published Wednesday, March 30th, 2011

The Job Application

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

63
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
rolando said...

That's cute...and holds a lot of truth on several levels.

One is either a man or some other gender that files suit over whatever perceived [or perhaps real] slight to their precious self-esteem.

March 30, 2011 at 6:10 a.m.
fairmon said...

Most applications don't reveal gender, race or age. There are so many government regulations, some conflicting, union demands in some cases and liberal courts legislating from the bench the only safe way to hire is do a thorough background check, an immediate or short notice drug screen, confirm skills and ability to do the job then hire in the order received. Pay the exact same for the job regardless of contribution, avoid incentive programs and tolerate anything other than theft, fighting and blatant policy violations. Employers waste a lot of time and money appealing unemployment compensation. Most can and do get unemployment even when the termination is for a legitimate and appropriate reason. It is a foolish business owner that fails to recognize they have "big brothers" that will help run the business and share in any gains with or without their approval.

Poor management and bad management practices by a few have led to the current complex and difficult legal mine field employers face. An unintended consequence is the incentive for good employees to perform well is non existent in some businesses and work environments. There are a lot more employees voting than employers so it is no surprise that legislators pass legislation that may be detrimental to higher employment.

The mass exodus of international corporations from the U.S. is not due to the wage difference or regulations which in many cases are not significant. See Canada, Sweden, Ireland and other favored non U.S. locations for new headquarters.

March 30, 2011 at 7:10 a.m.
woody said...

Good morning Rolando..And I can't remember the last time I had occasion to say that...

Actually, I find the whole situation more strange than cute. Since everyone(?) already knows that women are always paid less than their male counterparts and that WalMart is known(?) worldwide as an employer not wishing to pay anyone any more than they actually have to..one would certainly think that it would be the male employees as the litigants here rather than the females.

This could be one for "Ripley's Believe It or Not."

(An aside to anyone who cares..let's see someone(?) try to turn this into a political discussion...)

Later..Woody

March 30, 2011 at 7:14 a.m.
OllieH said...

Slight to their self-esteem? How about slight to their paycheck, slight to their opportunities for raises, or slight to their ability to advance within the company?

Wal-Mart isn't claiming that gender discrimination didn't take place on a mass scale within their stores or that the women in their employ don't have a justifiable case. Wal-Mart is simply arguing that the transgressions were made at a local level and were not caused by any specific policy from corporate headquarters. They insist that because of that fact, and because of the diversity of the grievances being filed against them, that the case does not warrant class-action status.

Wall Street looked to the government for a bail-out from the consequences of its misdeeds, and now Wal-Mart is looking to the courts for the same thing. 'Too big to fail' was the mantra a few years ago, I guess we can now change that to 'too big to sue' as the largest class-action lawsuit ever filed is being attacked for representing too large a class of plaintiffs. It's a lame defense on Wal-Mart's part, but it just might find some sympathizers on a court that has already established itself as overly corporate-centric.

The Wal-Mart corporation IS to blame for the mistreatment of their female employees. Their corporate culture created the environment for such abuses to flourish, they knew about complaints within their ranks, yet did next to nothing to rectify the situation.

This case is typical of how Wal-Mart conducts all of its business. They use their immense size to crush any and all competition. And then they send in a team of lawyers to silence or deflect any criticism of their brutish practices. I wish the women filing suit the best of luck and hope that the Supreme Court can pull their heads out of their robes long enough to do what's right by the law, and not merely what's best for big business.

March 30, 2011 at 7:42 a.m.
acerigger said...

It's gotta be Obama's fault!

March 30, 2011 at 7:48 a.m.
EaTn said...

With WalMart a major employer in almost every small and large town in American, I'm surprised that colleges and universities haven't implemented bachelor degree programs in WalMart management with "associate" degrees in door greeter, stocker, deli, security, etc.

March 30, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.

I agree with OllieH, couldn't have said it any better really.

March 30, 2011 at 8:58 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Pretty funny!

What the hll is going on here? Two good cartoons in two days? Did someone have a "come to Jesus" meeting with clay?

"clay, your gonna have to get off this mind numbing DemocraTIC advocacy stuff or we will be forced to send you pack'n to the NYTs".

March 30, 2011 at 9:06 a.m.
Sailorman said...

"The Wal-Mart corporation IS to blame for the mistreatment of their female employees. Their corporate culture created the environment for such abuses to flourish, they knew about complaints within their ranks, yet did next to nothing to rectify the situation."

And you know this how? You think it's OK that 6 people can sue a company with 1.5 million employees claiming to represent them all? With that many employees, you think there won't be complaints in the ranks? Maybe some were, in fact, discriminated against. That remains to be seen. To leap to the conclusion that the company condones, even encourages it, in today's litigious environment is a far stretch. As usual, the only winners here will be the lawyers if this stupidity is allowed to proceed.

