3 ms·
"If they focused on #2, #1 wouldn't be so much of an issue." You do not really believe this do you? I am very sorry for your friend. Rigid interpretation of t
by dfc 15y ago
"If they focused on #2, #1 wouldn't be so much of an issue."
You do not really believe this do you?
I am very sorry for your friend. Rigid interpretation of the rules can lead to some terrible decisions. However I do not think that requiring a GED increases the likelihood that the employee is going to be the cause of a lawsuit. Humans nature is an odd beast and the list of lawsuit inducing character flaws goes on for miles. If people were able to easily screen for these character flaws during the recruiting process elections would be so much easier...
- fleitz 15y agoI do agree with you that it's an over simplification, there is certainly a balance to be struck but I don't think the one that's currently struck is the best one.
- dfc 15y agoI definitely think that there is significant room for improvement when it comes to hiring. However I think that significant progress towards #1 through preventative screening is next to impossible.
- Bytor 15y agoIf they focused first on #2 - finding the right people for the job - where "right" meant the proper skill set for the job, that would go a long way to solving #1 - following the law on hiring practices. For if they are truly hiring on skill alone then they have already passed the biggest hurdle HR has in #1 - discriminatory hiring practices - because skill set does not look at sex or gender or race or age or any of that.