. So, in part, that's not the world we're living in, nor is it a world we should allow to happen. Stand up for what's right! But again, you haven't told me if you think that this sort of hiring practice is OK or not.
 
WalterSobchak said:
Tell them you love families so much that if you get hired you can finally start one in every city!
Click to expand...

Oh dear... :rotfl: :insane:

ppragman said:
Complex societies have historically inhibited the "amount" of fairness, or rather, the distribution of power (notice I didn't say resources). As a society grows in complexity, typically the distribution of power becomes more and more stratified, the level of structural violence increases. This has been the case up to modern American Republic, where historically, things have trended from unfair to more fair. So, in part, that's not the world we're living in, nor is it a world we should allow to happen. Stand up for what's right! But again, you haven't told me if you think that this sort of hiring practice is OK or not.
Click to expand...
With power usually comes resources...all you need to do is look at income distribution here, but that's not really what we're talking about. No more social commentary, I promise.

And, I would also like to know if Hacker is arguing for employment discrimination.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
And, I would also like to know if Hacker is arguing for employment discrimination.
Click to expand...

I don't feel he's arguing for it all. Just saying that some employers probably do have concerns over it, whether we know it or not, or whether we like it or not. How that affects an employment decision is anyone's guess.

But again, as no one has acknowledged and which IanJ mentioned: the military discriminates in all sorts of ways. Yet no one seems to complain UNLESS its DADT.
 
MikeD said:
I don't feel he's arguing for it all. Just saying that some employers probably do have concerns over it, whether we know it or not, or whether we like it or not. How that affects an employment decision is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...
Right, understood. I still don't think such considerations are (legally or ethically) permissible.

But again, as no one has acknowledged and which IanJ mentioned: the military discriminates in all sorts of ways. Yet no one seems to complain UNLESS its DADT.
Click to expand...
Disagree, actually. I think the fact that women CAN'T get combat job postings is just as heinous/silly as DADT.

I'm one of those sufficiently feminist or egalitarian wing nuts who believes that if (for instance) women want combat job codes, they should be able to get them. If you can meet the standards, then you should be granted the opportunity to do the job. If you want to serve (and die for) your country and can physically/emotionally hack it...etc. Oh, and I would like to see everyone registered for Selective Service. "Suspect class" comes to mind :)
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Right, understood. I still don't think such considerations are (legally or ethically) permissible.
Click to expand...

Thing is, one would likely never know if thats why they were not offered a job. Which sucks.

Disagree, actually. I think the fact that women CAN'T get combat job postings is just as heinous/silly as DADT.

I'm one of those sufficiently feminist or egalitarian wing nuts who believes that if (for instance) women want combat job codes, they should be able to get them. If you can meet the standards, then you should be granted the opportunity to do the job. If you want to serve (and die for) your country and can physically/emotionally hack it...etc. Oh, and I would like to see everyone registered for Selective Service. "Suspect class" comes to mind :)
Click to expand...

But the military discriminates in many kind of ways. If you're too tall, too short, too fat, too skinny, eyesight mins, etc etc. All are forms of discrimination if one really things about it. But they're accepted without question, generally speaking.
 
Autothrust Blue said:
Oh, and I would like to see everyone registered for Selective Service. "Suspect class" comes to mind :)
Click to expand...

I will never forget when my brother (older than me) turned 18 and our dad took him to the post office to get the paperwork for the selective service registration. I asked if I got to do that when I was 18 too, and Dad said no, girls don't do that. I remember thinking that was stupid, and if he (my brother) had to do it, then I should too. I still feel strongly that if the government is going to require selective service registrations, then it needs to be for ALL American citizens on their 18th birthdays, not just the male half.
 
Maybe you shouldstop trying to apply for all those rotorcrap jobs when you fly fixed wings... THERES YOUR PROBLEM... I kid i kid... You had any luck lately Hunter?
 
I always thought the ADA wasn't fair. How can the NBA not hire people in wheelchairs, they should have a ramp to the basket. The US government discriminate? -never...
Life is not fair. All you can do is be a person of integrity and to heck with the rest of them.

For the OP, frustration and bitterness is the worst enemy you can have if you are looking for a job. It seems like employers always want someone who is "taken"-if someone is out of work, they must be defective??? It is like HR has an aversion for people desperately looking for work, and will bend over backwards to get the job.
I've been in this position before, and what I did was start my own business. Not saying this is for you, just saying keep it positive and keep your priorities where they should be. Things will get better.
 
MikeD said:
Thing is, one would likely never know if thats why they were not offered a job. Which sucks.



But the military discriminates in many kind of ways. If you're too tall, too short, too fat, too skinny, eyesight mins, etc etc. All are forms of discrimination if one really things about it. But they're accepted without question, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

Those don't have any bearing on not hiring someone who has a family. Its apples and oranges. And this isn't the military, that was part of my point. This is the civilian world, where by and large its ethically wrong, and in some cases illegal to discriminate against someone for family status. Telling someone that they're not fit to go to into a warzone is wayyyyyy different than telling someone they can't have a flying job because they have a family.
 
ppragman said:
Those don't have any bearing on not hiring someone who has a family. Its apples and oranges. And this isn't the military, that was part of my point. This is the civilian world, where by and large its ethically wrong, and in some cases illegal to discriminate against someone for family status. Telling someone that they're not fit to go to into a warzone is wayyyyyy different than telling someone they can't have a flying job because they have a family.
Click to expand...
The USMC a few years ago prohibited first enlistment marines from getting married.
 
granlistillo said:
The USMC a few years ago prohibited first enlistment marines from getting married.
Click to expand...

I know there is an age 18 rule for a marine marrying a girl but I hadn't heard any other restrictions. I can't find a link talking about that either. Do you exactly where that law (or whatever) is written?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top