Ace - sorry you're wrong again - it's all Hillary's fault. She started it when she was on the board!

March 30, 2011 at 9:38 a.m.
fairmon said...

Be careful what you wish for. I can't stand the imported goods filled Walmart, do not shop there and certainly don't defend them. Why do lawyers love class action litigation? Does a plaintiff benefit more or less in a class action? Are the lawyers ready to prove the allegations of illegal behavior across the board at all Walmarts. Or, are they seeking a class action to increase the settlement from which they deduct their "expenses and fee" with members of the class receiving a penance and no remedy regarding future behavior?

Will the attorneys be willing to represent individuals at any Walmart in violation with their fee contingent upon prevailing? I doubt it. The most likely change for the victims is abuse by shrewd lawyers instead of by an ignorant manager. I think employees have the option of not joining the class, seeking assistance from the EEOC and legal counsel to seek a worthwhile personal remedy.

March 30, 2011 at 9:52 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

ollie, you're an ass..you libs's assault on walmart is laughable........."brutish" ...."crush"...wow you sound like you're talking about terrorists....or middle eastern regimes...come on.

you take walmart out of the picture and this country would be in a lot of trouble.....how many jobs would be lost? how many areas in this country would be hurt? ever go out west or in extremely rural areas....there're walmarts everywhere for a reason. they do a good job.

and eatn.....somebody has to do those jobs......what do you envision....all managers and no lower level employees? how does that work...moron. all jobs have value..but not all jobs pay the same..impossible.

yes...lets' get the pitchforks and torches and march on walmart headquarters......dopes.... go to the walmarts around here and talk to the employees...i think many would be grateful they have a job...

you libs' over the top accusations directed toward walmart just speaks to your hatred for the private sector and business.

March 30, 2011 at 10:04 a.m.
limric said...

Clay. Another great one. I agree with Rolando, it's pretty cute.

BUT - If women do equal work for less pay, why haven't they all been hired by profit-grubbing corporations while all of the expensive men get fired? Oh wait, have I stumbled across the equality paradox? Corporations - that are all about profits - keep paying expensive men to do work that they could get from women for much less? How is this possible? It’s not. So get in the coal mine girls. How many women could do this job as well as men? How many would want to? You preach equality, but do any of you expect men who work in difficult and dangerous conditions get paid the same as school lunch ladies? The problem is that people refuse to discuss the topic honestly to determine what constitutes "equal" work.
Or try this. Consider competing with - or suing Mexicans & Indians. They work for even less

You girls need to grow up.

March 30, 2011 at 10:53 a.m.
codymaxwell said...

SeaMonkey, you're ignorant. Wal-Mart has been very outspoken and unashamed about their business ethics.

There are 5 Wal-Marts in Chattanooga. Explain that in your saving rural humanity context.

From Market Street downtown a person can be at any one of 5 Wal-Mart "superstores" in 20 minutes: Red Bank, Tiftonia, Brainerd, Ooltewah or Hixson.

I can't help but find this absurd.

March 30, 2011 at 10:56 a.m.
hambone said...

Once again FrancisTrollMonkey spouts his tripe out. Same words, same verbage, nothing new just BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!

Just a poor misguided TROLL trying to get attention!

Francis, how about something new, something productive. How about showing us how smart you are for a change!

March 30, 2011 at 11 a.m.
codymaxwell said...
March 30, 2011 at 11:09 a.m.
SeaMonkey said...

wrong, hambone..my comments get right to the point...the core of what you libs want.

and good for walmart, cody...good for them..good for them and good for the employment scene.....you and most libs are ingrates who don't appreciate the opportunities corporations create.........

go out west, cody...you'll see walmarts in the middle of nowhere...and they're very important to the people there........jobs...you know..jobs?

and hambone you're just knew jerk liberal..nothing more...

this lawsuit against walmart is bogus...as with all charges...you libs hate when someone is profitble..and not part of the government..

what would you prefer....we wait for some nameless, faceless burocrat, who's accountable to know one and is there forever, to provide jobs?

be glad for walmart....

March 30, 2011 at 12:09 p.m.
SeaMonkey said...

and what's more ethical, cody....the government? how many senators, congressman, of both parties, and fat ass burocrats have become wealthy producing nothing...while lining their
pockets? i thought so..........if corporations, big and small..don't produce...don't come through for their customers ....don't watch what they spend and don't treat their employees well...they're finished....they, along with most people in the private sector, have to be accountable....for some reason t he government doesn't. how wealthy have christopher dodd and barney frank become from the fm & fm fiasco?.....what do they produce...? nothing

March 30, 2011 at 12:17 p.m.
Tmbrwlfofga said...

