back to article 'Men only' job ad posts land Facebook in boiling hot water with ACLU

Facebook is under fire for allowing companies to allegedly unfairly post on the social network job ads specifically for men – and not women. The American Civil Liberties Union and Outten & Golden LLP, an employment law firm, on Tuesday dragged the tech giant and ten employers before the US Equal Employment Opportunity …

Page:

          1. Bernard M. Orwell

            Re: Gender bias in advertising

            "Really? The OECD would beg to differ"

            The OECD commit the same fallacy that everyone else does; they don't take age demographics into account. In some age ranges (over 30's IIRC) there is pay gap (probably due to long term and outdated employment contracts). If you look at the pay gap for people under 30, you'll find that not only is it far, far more equal, but in some areas and roles, women now earn more than men.

            I do not deny that there is a pay gap, and from this report you can see that, in full time employees, there is as much as a 9.4% gap in favour of men, but the same report also highlights that the rate at which pay rises are applied favour female staff by around 7% per year. The times are a-changing, and we need to recognize that its not the 1970's anymore.

            I see your OECD and raise you the ONS report:

            https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/understandingthegenderpaygapintheuk/2018-01-17

          2. Spazturtle Silver badge

            Re: Gender bias in advertising

            "https://data.oecd.org/earnwage/gender-wage-gap.htm"

            That is meaningless data as it is not measuring people with the same job. Men and woman who are hired to do the same job are paid the same, this is the law. Will you be complaining about the wage gap between cleaners and neurosurgeons next?

  1. UNCL3LARRY

    BBC did the same with race

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36443113

    It's not much different, there's discrimination in all fields- albeit some more than others.

  2. Zippy´s Sausage Factory
    Devil

    "There is no place for discrimination on Facebook; it’s strictly prohibited in our policies," said Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne. "We look forward to defending our practices once we have an opportunity to review the complaint.”

    Although, y'know, they provide all the tools to do it. It's kind of like making a shop display of bottles of arsenic next to a book called "how to commit the perfect murder" and then being shocked - shocked, I tell you - that anyone would ever use arsenic for poisoning anyone...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "There is no place for discrimination on Facebook; it’s strictly prohibited in our policies," said Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne.

      Talk is cheap.

      Just how cheap, of course, we didn't really understand until the advent of social media.

    2. TechDrone
      Unhappy

      So by the same reasoning, it would be illegal for me to have different adverts targeting each demographic to get my job vacancy in front of potential future employees in a way that they're most likely to respond to?

      Or the government campaigns to get under-represented groups into jobs (eg men into teaching, women into engineering) would have to waste taxpayers money on targeting the adverts at everyone else too?

      I guess shooting the messenger, especially a rich one, is easier than looking at the complex messy underlying issues.

      1. FrozenShamrock

        Your first example is ludicrous. There are no laws saying individuals must apply to any and all companies; you can discriminate all you like in where you apply for work. There are laws saying employers cannot discriminate in their hiring practices.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    IT Attitude towards women

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

    Especially in the UK. Keep it up Commentards!

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    re. a load of bloke-only ads

    this must have been intentional, you know, Barbara Streisend effect. Clever marketing trick to show that Uber actually prefers female drivers!

    p.s. I guess you could argue there are fewer uber-drivers, because women are too smart to work in such a shitty-money job...

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In the beginning there were programmers

    And they were women.

    And men were operators and system analysts.

    And this was the era when a full-time employed female programmer was expected to resign "for personal reasons" once they got pregnant. And if they returned to work after having a child they were expected to be part-timers. And there was an HR department for female employees and an HR department for male employees.

    And so it seems there was a time when women were programmers and discriminated against in the workplace. And now we've reached the point where women are expected not to be programmers....

    1. jmch Silver badge

      Re: In the beginning there were programmers

      "In the beginning..."

      "there was a time when women were programmers and discriminated against in the workplace. And now we've reached the point where women are expected not to be programmers"

      Spot on. Brings me in mind of some neanderthals who think women's football isn't 'proper' football, but are ignorant of the fact that women's football in the UK used to be as popular as men's and drew crowds over 50k in the 1920s... until the FA (comprising of 100% middle-aged / old white men) banned women's football on any their member's pitches

  6. DuchessofDukeStreet

    Being Blonde

    So if you've got a vacancy for a taxi driver in Seattle, you target your advertising at the following categories:

    current location

    current or former job as "driver"

    interest in "cars"

    socio-economic group

    etc

    you don't target

    gender

    religion

    race

    What's the problem?

