Do you have a right to a job????

[ditchdj]

In light of an age discrimination lawsuit for being fired for being too old, ABC News looks at whether or not anyone should have a right to a job??? You can't discriminate based on color, creed, or age. But what if you ran an Italian restaurant and you wanted to make the setting more realistic by hiring only Italian waiters. Can you do it???? Federal says, "No!"

http://abcnews.go.com/business/stoss...5444494&page=1

[AFPheonix]

The byline has John Stossel in it. He's kind of a moron.

[Sylvia727]

The article made a good point with the Hooters girls. Like it or not, there is precedence for hiring people based on appearence. Howver, I think the regulations for firing ought to be stricter than those for hiring. Once one has a job and has made commitments, possibly even a career, based on this job, then there should more of a commitment on the employer's part. Fire them for making mistakes, having poor attitudes, or even just being inefficient. But don't fire them for things they can't change like age or appearence.

As for an Italian restaurant only hiring Italian waiters, or a Hooters restaurant only hiring young, sexy women-- I don't like it, but it makes sense. A preppy or high end store isn't going to hire a goth or a punk. A plus size store isn't going to hire an anorexic Barbie. Ideally, it wouldn't matter. But it does to the customers, and so it does to the employers.

[Boozy]

I don't have much of a problem with these places hiring based on appearances, because these places don't have a monopoly on that industry.

For example, I'm not going to get hired at Hooter's because I'm flat-chested. Nor am I going to be hired at an "authentic" Italian place, because I'm not Italian. But that doesn't effectively lock me out of the serving industry, because there are hundreds of other restaurants in my city that would have no problem with my appearance.... and might even prefer it.

Where I feel we need to have laws governing hiring practices is in situations where all men, or all women, or all overweight people, or all homosexuals, are not permitted a career in an entire industry. For example, if the Hooters chain bought out every single restaurant in North America, and said, "We will only be hiring heterosexual thin women with large breasts", then we'd have a problem, because a gay fat guy would never be able to fulfill his dream of waiting tables.

Also, it would be really difficult to get table service on a Saturday night.

[ditchdj]

The way I see it is that too much government regulation of businesses is not good. One example is anti-smoking laws in some places. My buddy says that it's now to the point that he can't even smoke a cigar in his own office. That even though he PAID for that office and it's his private property. If people dont like his cigar smoke they can go somewhere else. Just like if you don't like the smoke in a bar you can choose not to go there.

[Slytovhand]

I haven't read the article, but my first thought on going through these posts is 'relevance'.

For Hooters, big breasted girls are relevant to the restaraunt, for an authentic Italian restaraunt, ethnicity is relevant. For most other jobs, most things about a person are completely irrelevant. My long hair and lack of fashion sense is completely irrelevant to an inbound only call centre

Slyt

Oh - no smoking in your own office? That's relevant to everyone else's health (and the air conditioning).

[Seshat]

Your secretary (if you have one) can't just go elsewhere. Your customers may have a limited ability to go elsewhere (depending on your industry).
Other people in your building, who share your air conditioning and your air currents, shouldn't be forced to leave the offices they pay rent on just because you want to smoke.

[BlaqueKatt]

Your secretary (if you have one) can't just go elsewhere. Your customers may have a limited ability to go elsewhere (depending on your industry).
Other people in your building, who share your air conditioning and your air currents, shouldn't be forced to leave the offices they pay rent on just because you want to smoke.

There is a lawyer here in My town that has his office in his house-because he has his office there he can't smoke anywhere in his own house. He has no employees, and rents a separate office/room to meet with clients-his office is only for his work, and his filing. Pizza delivery drivers cannot smoke in their own car-EVEN WHEN THEY ARE NOT WORKING!!!!!

How would you like the government telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home and car?

[blas87]

Going off of what BlaqueKatt said, it gets beyond the point of ridiculous when people can no longer smoke in their own vehicles or homes (save for if they are renting and the landlord forbids smoking, but then they should be allowed to do it outdoors).

Back on topic.......do you have a right to a job? Well lots of people tend to certainly act like they are "owed" a better job when they really don't have the qualifications or the brain cells or capacity to do more than lick envelopes and package stuff up.

People like some of my former trainees....oh I could go on and on and on...

[Greenday]

Going off of what BlaqueKatt said, it gets beyond the point of ridiculous when people can no longer smoke in their own vehicles or homes (save for if they are renting and the landlord forbids smoking, but then they should be allowed to do it outdoors).

The government isn't saying you can't smoke in your home. The government is saying you can't smoke in a place of business. Not the government's fault the person chose to make their house into their place of business.

NJ's smoking ban, as far as I know, doesn't include smoking inside a delivery car for pizza or Chinese or anything. That wouldn't make sense. But banning inside a place of business makes sense.

[crazylegs]

How would you like the government telling you what you can and cannot do in your own home and car?

Uh, the government already does tell us what we can and cannot do within our own homes, ie kill others, beat them, embezzell them etc.

Back on topic.

Where would legislature draw the line? How would it be enforced? Without having an overly large bearucratic division making an individual desicion on each case I would rather there be a blanket ban on all types of discrimination. A guy wants to work and wait tables at hooters? Great but the lack of tips will very quickly mean he has to look elsewhere.

[The Shadow]

The government is saying you can't smoke in a place of business. Not the government's fault the person chose to make their house into their place of business.