Another great cartoon Clay! Of course leave it to Sea Monkey to find a way to politicize it and hurl his "Lib" and "Lefties" monikers around. This is not about politics in any manner. This is about sound business policies and equality in the workplace. I will be honest, I love shopping at Wal-Mart. The prices are low, I don't have to play the shopping card game, and its also convenient. As such, I am contributing to the problem that Wal-Mart creates in forcing out the so-called "little man" that just cannot compete. However, that is part of a free market society. Wal-Mart is a retailer, and as such the only career employees they should shower with fringe benefits is their management team, or any other job classifications that require expertise. You can't pay a cashier or stock clerk a high wage that is competitive with say for example a carpet mill. The work is different and the required skill qualifications are different. No retailer pays their line staff high wages, nor do they offer them a benefits package competitive with a more skilled profession. Wal-Mart could have solved this problem by ensuring a level pay scale for all of their managers and skilled career employees. When you allow too much discretion for pay determination with an employer that large, you open up a can of worms and paint yourself into a corner. I will continue to shop at Wal-Mart, because they meet my needs as a consumer. Plus, their profits stay here. In most towns that have a Wal-Mart, that store is the largest contributor of sales tax, and more specifically any SPLOST taxes that the county has in place. Wal-Mart is here to stay friends, but remember that every dog has fleas of some kind. Hopefully they will implement a better human resources policy and fix this deficiency. If not, then another mega-retailer should rise to the occasion and truly compete with Wal-Mart and continue exercising the spoils of the free market economy. Happy Shopping, Tmbrwlfofga

March 30, 2011 at 12:22 p.m.

I hesitate to say too much about this particular law suit because I don’t know much about what’s going on, I’ll come back once I do more digging but in general I can say that Walmart is a terrible employer. I can’t speak for all employees but I worked there while attending school and I wasn’t happy with the overall management or the way they conducted business. I didn’t experience any form of discrimination but what bothers me is their overall ethics (a company w/ ethics?). When it comes to raises they will nitpick at the tiniest reasons as to why they feel you could improve in your job so that you don’t “qualify for the raise” at that time, they are purposely constantly under-staffed for checkout lanes (which I worked as a cashier) because they figure why pay for 10 people to work that day when you can schedule 6 cashiers instead that will have constant over flowing lines and still get the work done in order to save company money, and I’m not naive enough to believe that other companies hiring foreign laborers pays crap but since we’re talking about Walmart I’ll stick with them: they pay foreign labors crap on the dollar which is why you can walk in there and get a T-shirt for $4.00; I try not to shop there whenever possible.

Limric, I don’t believe anyone would argue with the point that if a man/ woman work a more dangerous and physically demanding job they shouldn't be paid the same as a school lunch lady. The argument is that there should be equal pay across the board if the job positions/functions are the same between the female and male worker and if the Indians and Mexicans are being underpaid for discrimination reasons then yes, they should sue their employers as well.

March 30, 2011 at 12:31 p.m.
EaTn said...

SeaMonkey (appropriate name)-- you took my post wrong. I'm not opposed to WalMart. They've provided both jobs and low prices in places where needed. It's a competitive business where wages and prices are a balancing act. But when you get to the monstrous size of WalMart, you have to put being a leading member in the community ahead of being a hero in the boardroom.

March 30, 2011 at 12:41 p.m.
limric said...

Hi BlckFemLibNproud,

I think my key sentence was: The problem is that people refuse to discuss the topic honestly to determine what constitutes "equal" work. And yes, I think that "there should be equal pay across the board if the job positions/functions are the same between the female and male worker", but having been discriminated against in both race and gender (and I'm an old white dude) I have to try to look beyond what the plaintiffs are alleging and what is the underlying reality. To which I have found: Women will demand equality - until there is something they don't want to do. +Questioning this hypocrisy initiates cries of gender bias or chauvinism and worse.

I know this will put me in the unenviable position of being labeled as a chauvinist (see + above) but this, I assure you is not the case. Well maybe a little - but my wife doesn't think so...I think...er...I hope

March 30, 2011 at 1:10 p.m.
potcat said...

Harp said...most applications don't reveal gender,race or age. Are you saying Walmart applications don't ask these things? I assure you they do.There's not a job at Walmart that a Woman can't do and has done from unloading trucks to driving forklifts. Oh yeah, a honest conversation about Equality.Lets see, first off The " Me Tarzan You Jane" would have to go. You boys need to let go of "The Penis Syndrome". Mr. Bigs EGO is so yesterday.

March 30, 2011 at 2:27 p.m.

I'll admit when I read your post I thought chauvinist, could have been the "You girls need to grow up" or the "So get in the coal mine girls. How many women could do this job as well as men?" part, sounding as if you doubt many women could do the same job which I would disagree, but since we're on the same page about the "equal" part I'll reconsider your stance.

