Plan B Forum

I, for a change, nipped into the mall food court today to grab a snack. There was a new "healthy foods" stall there, basically flogging salads and fruit shakes, so I gave it a whirl.

While there, I couldn't help noticing*, that all the youngsters behind the counter, of both gendres, were particularly attractive. Which set me thinking;

Could/should retail outfits be able to advertise for staff which suit their merchandise?

Should "healthy food" outlets be able to advertise for healthy looking people, should sports shops be able to adverrtise for fit / active people, should clothers outfitters be able to advertise for tall slim people?

Or could short dumpy people be able to sue for discrimination for not getting a job over a tall skinny, or wan spotty people be able to sue if being passed over for someone in rude health, one if they are "more qualified"?

And why?





* yes I was perving.

Gob wrote: * yes I was perving.

This is becoming a regular hobby of yours now I have noticed.

It's a hobby....

A regular one it would seem...

Fortunately employers still have the right to choose who they wish to hire without giving any reason what so ever. That is why final job interviews are face to face and not over the phone. I have seen some truely ugly strippers in a few low life dives as well as some really beautiful ones in some higher class places. It has also occured to me that Hooters are usually staffed by women with larger breasts and smaller waists.

I think in the US the biggest problem with that would be the employer who says "We don't want an african american (or hispanic or asian or...) as it is not conducive to the image we wish to project", and even then it would only prompt some scrutiny by the authorities to see that there was a bona fide reason behind the discrimination and not just racism (although for the life of me, I can't think of one--maybe Ebony choosing to have a black (rather than hispanic or asian or white receptionist?).

Gob wrote:Could/should retail outfits be able to advertise for staff which suit their merchandise?

Should "healthy food" outlets be able to advertise for healthy looking people, should sports shops be able to adverrtise for fit / active people, should clothers outfitters be able to advertise for tall slim people?

Or could short dumpy people be able to sue for discrimination for not getting a job over a tall skinny, or wan spotty people be able to sue if being passed over for someone in rude health, one if they are "more qualified"?

And why?

As the law is now, physical attributes are just not grounds for claiming illegal discrimination, as long as the characteristics are not used simply as a proxy or pretext for illegal discrimination (gender, skin color, ethnicity, age, religion, disability, etc.). Employers do (and I suppose should) have latitude to consider general appearance as part of hiring criteria; one's employees present the image of the business. You will note that professional sales personnel, on the whole, tend to be rather taller and more attractive in appearance than the average.

Although I am all about making the world a more fair and level playing field for those who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own, I am not at all sure that this type of "discrimination" is something that should be subject to legal remedies. Would you sue on behalf of a would-be runway model who is 5'4" and 200 lbs? I wouldn't.

Big RR wrote:I think in the US the biggest problem with that would be the employer who says "We don't want an african american (or hispanic or asian or...) as it is not conducive to the image we wish to project", and even then it would only prompt some scrutiny by the authorities to see that there was a bona fide reason behind the discrimination and not just racism (although for the life of me, I can't think of one--maybe Ebony choosing to have a black (rather than hispanic or asian or white receptionist?).

Ebony could not legally choose its receptionist based on race (or gender, for that matter); there is nothing inherent in the role of receptionist that requires race or gender as a bona fide criterion for the job; it does not affect the publication of the magazine or their other media enterprises. One may legitimately use race if, for instance, the job is for the role of "African slave" in a historical drama. I suppose race could be a legitimate criterion in hiring models for artwork contained in Ebony to the extent that the publication is intended to relate specificaly to an African-American market.

In a logical world, employers would be able to be discriminating in whom they hire, as long as the discrimination is rationally related to a legitimate business purpose and does not unfairly and negatively impact those demographic groups who have been identified by the Gub'mint as historically having been victimized by discrimination.

So a store selling stylish women's clothing should be able to hire exclusively women who look good in that sort of clothing, and so forth.

I have noticed that newer, trendy businesses, particularly eating establishments, seem to have their choice of a lot of applicants because they usually employ wait-staff who are physically attractive. When the establishment is a couple years old, you start to see more - if you will pardon the expression - "dogs."