    It would be illegal in most countries of the world for me to go to an agency and ask them to recruit me a male developer for a role, why would it be acceptable for me to ask for an advert to be targetted only to men? It *is* the 21st century....

    1. Spazturtle Silver badge

      Re: Being Blonde

      Facebook charge extra if you want your advert shown to women due to higher demand. So it's not that they didn't want women to see it because they didn't want to hire women, but that they simply didn't want to pay Facebook extra.

      The company will argue that it was facebook that broke the law by charging more for female views then for male views.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Being Blonde

      interest in "cars"

      Seriously? Why would a taxi driver be any more likely to be interested in cars than anyone else? Heck, if I drove 40 hours a week cars would be the last thing I'd be interested in during my time off. If you work an office job, do you have an interest in cubicles and coffee machines?

      Nevermind that you are greatly limiting yourself if you target only those who are currently or formerly listed as a "driver". It isn't like being a taxi driver takes a lot of skill, so there is a huge pool of potential drivers out there who would need very minimal training and passing a test to get the proper type of driver's license.

  7. NiceCuppaTea

    Does it really make any difference whatsoever?

    If the hiring company wants to be any number of *ists then they will. Policing the advertising of roles makes no difference whatsoever.

    For example Nasty Co ltd only wants to employ a 20 year old, white, heterosexual male but they know they will get in trouble for saying so.

    Generic non discriminatory advert is posted.

    When it comes to CV sorting any female or foreign sounding names get binned (who's gonna know?).

    At the interview stage anyone who does not match their bigoted criteria are also then told to sod off (in a nice, PC, gender neutral way).

    Guess what? End result is that the 20 year old white heterosexual male gets the job!

    The only thing that's changed is the company has not publicly show their bigoted ways and cannot be avoided by the consumer based on this.

    The current PC brigade and offended generation are making a misguided attempt at eliminating prejudice and only force such nastiness to below the surface where nobody else can make judgement and choose not/to deal with Nasty Co Ltd as they do/don't agree with their moral ideals. Not only that but Mr 20 year old, white, heterosexual male actually likes working with a diverse set of colleagues but doesn't know that the company he is interviewing for only employs his specific "type" of person so gets to be super disappointed when he turns up to an office full of his clones.

    SJW's, PC Brigade and the butt-hurt generation are making things worse, for everyone, lets ban them!

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. jmch Silver badge

      Re: Does it really make any difference whatsoever?

      I understand your reasoning, but it's not really being forced underground, for large companies at least.

      "doesn't know that the company he is interviewing for only employs his specific "type" of person so gets to be super disappointed when he turns up to an office full of his clones."

      Most big companies now publicise the diversity of their workforce and even make it a "Unique selling point". Of course you are right that any company / department manager can choose to hire only white men, consciously making discriminatory choices. However it would soon be evident that the company workforce vs other companies or the department staff vs other departments in the same or similair companies have a very different composition.

      As another commenter said, it should be about equality of *opportunity* not equality of *outcome*.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Discrimination is required.

    Wish I could comment freely as I have workplace experience on the topic but this site censors. At least I'd get censored which seems strange when I look at comments they don't censor. I guess that's to be expected when censorship is done for varying reasons depending on the day and censor. Maybe I'll try anon this time.

    We, society and business, can have non-discriminatory hiring and promotions, firings and layoffs. We can do it, some have done it but that is never suggested by those claiming to be concerned about discrimination.

    Some countries have made non-discriminatory practices illegal, notably Canada. Maybe that isn't surprising when the Canadian Constitution demands and gives racial, religious, ethnic and linguistic special status to the select few. Who you are in Canada decides your rights and responsibilities (or lack off), your access to government resources and your representation in the political systems.

    Discrimination is foundational to being Canadian, it is a requirement.