I'm sure there are some women that pull the "gender card" when it comes to certain things but I also believe for every fake cry of gender inequality there's triple times the evidence that it really occuries and one could also argue that anytime a woman claims gender discrimination some claim that she should suck it up, get another job, or have the "well what did you expect" kind of attutide.

March 30, 2011 at 2:35 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

The ones bringing the suit are the ones who don't work hard enough to get ahead, but feel entitled. You know them, the ones you had to hire after they applied or face a lawsuit oveer decrimination based on race, sex, national origin, sexual persuasion or some other liberal label we've attached to them to make them feel good about themselves. Buck up America. This ain't ever gonna stop, so get used to it.

March 30, 2011 at 2:35 p.m.
canarysong said...

Ollie, GREAT post!

Harp, employment applications ask for a name; unless a woman's parents had the foresight to give her a name that was gender-neutral, then the employer knows the applicant's gender well before they even get to the interview stage.

Limric,

You have put yourself on the hot-seat here today, haven't you? I see you're wearing your plastic strap-on pig nose again today ;-)

"Women will demand equality - until there is something they don't want to do."

Uh oh, you've figured it out...... We only put up with you guys so that there will be someone around to carry heavy objects and to kill the spiders :-) OK, well, there might be at least one more thing that you guys are good for...

But seriously, the recent figures that I heard are that women in the US still are only making .80 to the 1.00 that men are making for the SAME work. (sorry, I don't have a link) You may feel that you were discriminated against as an 'old white dude', but unless it was for your age, I would guess that it was an anomaly.

The women filing suit against Walmart do seem to have a legitimate claim.

"...lawyers for Walmart and Sam’s Club warned Walmart Stores Inc. back in 1995 that a sexual discrimination lawsuit would be on the horizon, when it found men earned 19 percent more than women in some positions and were five-and-a-half times more likely to be promoted. According to The Los Angeles Times, a statistician hired by the plaintiffs’ lawyer found “women make up about two-thirds of the hourly employees but fewer than 14 percent of store managers."

It appears that men were preferentially hired and promoted to management positions even when equally qualified women applied. Perhaps CEOs think primarily in terms of the bottom line, but the 'good ole boys' at the regional management level seem to be more directed by their own personal biases.

"The plaintiffs’ theory is that a centralized companywide policy gave local managers too much discretion in pay and promotion decisions, leaving Wal-Mart vulnerable to gender stereotypes. The plaintiffs have presented sworn statements and statistics to support their claim."

"...Justice Stephen G. Breyer said Wal-Mart could be held accountable if it failed to take action in the face of reports of discrimination from its stores. “Should central management under the law have withdrawn some of the subjective discretion in order to stop these results?” Justice Breyer asked."

"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed, saying that companies had a responsibility to make sure that women were treated fairly in local workplaces. And Justice Elena Kagan said that “excessive subjectivity” may be a policy that violates the civil rights laws."

As expected, some of the more conservative members of the court were not quite convinced; we'll see what happens...

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/kagan_elena/index.html?inline=nyt-per

March 30, 2011 at 2:55 p.m.

Thank you for making my point whatsnottaken.

March 30, 2011 at 3:03 p.m.
limric said...

BlckFemLibNproud,

I’m going to have be careful regarding your quote, “I also believe for every fake cry of gender inequality there's triple times the evidence that it really occuries.” Are you sure this is as it is? Or; Is the evidence for what there is amplified to create the impression there is more than what there really is? As there is evidence to prove both the former and later equally, do you, as I, find this both a conundrum and a dilemma?

Canarysong,

Just wash my shirts. Oh sorry…Just wash my shirts - please. ;-)

I understand the WalMart suite. I’m just a bit skeptical about the premise. I stick by my statement; “I have to try to look beyond what the plaintiffs are alleging and what is the underlying reality.” Besides, there’s enough girly stuff in WalMart already. If more cranky women start running the place they’ll squeeze out all the good MAN stuff even more. OH HELL NO! You are NOT gonna put your frilly stuff on my rifles!

I’m going back to my cave now.

March 30, 2011 at 3:47 p.m.
canarysong said...

Limric;

I saw your knuckles dragging, but you forgot to grunt...

March 30, 2011 at 3:58 p.m.
potcat said...

whatnot, its all them entitled low life bitches that want work and are just handed a job that would dare sue WALMART. You are one sick THING! Canary and Limric need to get a room. Ha Ha Ha, So Funny! Frilly things and guns,what planet are you on? Oh i forgot Hunter was a GUN NUT and raging lunitic.

