Comments on: Anti-discrimination laws

by: Ravages

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

If clubs and spas can exist which restrict membership and entry, why not jobs, is my first thought.

If it is ok for a pub or a coffee shop that says “Right of admission reserved”, why not a corporate.

there’s more.
will come back with a detailed post

by: Ravages

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

If one can’t discriminate on the basis of caste, sex, race, stuff, then one should go the whole hog and say one shouldn’t discriminate at all, on whatever basis. A corporate shouldnt discriminate on the basis of intelligence, cunning, experience, qualification, expertise, and other such stuff.

That’s thought number two.

Thought number three, i am not saying it is ok to discriminate. I am saying, if it raises your hacles so much, go set up your own frigging company/club and say only hindus/blacks allowed. Restrict entry to people who you don’t want to.
Just don’t hide behind mom’s saree, sorry, a government law and say give me a job.

by: Ravages

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

thought number four, i do need to work on my spellings.
Hackles, and not hacles. A typo.

by: Yazad

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

BTW, you don’t have to be a wannabe cartel member to post here.

by: Amol Hatwar

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

It’s a corporate’s choice. Spare the fashion and the airline industry ;).

A job has requirements. What if the requirements say that the person is say not black, or looks fair? Wouldn’t that count as discrimination?

by: Handa

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I personally dont think that such laws are going to make much of a difference because the indian society, IMHO, gives a damn about the laws until n unless they bite them in the butt. I mean, have the Sexual Harrasment laws helped? Well, frankly speaking I dont even kno properly about the laws relating to that but I am quite sure I have heard more cases of it being used against Indians in other countries than in India. Moreover, I do believe that there should be discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and childbirth. These are decisions of an individual and if she is willing to take tht decsion which inturn leads to lowering the output in performance then she should be ready to face the music. People should be held responsible for the choices they make.
(typos regretted)

by: Aadisht

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

My stand on the issue: cunning, expertise, experience and all the other things Ravages mentioned have a direct bearing on job performance so it’s natural to discriminate on that basis. On the other hand, it’s difficult to see how race or caste could directly affect your job performance.

I’d draw a distinction between discrimination on the grounds of affiliation, and discrimination on the grounds of practice.

For example, suppose MadMan refuses to employ me at his restaraunt because I’m a Punju. I can’t help being a Punju, I was born that way. So his discrimination is unjustified. However, if he refuses to employ me because as a Punju, I have a Northie accent which puts off the customers, that would be justified, since I could take voice lessons or practice speaking with a Southie accent.

The trouble with this is that there is no way a court of law knows whether he’s not employing me because I’m Punju or because of my accent, because it comes down to my claim against MadMan’s. Noble intentions, but impossible to implement.

by: Ravages

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Woohoo! Aadisht. Great! Except, I would say, this is not about that. The question is, should the government impose those laws or not. The question is not about discrimination.

My point is, if the government wants to enforce anti-discrimination laws, it needs to go the whole hog and say no discrimination, of any kind.

Or let leave be. Don’t touch me.
I would think the government has no say in how a private enterprise is run. They are doing their bit, paying up taxes, and helping the economy in their way. Let’s leave them alone and not ask them to employ these kind of people and not employ that kind of people.

by: Sunil

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Aadisht.. If MadMan owns a restaurant, then it is his inviolable right to employ anyone based on “any” criteria, whether discriminatory or non discriminatory.
You may feel that it is unfair, but you have absolutely no right on that job. It belongs to him, to do with it as he pleases!
Jobs are not common resources, for everyone to decide on the correct way to allocate them!

by: Sameer

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

If the question is purely of having/not having anti-discrimination laws, I would say that government needs to have these laws in place.

If an employer denies opportunity to a certain group of people based on their race, religion or colour citing his freedom to do so, why should the government not deny him that freedom citing his failure to comply with certain rules?!

In any case, discrimination based on cunning, experience, intelligence can be proved to have an impact on the economic performance of the company. How can the discrimination based on race, colour or religion be justified?

Digressing a bit… Handa wonders if indian laws on sexual harassment have helped at all. Well… they haven’t! Just because there aren’t any!!