NJ's smoking ban, as far as I know, doesn't include smoking inside a delivery car for pizza or Chinese or anything. That wouldn't make sense. But banning inside a place of business makes sense.

I don't think it's the government's place to dictate what businesses can and can't do in their establishments. The decision to allow smoking or not should be up to the owner(s) of said business and no one else. If they decide it's more profitable fo them to allow people to light up, they should be allowed to do so. Alternately, if they decide to forbid smoking in order to cater to consumers who want to be in a smoke free environment (which could be just as profitable), they should be allowed to do that too.

Of course the justification for banning smoking on private property (and a restaurant or bar is still private property) rests almost entirely on the supposed dangers of second-hand smoke. But there's growing evidence to suggest that these dangers are exaggerated and people ought to be a bit more skeptical of these claims. At the very least, more research needs to be done on this subject.

This link is definitely worth checking out:

http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/he...s_digest6.html

[Slytovhand]

@Shadow - I'm one who suffers from 2nd hand smoking.. and I have a few times. Lays me up bad til my body gets rid of whatever irritant has gotten inside. And trust me, I'm not normally a sufferer of anything (well - except for idiots at work )

Crazy -

A guy wants to work and wait tables at hooters? Great but the lack of tips will very quickly mean he has to look elsewhere.

Don't bet on it! If he's as 'well-built' as the girls, I reckon a lot of women would tip him quite nicely...

Slyt

[Greenday]

I don't think it's the government's place to dictate what businesses can and can't do in their establishments. The decision to allow smoking or not should be up to the owner(s) of said business and no one else. If they decide it's more profitable fo them to allow people to light up, they should be allowed to do so. Alternately, if they decide to forbid smoking in order to cater to consumers who want to be in a smoke free environment (which could be just as profitable), they should be allowed to do that too.

Of course the justification for banning smoking on private property (and a restaurant or bar is still private property) rests almost entirely on the supposed dangers of second-hand smoke. But there's growing evidence to suggest that these dangers are exaggerated and people ought to be a bit more skeptical of these claims. At the very least, more research needs to be done on this subject.

There's no doubt about it, second hand smoke is harmful. Besides the carcinogens being released, the smoke itself is harmful to those with respiratory problems. And there are a decent amount of businesses where if you don't choose that one, there isn't another company of that type for awhile. So let's say I need someone to help me with my taxes. There's only one accountant in my area. That means I'm stuck going to him/her for help. If that accountant smokes, I'm being affected by it. I have no choice. The smoke is being forced on me if I go. So why should I be forced between choosing among going to that accountant and dealing with the smoke, not getting help and possibly screwing up my taxes, or driving a ridiculously long distance in order to properly do my taxes?

Right...so on topic, no, I don't think you have a right to a job. If it's an Italian restaurant, and they want to appear authentic, they should be within their rights of hiring only Italians. Same thing for Hooters. It's what makes Italian restaurants Italian restaurants and Hooters Hooters.

[blas87]

And while we're back on track to right to a job, how about people like Sheriff, my annoying neighbor, and people like my most infamous trainee, DipShit.

Sheriff was assigned a job aid (or someone who helps out mentally disabled employees I guess?) at his job at Wal-Mart. Sheriff could not keep up with answering the telephones and properly manning his department. He also bothered several employees with his talking (same thing as he does at home here) and kept several people from work, and I'm guessing he also turned off several customers with the way he cannot stop talking and hunts people down and generally makes people uncomfortable. He was fired from Wal-Mart for those reasons. He then got a job at the local Holiday Inn Express. He worked there for a month or two and was fired because he could not keep up with cleaning rooms, his other duties, and again was a pain to other employees and kept them from doing their work with his chatter.

He was fired from Holiday Inn, but surprisingly, a while later, was rehired. His job aid somehow had pulled some strings (or most likely threatened a discrimination suit against the hotel) and got him his job back. Now I don't know if this person works with him every day or just keeps tabs on how many hours he gets and makes sure he doesn't get screwed over. Naturally, they fired him once before, they most likely DIDN'T want him back...so for a couple of weeks, he only worked 2 days a week.....and then all of a sudden he was working almost every day. The job aid must have caught them trying to cut his hours.

So even though he was a worthless housekeeper and a pain in the ass to customers and coworkers alike........the hotel HAS to keep him around. God only knows if they will EVER be allowed to let him go. Maybe Sheriff got help with getting better at cleaning rooms or leaving people alone, but I highly doubt it..as that's too hard for him not to do. So he can take as much time as he needs, or another housekeeper has to do double duty helping him AND doing their own stuff....just because someone felt that Sheriff was entitled to a job.

Sure....there's no reason mentally handicapped people can't have jobs. But it's not discrimination if you are let go because you CAN NOT perform your duties to the level that they need to be completed. Sheriff could NOT answer the phones and run his department at Wal-Mart. He could not and STILL CAN NOT clean rooms or keep up the way he should. But he still gets to keep working there.

Just the same....DipShit never made it past phase 1 (of 4) training with me. He worked at the factory for almost 2 months before he was finally fired. I have done my research and DipShit holds the record for the longest time a person EVER was allowed to continue training without progressing without being fired or assigned to another trainer/area. I am dead serious.....no other newbie was ever allowed to fuck up that much, treat their trainer like garbage, refuse to listen, refuse to learn...and be allowed to keep working there. Just because SOMEONE felt that they owed him a job.

It makes me ill.