March 30, 2011 at 4:48 p.m.
fairmon said...

canarysong,

I have no clue what WalMart does but I have suspicions if they allow untrained local managers a lot of discretion. Those I worked with and hired for did not provide the selection for interviews nor the interview team access to the application. Background checks, calls or letters to former employers and references were completed by those gathering applications. The selection for hire person or people doing interviews had name rank and serial number plus work experience only. Most employers of any size seek to mirror the ratio by gender, ethnicity etc. in the labor supply area. Some go so far as to recruit and assist with training if they are lacking in a particular group.

potcat

If the WalMart application ask for age and gender then they are violating the law. I would be glad to represent you. Some provide a place for race that is voluntary. The government requires employers to file an annual affirmative action report showing the number of applicants by sex and race but will not allow that to be asked. It is possible but has to be done outside the hiring process by people that will not participate in or influence hiring decisions. Employers can accomplish this by utilizing the states employment security office.

Many responsible corporations go to extremes to assure they meet or exceed the intent of all labor laws. You never hear about those in the news that were audited with no findings. That isn't controversial and the media doesn't attract readers, viewers or advertisers with that kind of reporting.

People performing like work should be compensated equally on some non-subjective basis which does not mean all should be paid the same. Paying everyone the same rate per hour or salary is easier and the process most use which is an incentive for all to gravitate to the lowest level of performance tolerated. To find any employee, including the weakest and least capable, that doesn't think they are as good or better than most is rare. Many think if they have a good reason or excuse for poor work or unreliability the employer should accept that.

There is a lot of confusion on the part of employers and employees regarding what an employer can expect of employees and what employees can expect of an employer. Too bad except for me as a very expensive and selective HR consultant that is willing to work only with principle driven non-union employers :).

March 30, 2011 at 4:58 p.m.
memphisexile said...

Wal-Mart is one of the most sued companies in the country for a reason, they have a history of discriminatory business practices. As stated above, Wal-Mart is not disputing that they wronged these women, they are arguing a technicality to get out of having to settle this class action lawsuit that has 1.6 million members. They are trying to argue that these women's lawsuits do not have enough in common to be a class, but they do because they were all discriminated against by Wally World. They would rather face all the plaintiffs individually because they know the bulk of them can't afford a lawyer and would not bring a case.

Does anyone else remember when they took out life insurance policies on their employees hoping they would die so WallyWorld could collect?

March 30, 2011 at 6:06 p.m.
potcat said...

La De La Harp, you would'nt blow your own horn Mr.Bullsh.. artist. Violating the law to ask a persons age on a job application.You sure about that? Of course its not against the law.It would be against the law not to.

March 30, 2011 at 6:06 p.m.
fairmon said...

potcat,

It is against the law to discriminate in hiring due to age and asking some-one's age is asking for a lawsuit. Most employers of any intelligence don't ask the applicant's age and don't include it on an application. Why would it be against the law not to ask? If that is the case send me to the legal reference where I can find that and get myself on the right page. We are never too old to learn, it seems you are willing to enlighten me on this issue. I do appreciate it.

Where did I blow my own horn? I think what I posted was right but it never hurts to be sure. Legislators and adjudicators change the law about as regularly as some people change socks.

March 30, 2011 at 6:38 p.m.
fairmon said...

I have no idea if Walmart is guilty of the allegations or if so how broadly. But, I would have no objection if every Walmart in the country was closed down and left abandoned tomorrow. They have nothing to entice me to go to their cluttered, unkempt, import laden store. Perhaps if this lawsuit prevails and Wal-Mart is ordered to pay technician level wages people will shop elsewhere and possibly buy made in America products. Except of course the new light bulbs congress requires us all to use soon which are only made in China.

The wisdom of our leaders never ceases to amaze. I hope this is wrong and someone sets me straight. Congress legislated that to save energy all bulbs sold will be fluorescent which are only made in China. These contain mercury and require special handling if broken. These will wind up in our land fills and the mercury will leach into the ground. This makes the current incandescent bulbs that are a made in America item that is cheaper than imports obsolete. most Americans now use this soon to be obsolete and unavailable incandescent bulb. Was what I read about this issue wrong?

March 30, 2011 at 7:12 p.m.
potcat said...

Harp, Walmart hires teenagers to the elderly. Walmart sells alcohol. Walmart,Bi-Lo,Target etc.etc. sell alcohol, cigerettes. It would be a liability to any store to not know the age of a person. Personaly i have submitted my share of applications and every one asked for birth date.

March 30, 2011 at 7:41 p.m.
rolando said...

whatsnottaken, your 2:35 post was much better written and more explicit than mine. Thanks.


limric, well said all the way down the line; we are in total agreement here, for what that's worth. I, too, am an "old white dude" and I can guarantee I have been discriminated against simply for being a white male.

How about divorce court and child custody? Or a college education? Or anywhere else "preferential treatment" aka "affirmative action" raises its racist, pox ridden, dissipated [but oh-so-politically correct] ugly head.

Odds are the sole reason [the real one] is someone or group looking for easy money and a free ride.

March 30, 2011 at 7:42 p.m.
rolando said...

