Should an employer be allowed to hire anyone he wants?

Question

Don't we live in a free nation? If we do, shouldn't a person be allowed to hire any man or woman he wants, for whatever reason? Shoudn't a man be allowed not to accept an applicant because the applicant has a nose ring, or a tatoo? And, because this is a free nation, shouldn't he be allowed not to hire someone because the applicant has blonde hair, and he doesn't like people with blonde hair?

People should be allowed to hire whomever they wish, for whatever reasons. After all, they are the ones paying their employees.

If you don't agree, I want a good, reasonable, sensible explanation showing why people should not be allowed to exercise their freedom of thought and action, formulate their own opinions, and hire whoever they want, regardless of race, color, gender, or even hair color.

Please, no name calling, no diatribes, no irrational thoughts. Please, let's keep this calm, cool and rational. If you can't be these, don't bother answering.

Let's rephrase:

three poeple apply for a job: a man , a woman, and a chinese guy. All three have the same credentials, they're all impeccably dressed, and they all have the same attitude. Who does the employer have to choose? And, since he can't make a decision by means of qualifications, how does he make the decision? Regardless of laws, regardless of the 15th Amendment, regardless of any feminist or AA ruling in America today. How does he choose?

Answer 1

i would have to say he should be able to hire whomever he so desired based on what he desired. This discrimination thing has been ridden to death.
Sure a good businessman would hire a mix of people so to help promote a good product line in the ways that he hires his people customers notice things like this but bottom line is is his business his money and win or lose should be because this is how he wanted it.

Answer 2

The employer DOES hire whomever he or she wants. Right or wrong that is the system. There are all kinds of subjective factors that go into the decision, as have been described. One limiting factor is that the employer's "gut feel" might be wrong!

So larger companies have more objective measures, like tests and job descriptions, to help limit the errors done by the hiring managers' poor judgment.

Methinks thou dost protest too much. The system you are complaining about in your question
(1) doesn't apply to you as a private employer and
(2) is designed to prevent precisely the kinds of errors you as a private employer are likely to make, based on your question.

In the public sector, or in large corporations, we already have figured out that the petty personal preferences of managers cannot be allowed to interfere with the intelligent people who really get the work done.

Have you figured this out yet -- do you still think you are the smartest person on your team and that if you just had 3 more of YOU everything would be great?

Answer 3

Since when do we have a freedom of action? Freedom of thought I'll give you, but there is no freedom of action. If a certain place did not hire blondes, then blonde customers would become rare, because they would feel discriminated against or left out. Also, why is it fair that blondes wouldn't get hired for petty reasons of a manager? I mean, what if the manager decided to fire all the blondes in a company because his blonde girlfriend had just broken up with him? The company would lose a lot of money, and a lot of people would be out of a job without a good reason.
As for the nose ring bit, that can be included in a dress code, so people can be denied employment for having a nose ring, but only if the dress code is enforced for all employees.

Answer 4

Employers should be able to hire people as they see fit. Any employer worth working for has hiring standards, if they didn't they wouldn't be an employer for very long. Basing one's hiring practices only on race, colour , gender, and yes hair colour is not only wrong, and I do believe illegal, it may even be detrimental to the company, considering you may just turn away someone that could be one of your best employees.

Hiring someone based on appearance is a different matter. It all depends on the job. For example: while attending a class designed to help people retiring from the military adjust to civilian life, we had a person in the class ask if he should cover his tattoos when going for his job interview. He was applying for a job that made custom motorcycles. The instructor smiled and told him no, he should show them off. Anyway, when it comes to just personal appearance, the employer has to consider if the applicant would make a good representative for their company.

Employers should be only interested in hiring the right people for their companies.

Answer 5

Your example centers around the appearance of a potential applicant. Employers regularly discriminate against applicants if appearance is a criterion for employment. Casting a part in a play is one example of legal discrimination based on appearance. The Hooters case is another.

The larger issue is that an employer cannot discriminate against an applicant who could perform the task set being applied for. If the job calls for hammering nails all day, color, gender or tattoos has no bearing on the applicants ability to perform the task, and an employer rightfully cannot discriminate.

Your opinion that employers sign the checks, therefore they should hire whomever based on their whim is flawed in that an employer enjoys the benefits of a stable society and a legal system (i.e., contract law) that is borne out of the ENTIRE populace...not just the ones that 'look' OK.

Answer 6

It's more complicated than just exercising freedom of action because it's not a one-on-one process. Sure, if it's a private contractor working without any federal involvement, he/she is welcome to hire whomever they feel like. But in most hiring situations, the person doing the hiring respresents the entire company that will be paying the new hiree, not the individual that interviews them. That company pays taxes and has to be responsible with who they hire so that they abide by federal employment laws, i.e. don't discriminate, and avoid fines etc. There is much bueracracy involved and unfortunately, it's rarely just one man's decision.

Answer 7

If all 3 have identical abilities, then, I believe any employer, working his/her own business, would hire the one he/she believed to have the right personality for the job. I do hire, and, often, it is a matter of how the person's personality seems to work for the position the person is applying for.
When it comes to facial rings, etc.., I decide if that is the 'message' I want my customers to remember about my store.
When am employer is hiring for a really large business, the employer may NEED to hit particular 'employment standards' for the large business.
Having what is called a small business, I hire the person I believe will do best at the job. I really do hire the person(s) I want to hire.

Answer 8

you are able to ask a former company something you want. there is not any regulation for asking the questions. in spite of the shown fact that, the corporate is basically obligated to tell you 2 issues. First verify the dates of employment and regardless of if or no longer they're eligible for re-hire, no longer something. in case you hit upon a former company who's keen to grant out greater information, you're fortunate by using fact they may be sued via their former worker. This regulation has a difficulty with it. It doesn’t enable new employers to get the actual tale some means worker, their attitudes, their problems, their overall performance or their actual reasons for leaving. That mentioned, the former company could have a grudge in the direction of their former worker and could no longer tell the actuality to new means employers. a minimum of that's what the regulation is meant to guard in spite of the shown fact that it additionally facilitates worry workers a curtain of silence and secure practices to cover at the back of. An worker could have a drug or alcohol difficulty, a psychological ailment or a difficulty with authority or also have a violent character that the hot company would be attentive to no longer something approximately this is extremely unfair to the hot company. It facilitates the difficulty worker to cover at the back of the politically staggering regulations meant to guard them.

Answer 9

As a store owner I reserve the right to choose the person I feel would best represent my business. I need my customers to feel comfortable with the person serving them. So if I'm not comfortable with a person either on a conscious or unconscious level they don't get the job.

The good news is that society on the whole is much more accepting of self expression than they were 10 years ago. Maybe one day we will allow people to be themselves.

Answer 10

You know the question you posted has merit unless your the one being denied a job over and over because your short or fat or black or white or poor, so you see we have to institute laws to make sure all people get a chance to get employment or many wouldn't hire certain people that have a disadvantage or difference of others. Strange that many say they don't want the government passing law's covering morals but they do anyway in many forms. I would like to see everyone being kind to others on many issues but it just don't happen but the law protects many of us from being left out. Its called "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" in other words.