3 ms·

1) hurts ageists, racists, etc (that's quite a lot of people, counting mild cases) 2) discourages ageists from starting businesses 3) discourages ageists from

by nir 16y ago

1) hurts ageists, racists, etc (that's quite a lot of people, counting mild cases) 2) discourages ageists from starting businesses 3) discourages ageists from hiring anyone Well, they can not apply their ageist, racist views in the workplace. It's not a basic civil right to be an ageist or racist. 4) makes old people feel entitled to work at ageist businesses, when perhaps it'd be better if they didn't expect to be able to work anywhere and put more effort into finding a better fit Why? The case in question will be decided (I assume) on whether the employee was fired due to his age or productivity. 5) harms productivity and therefore the economy (via making some people uncomfortable at their own business) Productivity is harmed when people like the guy in this story can't get a job, too. Seems to me if you don't exclude people from certain jobs based on irrelevant parameters, economy usually benefits. 6) makes it hard to fire old, black, gay, female, etc, persons for vague but legitimate reasons, or reasons one doesn't want to tell them I doubt old, black, gay, female employees are particularly hard to fire, at least in the US. 1) the old guy gets the second best job available to him These issues usually rise when it's not the rare case but the common case. So, the old guy will not get the second best job but perhaps the twentieth best job, or none at all. Take a look around you (assuming you work in software) and count how many people over 50 you see.

xenophanes 16y ago
> It's not a basic civil right to be an ageist or racist. Yes it is. Freedom of opinion. You just can't be violent about it (including intimidating and harassing people, etc) And it's also a basic civil right to decide how to spend your money, or at least it should be. That includes who to hire. > Productivity is harmed when people like the guy in this story can't get a job, too. The article said he has a job. > Seems to me if you don't exclude people from certain jobs based on irrelevant parameters, economy usually benefits. Whether a given boss is ageist is not irrelevant.
Dove 16y ago
There is not a simple answer to the conundrum, but I agree with xenophanes in my preference: I would rather working relationships remained totally voluntary, however stupid people's reasoning may be. You are right that when unfair discrimination (or any stupid opinion in general) is widespread, the result is unjust--and can even cross the line from annoyance to injury. Small affronts can add up to oppression; death by a thousand cuts. I wish there were a form of redress beyond making papercuts illegal (something I'd rather not do). The main consolation I see is that making the action illegal may not help much except in marginal cases. If the law says one thing and society widely believes another, the latter is going to rule what actually happens--either through legislative change or jury selection or selective reporting or something. I believe the only real secure refuge from widespread discrimination is victory in the court of public opinion. One must rely on the natural justice of the cause and prove naysayers wrong. It is not complete protection, but I think it more just than the alternative: making a particular motivation for hiring or firing illegal. It is important to me that economic transactions be totally voluntary for both parties. And it is very important to me that private people be able to hold and act upon stupid beliefs. The invasion becomes particularly evident if I turn the situation around: Would I want to defend my actions before a court? Would I want a lawyer examining my motivation behind hiring this plumber, quitting that job, or buying a third car, to ensure they are not tainted by some vestige of racism? Heaven forbid! I don't have a great answer for it. But I think, weighing the two harms, I would rather suffer under misguided, widespread discrimination than permit the courts to question the beliefs and motivations that go into a private transaction. The former is an evil that I think I am willing to consciously accept as the price of the latter freedom.

by nir 16y ago

xenophanes 16y ago

> It's not a basic civil right to be an ageist or racist. Yes it is. Freedom of opinion. You just can't be violent about it (including intimidating and harassing people, etc) And it's also a basic civil right to decide how to spend your money, or at least it should be. That includes who to hire. > Productivity is harmed when people like the guy in this story can't get a job, too. The article said he has a job. > Seems to me if you don't exclude people from certain jobs based on irrelevant parameters, economy usually benefits. Whether a given boss is ageist is not irrelevant.

Dove 16y ago

There is not a simple answer to the conundrum, but I agree with xenophanes in my preference: I would rather working relationships remained totally voluntary, however stupid people's reasoning may be. You are right that when unfair discrimination (or any stupid opinion in general) is widespread, the result is unjust--and can even cross the line from annoyance to injury. Small affronts can add up to oppression; death by a thousand cuts. I wish there were a form of redress beyond making papercuts illegal (something I'd rather not do). The main consolation I see is that making the action illegal may not help much except in marginal cases. If the law says one thing and society widely believes another, the latter is going to rule what actually happens--either through legislative change or jury selection or selective reporting or something. I believe the only real secure refuge from widespread discrimination is victory in the court of public opinion. One must rely on the natural justice of the cause and prove naysayers wrong. It is not complete protection, but I think it more just than the alternative: making a particular motivation for hiring or firing illegal. It is important to me that economic transactions be totally voluntary for both parties. And it is very important to me that private people be able to hold and act upon stupid beliefs. The invasion becomes particularly evident if I turn the situation around: Would I want to defend my actions before a court? Would I want a lawyer examining my motivation behind hiring this plumber, quitting that job, or buying a third car, to ensure they are not tainted by some vestige of racism? Heaven forbid! I don't have a great answer for it. But I think, weighing the two harms, I would rather suffer under misguided, widespread discrimination than permit the courts to question the beliefs and motivations that go into a private transaction. The former is an evil that I think I am willing to consciously accept as the price of the latter freedom.