It has indeed been a while, woody. Whoever came up with the updated format for this rag certainly deserves a raise. A few things are unchanged, of course -- Clay's TheBama inspired pablum, for instance.

But then he can do only so much with the material given him by our totally incompetent Dear Leader who hasn't the slightest clue about anything [except for basketball, vacations, and bowing and scraping].

March 30, 2011 at 7:48 p.m.
rolando said...

I DO miss the goldstars, though. They helped separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.

March 30, 2011 at 7:49 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

potcat, you might have to mark on an app that you can prove you are at least 18 years of age for certain types of jobs. Serving alcohol comes to mind, although I have seen grocery store cashiers ask people to scan their own beer because they aren't of age. You do have to prove to the liquor board that you are 18 before earning your license to serve by the drink, but it requires no license to sell packaged beverages.

If you're going for just about any job that pays more than minimum wage and offers you the prospect of a seemingly stable career, you probably won't be asked your date of birth or outright age. Also, you would be foolish to list that information on a résumé/vitae. It's even a good idea to leave the year you graduated high school off as well.

When a company tells you they do not discriminate due to age, sex, race, etc. they cannot ask you for any info that would lead away from that claim.

March 30, 2011 at 8:16 p.m.
dude_abides said...

limric, you down with rolando's 7:42 post, or have circumstances conspired to conflagrate an otherwise innocuous flirtation with misogyny? Just doesn't seem in keeping.

March 30, 2011 at 9:05 p.m.
fairmon said...

Potcat,

I don't doubt you have filled our app's asking for age but an employer increases their vulnerability of a charge if they ask that and there is really no reason to know. If the objective is to hire the most qualified and capable of doing the job hired for or jobs to which they may later be promoted to why do they need to know age, gender or race? As Musicman pointed out an applicant may be asked if they are at least 18 years of age which is for the employers legal protection. After hire some employers require a birth certificate or other proof of age along with proof of citizenship. Drug screens are normally only required after a job is offered.

I am aware of the fact that many employers fail to comply with some regulations primarily due to not being aware of them. They are vulnerable to some very expensive legal pitfalls. There are some employers I have declined to assist for reasons that probably make sense only to me.

Think about it like this. If the hiring is for a career job it is a lot like getting married. I don't like those of either gender that may be an abusive spouse. I don't like public employee situations and avoid them, favoritism is rampant and politics rule. Those that want me to find the best match for the job tell me what they have to offer, what their people principles are, do it my way and spend the money to accomplish the purpose which is identifying the most qualified and capable people. If they are looking for short term help and haven't developed core principles of how they will operate I advise them to call a staffing service.

I am old enough to not work and there is more work than I want so I can be a butt about it and only work with those I want to.

March 30, 2011 at 10:29 p.m.
weewhoa said...

Don't kid yourselves...it isn't just Walmart. I was laid off from a good job processing group medical insurance claims two years ago when the economy tanked. The timing was horrible as I was in my mid-fifties at the time. I have since applied, several times, for a claims position at a rival company. I have passed the data entry tests and the interviews went well, according to the prospective employer, but I still received form e-mails each time thanking me for my interest, but other applicants were better fits. Almost nine years of processing claims and I am not a good fit? I knew I should have dyed my silver streaked hair before the interviews, but it is expensive and not me. I have always stayed with former employers for years and went almost fifteen years, at one stretch, without missing a scheduled day of work. A good work ethic used to be prized, but I can't turn back the clock.

March 31, 2011 at 4:30 a.m.
fairmon said...

weewhoa,

You are right it is not just Walmart. "A better fit" to me means in our subjective judgement instead of saying other candidates were more qualified which should be the selection criteria. The age and qualifications of those hired would be interesting?

March 31, 2011 at 8:27 a.m.

Whatsnottaken,

“The ones bringing the suit are the ones who don't work hard enough to get ahead, but feel entitled.”

-- This may be the case with some people but I assure you that the majority of people that sue actually are the ones that have legitimate claims or more to the point, the people that fall in the minority category be it race, sex, religion, whatever often don’t report mistreatment because they know their claims will fall on deaf ears because people like you have already made up your mind about “those one’s”. Some are also often in a legal predicament themselves so they choose not to come forward and crimes remain unreported (ex: illegal immigrant gets sexually assaulted but due to their legal status they don’t report the crime or mistreatment).

“Buck up America. This ain't ever gonna stop, so get used to it.”

-- Yes, get use to all kinds of people standing up for themselves and using those liberties bestowed upon them by this country and refusing to be railroaded and take it because someone like wants to throw your “red blood American”, overly generalized assumptions/attitude about people that fall in the “other” category.