    When it comes to the ACLU we should remember that the ACLU actively encourages discrimination when it comes to hiring, school placement, and all aspects of society to promote "diversity". The only problem they have with discrimination is when it occurs without benefit to those they feel are worthy.

    If Facebook and Uber had targeted almost any other group there would be no complaint from the ACLU in this case.

    If this post hasn't been censored I encourage the reader to search ACLU and Affirmative Action. Read their history on that topic and you will see that discrimination has become a foundational belief of the ACLU.

    They only have a problem when it is the "wrong" group benefiting from discrimination.

    1. jmch Silver badge

      Re: Discrimination is required.

      "Discrimination is foundational to being Canadian, it is a requirement.

      When it comes to the ACLU we should remember that the ACLU actively encourages discrimination when it comes to hiring, school placement, and all aspects of society to promote "diversity". The only problem they have with discrimination is when it occurs without benefit to those they feel are worthy."

      here's the problem with your argument - non-discrimination in any direction should give an ideal outcome if starting from a level playing field. But the playing field is already tilted towards a certain group of people based on history. For the US and Canada, that's mostly the white males whose ancestors' patriarchical society killed most of the original inhabitants of the land and enslaved a whole bunch of other people from somewhere else to work that land. After a few hundred years of that going on, they say OK, no more discrimination, lets keep the playing field level. Except that the playing field is FAR from level, and screams of protest erupt if any attempts are made to actually really level it.

      For what it's worth, I don't agree with Affirmative Action as a group strategy or with the idea that straight white males shouldn't have say in any social issue, a is advocated by the ultra-left. Each individual should be treated primarily on their merits as an individual, not based on their group identity. But for that to happen they have to be SEEN as an individual. That's why I'm in favour of schemes such as the Rooney rule where there is no obligation to hire minorities, but there's an obligation to consider them.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re Re: Discrimination is required.

        I wish an full exchange of ideas was possible but that will result in censoring here. I'll risk one response to an oft felt if, not so reasonably said response (thumbs up for that!).

        ""Discrimination is foundational to being Canadian, it is a requirement." I would add to that the Constitution is effectively chiseled in stone in Canada and cannot adapt to the changing needs of the Confederation. Racial discrimination, and the others, will forever be required regardless of the horrific outcomes, which in the case of Canada is ongoing. That is also by design, to change we would need to change the union itself.

        ".....non-discrimination in any direction should give an ideal outcome if starting from a level playing field. But the playing field is already tilted towards a certain group of people based on history. For the US and Canada, that's mostly the white males whose ancestors' patriarchical society killed most of the original inhabitants of the land and enslaved a whole bunch of other people from somewhere else to work that land....."

        All successful societies, particularly those in Canada when Europeans started arriving after 1000AD have been patriarchal. By successful I mean "able to endure longer than others" because that is the only measure that matters before the modern age.

        That history is something to keep in mind when looking at those killing most of the original inhabitants of Canada. The proper legal term in Canada are Aboriginals which include, Indian, Inuit and Metis. Those are the terms in our foundational documents so I tend to use those when suggesting we change our laws.

        If ancestors committing mass genocide precludes a person from having equal rights we need to revisit the special status of Indians and Inuit as both have a foundational history, of mass genocide. Those groups are here today because they purged their land of all others.

        Genocidal conflicts horrified the Europeans that saw it first hand and that it has been well recorded, including the attempts to use those genocidal conflicts to European military advantage.

        Today we have more evidence than the writings of a person from hundreds of years ago.

        Recent DNA studies have shown that the Beothuk were distinct from the Mi'kmaq. It now appears that the original reports of the Beothuk being under threat of genocide from the Mi'kmaq were accurate. Given what we know of the situation with other groups at the time of European arrival that shouldn't be surprising and should bring into question the claims being made by the Mi'kmag that they deserve compensation due to Beothuk genocide.

        DNA has been even more revealing of genocide than recorded history when it comes to the Inuit. In Canada we use the term "Culturally Displaced" when referring to the genocide of the Thule or the "Proto-Inuit" but generally we do not refer to it at all. Our history books will avoid the topic when they can. Many (most?) Canadian school children are told that "Whites" in Canada committed genocide but are not told of other larger and more complete genocides of North America.