I'm often surprised at the number of excessively fat people who work behind the counter of fast food franchises. If I were a manager, that is the last subliminal message I would want to convey: "Eat here - get fat."

In the club where I work out, the lead woman fitness trainer, and many of the aerobics instructors, do not give the immediate impression of being physically fit. Without putting too fine a point on it, they look like hell. I wouldn't say they are "fat," but they are far, far from the ideal weight for their height, and have to wear baggy workout togs to avoid being positively unsightly.

Strange.

Sue U wrote:

Big RR wrote:I think in the US the biggest problem with that would be the employer who says "We don't want an african american (or hispanic or asian or...) as it is not conducive to the image we wish to project", and even then it would only prompt some scrutiny by the authorities to see that there was a bona fide reason behind the discrimination and not just racism (although for the life of me, I can't think of one--maybe Ebony choosing to have a black (rather than hispanic or asian or white receptionist?).

Ebony could not legally choose its receptionist based on race (or gender, for that matter); there is nothing inherent in the role of receptionist that requires race or gender as a bona fide criterion for the job; it does not affect the publication of the magazine or their other media enterprises. One may legitimately use race if, for instance, the job is for the role of "African slave" in a historical drama. I suppose race could be a legitimate criterion in hiring models for artwork contained in Ebony to the extent that the publication is intended to relate specificaly to an African-American market.

sue--I tend to agree with you, I just threw that out as a guess. I also agree that in entertainment one can discriminate on race depending what the role calls for and one would not, e.g., be expected to cast a black person as a klan member.

DGS--the problem with the rational test is that it is to easily perverted; i once worked for a law firm where a senior partner had a receptionist fired because she was of (eastern) indian descent and "did not present the right image to our clients" (he actually sad this in my presence). Is that rationally related to the image the firm wanted to project--perhaps as a "white shoe" firm it was, but come on--this was the 1980s, not the 1880s. MAny of the younger attorneys (and some more senior ones) privately made fun of him about this, and a few of us helped her find a receptionist job at another firm, but she was fired nonetheless. I think a bit more oversight is needed at times.

Big RR wrote: i once worked for a law firm where a senior partner had a receptionist fired because she was of (eastern) indian descent and "did not present the right image to our clients" (he actually sad this in my presence).

Haha, every law firm I know is actually looking to hire widely diverse personnel as a way of making clients more comfortable and generating business in the respective ethnic communities. Gujarati-, Mandarin- and Spanish-speakers preferred!

Our receptionist is a Kiwi, and while I'm pretty sure its not that we are going after the vast number of New Zealanders doing business in Boston, people do *rave* about her accent

Well most lawyers like that senior partner are long retired, if not departed, so things will change. But there still are jerks around.

Guinevere wrote:Our receptionist is a Kiwi, and while I'm pretty sure its not that we are going after the vast number of New Zealanders doing business in Boston, people do *rave* about her accent

I had a case with a Kiwi attorney once; couldn't understand a word she said, and over the phone was even worse!

(I've never had a problem with any other accent from an English-speaking country -- UK, Ireland, Aus, South Africa, Canada, even India -- but Kiwi is unintelligible gibberish.)

I mentioned before the phone call a designer I know recieved from an female Aussie engineer complaining that her bush was out of alignment.

HUH?

Apparently down under they don't find the "-ing" all that necessary.

Sue U wrote:
(I've never had a problem with any other accent from an English-speaking country -- UK, Ireland, Aus, South Africa, Canada, even India -- but Kiwi is unintelligible gibberish.)

One day we'll speak on the phone, Sue, then you'll know what confusion really means

Mind you, the Welsh accent can remove a woman' knickers at 40 paces, ask Hen, so be warned...

Back to the OP, and I must say I'm surprised at the amount of agreement here.

One of my own primary criteria in hiring staff is pleasant attitude and general likeability. Office skills can be learned, but personality goes a long way when you spend more than half your life with someone. I don't want the "more qualified" candidate who's a pain in the ass.

Gob wrote: One day we'll speak on the phone, Sue, then you'll know what confusion really means

At least one of us will.