Rolando,

-- For both you and limric, I’m sorry to hear about the discrimination towards the both of you, I am against discrimination of any kind towards anyone but seeing as how you’ve both been victims of discrimination yourselves I would think you would be able to relate to the women filing the suit, not bash them for standing up for themselves. Rolando I fail to see what affirmative action has to do with divorce court or child custody, enlighten me. I’ve never heard of a court case where due to affirmative action a child was given to one parent over another. And you know being politically correct is not a bad thing no matter how you want to make it sound, its actually what we should all strive for on a daily without having to be told you have to be “politically correct”, it’s called being a descent human being.

Limric,

“Are you sure this is as it is? Or; Is the evidence for what there is amplified to create the impression there is more than what there really is?”

-- No, I don’t believe it’s amplified at all. Again you have people in this world that are always going to cry wolf or file no matter their race/sex but that is not the majority. I can explain this until I’m blue in the face but you’ll NEVER fully understand because you don’t have an open mind about other people not like yourself.

March 31, 2011 at 9:56 a.m.
fairmon said...

The number not filing charges that should probably exceeds the number that file without good cause. The agencies handling the complaints are under funded, under staffed and under trained Some agents show a personal bias and lack of objectivity and should not be retained. But, most work hard and try their best to do what is right. Unfortunately they have to spend as much time on frivolous cases as legitimate ones. I can see the problem but don't know a good way to fix it.

March 31, 2011 at 2:42 p.m.
rolando said...

dude sez: "...circumstances conspired to conflagrate an otherwise innocuous flirtation with misogyny...? Whatever the H that means.

"Circumstances" cannot agree to fire up anything -- secretly or otherwise -- people agree. And I can but presume limric has no desire to make a commitment of some sort just because I agreed with his factual comments in re discrimination against "old white males". Normally, we are at odds on the opinions he expresses here.

Would you care to further clarify your comment using terms of normal usage [without obfuscation]?

March 31, 2011 at 4:22 p.m.
rolando said...

Ah.

What happened, BlckFemi, was my "education" and "preferential treatment" sentences were originally run together; I edited that to break them into two separate clauses. When I did that it read so the "treatment" applied to all. It wasn't intended to do that; my mistake.

The divorce/custody discrimination was, and still is, due to judicial error made more serious by custom -- not by "preferential treatment". Men are absolutely discriminated against in essentially all those situations, sometimes rightly so. But all things being equal, the woman gets the house and the kids; he gets the bills, the alimony [if any], and child support paid to the state for their handling -- and God help him if he loses his job or takes a pay cut...the payments just keep racking up with no bankruptcy relief.

"Politically correct" has absolutely nothing to do with justice, be it social or legal. It robs a man of his individuality; one man's "correct" is another man's "incorrect". [Please forgive my use of the generic -- I am an "old school" advocate of that form and use it for the sake of simplicity...especially when we now have more than two genders.]

March 31, 2011 at 4:47 p.m.
dude_abides said...

rolando, Sorry I used phraseology you're not familiar with. I have since learned, thankfully, that he was being facetious. Forsooth, you and he are frequently at odds, much to his credit. Tangentially, "using terms of normal usage" seems redundant. Could you clean that sort of gibberish up for me, henceforth? You might want to pop a colon in after "in re", if that doesn't strike you as too homoerotic. Now, let me see if I can reconfigure my point, sans obfuscation... limric, please tell me you're not one of those woman hating pigs that projects the blame for his inability to successfully mate for life with a strong female counterpart onto the whole of the feminine population, or that projects the blame for his inability to rise to his "full potential" onto a society that, in fact, makes it much harder on most every other demographic than his.
Finally, rolando, I want to thank you for trying to correct the syntax I chose to communicate with someone else, who has shown himself to be up to the task of digesting it. (I know, you can't eat syntax)

March 31, 2011 at 8:52 p.m.
rolando said...

Oh, I am quite familiar with the English language, dude...your usage made me wonder if you were.

If you must obfuscate, please avoid nonsensical phraseology...unless you want to be cutesy-poo, of course. "Forsooth", for God's sake?? "Henceforth"?? You stuck in Elizabethan times? Or are you a lawyer, perhaps? You do seem overburdened with self-importance.

And I note limric did not publicly admit to or disclose any attempt at sarcasm or whatever in his post. It stands as gospel, regardless of your claim.

Admittedly, "in re" should have been in italics since it is Latin -- my bad. Should have hit Ctrl-i. In any case, use of a colon in "in the matter of discrimination" would be improper usage.

You seem incapable of discriminating between "normal" or everyday usage of English and that mishmash you sometimes write. You merely disclose your rather weak efforts to impress the easily impressed. Clue: It is not working.

Finally, your "reconfiguration" was anything but. If you can't take public criticism of your gibberish without resorting to mud-slinging and worse, click on limric's login [or whoever] and send them a private message...otherwise, put up with it. And do try to keep your language decent, at least...there are ladies present...

March 31, 2011 at 11:24 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Prithee, dost thou then admit that circumstances can conspire, squire?