        So complete was the Thule genocide that today there are no Thule left in Canada and the DNA studies have shown that there was less intermixing between the groups than between todays Europeans and the Neanderthals. Some Canadian classrooms have been told that, Neanderthal displacement, was genocide but not the Thule displacement. Smart Canadian students know not to ask why but the treatment of those students that do ask shows all others how to be a good Canadian.

        The Inuit did not just purge Canada of Thule but also Greenlanders and Icelanders who prior to the arrival of the Inuit had been trading in Canada for hundreds of years. There is a case to be made that the genocide of the Greenlanders by the Thule was the result of the genocidal conflict with the Inuit. That Canadian conflict drove the Thule deeper into Greenland and south where the indigenous white Greenlanders had been living for hundreds of years.

        Of course indigenous by definition only applies to those from Asia. Even if a land is devoid of humans Europeans cannot be considered indigenous, so I used that term incorrectly. (sarcasim, yes, but not as much as it should be IMO)

        Hopefully the above very different, politically incorrect, views on our Canadian history will give lots of search terms for an individual to find comfort in what they have already been told or begin to question what they thought was decided history.

        Either way I hope it brings into question the idea that rights and responsibilities should be given based on being assigned to certain groups.

        And bring into question the idea that the different rights and responsibilities of those in the groups should be based on the genocidal actions of that group in the past.

        As for level playing fields we are very far from level, that is most easily seen in access to education and job placement which for some groups is fully supported and not at all for those in other groups. More racism is not the solution to racism.

        Tagline (because this is a site with those that have used them): "Judging people by their gender, race and social satus is wrong, I wish those privileged white men would get that."

  9. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    Excuse me ...

    I apologise for interrupting this very stimulating "you're sexist" "no I'm not" comment tennis but perhaps a basic question can be answered by somebody for a non- F/B specialist like me?

    Does Facebook sell specific categories of advertising including 'jobs' (or similar) or are all adverts accepted as non-specific in subject?

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Speeding is good

    Way too many commentators here would, on being stopped by a policeman for speeding argue -'But it's more efficient for me to drive faster because time is money'.

    Because too many people in the world have made decisions in the past that have been biased, we have LAWS that say you can't be biased. Those laws impose some extra cost on society, business and individuals. Just like the 'don't murder people' law inhibits my ability to stab someone and steal their wallet.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Want to learn about API's? Sorry guys, it's women only. Different rules for different folks.

    http://sagepay-api-workshop.s3-website-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/

  12. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge

    As an old guy ...

    "female and older men" excluded from these ads. I guess you young guys will all have to work together while I get a job alongside all the women.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So would you hire...

    Lottie Dexter?

    Adria Richards?

    And what about Hitler? My point exactly.

  14. bvsimmons

    Use your brains

    1.) You're a supposedly "for profit" company and you want to run ads

    2.) Independent studies show that male drivers are better able to make money (i.e. be satisfied with your product / service)

    3.) You don't want to upset your accounting and/or marketing department by wasting money on ads

    4.) So do you:

    a.) target your ads by gender (and likely some other criteria)

    b.) not target and waste at least 50% of your campaign dollars

    Before the hyper-sensitive, looking for any reason to find offense, crowd gained traction, no one would have been particularly surprised by option a. In fact, your competency would be seriously questioned if you chose option b.

    This is no different than a retail company targeting women because spending patterns indicate women spend more money, return more often, and/or are more satisfied customers. That company is likewise "discriminating" against men because they are in the dark about the company's clothing. Oh wait, discrimination against men is okay. I suppose that you also think Uber is depriving women of real "jobs."

    If many of the comments here were posted to a general news site, it'd be understandable. A good percentage of you, however, have the technical understanding to know better. And how many of you claiming to be deeply incensed by the very notion are actually women? Get a life.

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Use your brains

      I wish you'd use your brains.

      You're missing the point of equal opportunities: there shouldn't be unfair barriers to people applying for a job. When there's a chance a woman would be just as good as a man – and vice versa – then discriminating at an early stage on gender is unfair.

      Literally on another story about women in tech people were griping that women aren't being excluded from anything. Well, see above. It's *equal* *opportunities* to apply and be considered.

