Legatus wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 1:15 PM, David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 01:55:01PM -0500, Nicholas Wheeler wrote:
Ideal candidate will only use real sugar in his/her coffee. Ideal
candidate will also like coffee.
Gregory
So is it legal to say, "Ideal candidate will be heterosexual."?
Heh. You could probably be successfully sued for hiring discrimination
for
any job requirement or "ideal" feature that wasn't demonstratably related
to the performance of the job.
Ones like sexual orientation, marital status, race or ethnicity have extra
protections to basically try and keep you from even justifying them.
Demanding a non-smoker is probably on pretty shaky legal ground.
The interviewing guidelines we have at work have an amazing list of
questions we are not to ask, even if they just give a hint at possible
discrimination: "What kind of name is ___", or "Was that a Catholic
school?"
Dave
He can get away with it, because the tobacco companies are the devil, and
smokers their minions when you get to court. Smokers have few rights in
modern society, and they are getting pushed to second class status. Note, I
am not a smoker. I detest smoke filled bars and restaurants, but I fear what
behavior is next. It also amazes me that the pro-drug legalization crowd
are also some of the biggest anti-tobacco people I have run into. A paradox
if ever there was one. Me I am very much a libertarian. Bad behavior only
matters when it directly infringes on my rights or my pocket book.
That may be so, in general. I am not clearly on either side of the
"drug-legalization" fence, but I *am* of the opinion that if drugs were
legalized, then they should be heavily taxed, just like tobacco, and
that their use should be restricted in public buildings. Alcohol is not
illegal (in most places) in the USA, but DWI can cause you do lose your
license. I'm glad that the term "DWI" was let go in favor of "DUI".
Driving under the influence can be cited regardless if your driving is
impaired by alcohol or any other substance that is able to impair it.
Altho I am not on either side of the "drug-legalization" fence, I
definitely am of the moderately strong opinion that legalizing drugs
would solve more problems than it would create, not to mention the
severity of those problems. I have by no means made up my mind on the
subject tho.
I do believe that most (if not all) drug use is bad. I further believe
that legal or not, the demand for drugs will remain high. But high
demand in conjunction with legal blockades makes for most of the worst
drug related problems we have today. There should be age limits,
obviously, just as with alcohol and tobacco. Too bad that not enough
people think as I do.
To remain on topic:
If drugs were legalized, then job openings may have to be amended to
state that the ideal candidate will not be a partaker of drugs that can
impact job performance and that any drug use that noticeably impacts job
performance will first be warned, then suspended, then terminated (or
some process akin to it).
--
Ralph
--------------------
The most arduous task a reformer has to execute, is to make people think; to
rouse them from that lethargy, which, like the mantle of sleep, covers them in
repose and contentment.
--Noah Webster, 1789
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