April 1, 2011 at 12:40 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

"You might want to pop a colon in after "in re", if that doesn't strike you as too homoerotic."

Lol, I just had to point out that since you are correcting rolando's punctuation, the comma should have been within the quotation mark, i.e. "in re,"

April 1, 2011 at 9:32 a.m.
rolando said...

Lol, Musicman. Thanks for the chuckle. A touch of lightheartedness is always welcome...and defusing. We should all tread lightly when correcting someone's postings. [Er-r-r, {mentioned on tippy-toes} isn't there supposed to be a comma after "i.e."?? lol]

April 1, 2011 at 9:52 a.m.
rolando said...

No, dude, I admitted no such thing.

And "squire"? Implying you are the knight being served? More self-delusion on your part if that was your meaning. [Unless you choose a more modern meaning...]

April 1, 2011 at 10 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Good eye, rolando, but I left that out intentionally. You actually aren't required to use a comma after i.e or e.g. in that usage, and I like it without it since the page is less cluttered. Several styles mention that it is preferred or suggested to do so, but your spell check will probably ask you to remove it if you use it in a Word document.

April 1, 2011 at 11:04 a.m.
rolando said...

I generally leave the comma out too, unless it is legal jargon and the world's most notorious and accomplished nitpickers [lawyers] will review it.

Same with the comma/period after etc and others like it. As you say, in most cases it is less cluttering without it/them.

The use of commas was rampant when I attended school, although it did sometimes make things clearer, especially in a long-winded, run-on-sentence loaded document...the Constitution, for instance. Leaving out the dependent [??] clauses, then adding them in one at a time really helped my grasp of the topic.

April 1, 2011 at 12:46 p.m.
dude_abides said...

rolando & musicman375, I think it's important to note who busted whom first on the syntax/grammar/punctuation/spelling witch hunt. That would be rolando! If you look at my 1st post, you'll see a grammar train wreck. Somehow, I suddenly became a self important, delusional grammar-nazi in rolando's eyes. I was just trying to ask a theretofore reasonable contributor whether I had misread his opinions regarding womens' rights, equal pay, etc. Thanks for jumping in musicman 375. I feel like the football player that gets flagged for pushing back. Never heard much more about the woman/minority hating, though. rolando, are you happily married? I can't imagine not wanting my wife to earn equal pay. Seems self defeating.

April 1, 2011 at 6:36 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

No problem, dude. I found it quite amusing watching you two tussle, and quickly wrote that post while I was laughing at the irony of it. The only reason it was so funny to me was because it's just one of those grammatical mistakes that always jumps out at me for some reason, but I make other, non-related grammatical errors all the time. I don't have any dogs in that argument or any other topics that may or may not have been discussed in those posts I may or may not have read.

April 1, 2011 at 7:29 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Musicman, Strap this on: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/DFW_present_tense.html

Are you familiar with Wallace?

April 1, 2011 at 9:36 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Can't say I remember him specifically, but I've thought about, debated, and agreed with a lot of what's available at the site you linked for several years, from both viewpoints. Although, some of what he wrote there comes across as being very politically biased and/or elitist.

Personally, I see a need for a balance of both, depending on the intent or audience. Especially given that the population is growing at a logarithmic rate and social networking is morphing the language faster than ever, one should be able to see and latch on to the positives of both approaches. Actually I flip back and forth between dialects just like most people, even when writing or typing, and depending on my audience and/or purpose. Sometimes conservatism in usage is a good thing and sometimes it's not. Why is that so difficult for someone like Wallace to pick up on (although he did mention at one point that he had agreed with his opposition on occasion). Diversity isn't going to kill anyone... or should I have written, diversity ain't gonna kill nobody.

April 1, 2011 at 11:34 p.m.
dude_abides said...

The more you see of him, the more interesting he becomes. There's a good bit of video available, which provides insight. He must have collected pet peeves his entire life to amass that list!

April 1, 2011 at 11:54 p.m.
rolando said...

Poor little dude.

The whole exchange started with you, dude. Had you not stuck your nose into a discussion by making a pretentious, improperly phrased comment and trying to appear something you aren't, it wouldn't have occurred. [Or to butcher another word, "re-occurred".]


Thanks for being an "arbitrator", Musicman. lol

April 2, 2011 at 5:18 p.m.
dude_abides said...

Never heard much more about the woman/minority hating, though. rolando, are you happily married? I can't imagine not wanting my wife to earn equal pay. Seems self defeating. (2nd opportunity to answer)

By something I'm not, do you mean that you have achieved some level of expertise that I am aspiring to? Am I trying to be one of the heavy hitters, like you? How much do you get paid for your opinions? That would be a good indicator or their worth. I will try not to stick my nose into any more of your serious, thoughtful, gravitas laden discussions.

April 3, 2011 at 1:20 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.