      Next, you cannot compare job application barriers to retail targeting. It's apples and pears.

      C.

      1. bvsimmons

        Re: Use your brains

        diodesign: Nothing is black and white anymore. The female consumer targeted by said retailer might be a blogger whose income depends on keeping up-to-date with the latest trends. Said retailer is thereby depriving men of the “opportunity” to become fashion bloggers if the retailer excludes men in said advertising. Oh wait, more women than men ARE fashion bloggers… must be because of a FB ad. You see… you can make ANY circumstance fit a discrimination argument if you think about it hard enough (good news for lawyers). Meanwhile, FB has ads to sell and personal data to mine. Clearly the most pressing concern is that not enough women are seeing Uber ads on FB and missing out on such a wonderful career opportunity.

        1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

          Re: bvsimmons

          "The female consumer targeted by said retailer might be a blogger"

          I swear to God this stuff - equality, equal opportunities and codes of conduct - are major overthought by critics when it's really not rocket science.

          It is pretty simple. If you advertise for a role and you immediately disregard a whole gender or generation, then that's not equal opportunities - not to be confused with equal abilities.

          And job opportunities and blogging... ah, you're just overcomplicating a situation to bend it into a narrative.

          C.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Use your brains

      Use your brain to read the LAW. You may not agree with the law, but that doesn't make it any less of a fact. So explicitly discriminating on sex is against the law. So tough!

    3. FrozenShamrock

      Re: Use your brains

      Get a clue. Job discrimination is ILLEGAL! That is not an opinion, that is a fact. If you break a law you pay the price.

  15. bleedinglibertarian

    i like the idea of excluding people by what college they attended

    a good way to keep people with degrees from liberal universities from applying.

  16. Someone Else Silver badge

    Uh-huh...sure

    "There is no place for way you should be able to find out about discrimination on Facebook; it’s strictly prohibited in our policies," said Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne. "We look forward to defending figuring out how to better cover up our practices once we have an opportunity to review the complaint.”

    There, FTFY

  17. intrigid

    Racism!

    How is this any different than Rolex deciding not to put up a billboard advertisement in an inner-city getto?

    1. Geekpride
      FAIL

      Re: Racism!

      This has been addressed numerous times already, but as you are apparently too lazy / stupid to read, I'll spell it out again.

      A billboard is potentially visible to anyone.

      These job adverts were specifically restricted to be visible to men only.

      Denying an entire gender the possibility of seeing a job advert is obviously discriminatory.

    2. FrozenShamrock

      Re: Racism!

      Your reasoning is as bad as your spelling.

  18. Hremm

    Brilliant!

    <b>on behalf of three women and the Communications Workers of America, alleging gender discrimination.<\b>

    <b>“Sex-segregated job listings are roaring back to life,” Galen Sherwin, a senior staff attorney at the Women’s Rights Project of the ACLU, said in a statement.<\b>

    <b>to ensure that progress toward gender equality is carried forward into the digital age."<\b>

    What does the ACLU's staff attorney of the Men's Right Project say?

    Just out of interest?

    <b>but it quickly becomes problematic, say, if the workforce is made up of mostly white people.<\b>

    Because white people are "problematic"

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Brilliant!

      "the Men's Rights Project"

      Oh, you mean, the United States legislative process?

      C.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      IT Angle

      Re: Brilliant!

      Learn html. Then comment.

      1. Hremm

        Re: Brilliant!

        Have a argument and come back.

  19. Big Al 23

    The ALCU might be confused

    According to published reports, a small U.S. town has voted to boycott the purchase of any Nike products based on the disrespectful actions of Colin Kaepernick and those "taking a knee" when the national anthem is played at professional sporting events. According to the ACLU they feel boycotting Nike is some violation of law because Kaepernick is a paid pitchman for Nike. Lawyers everywhere disagree with the ACLU who has been wrong on many occasions.

    Just as Kaepernick has the "right" to take a knee, so do consumers including townships have the right to decide what product brands they chose to purchase with personal or tax payer money.

    1. graeme leggett Silver badge

      Re: The ALCU might be confused

      The town of Kenner? the mayor did it off his own bat.

      "His memo, dated September 5 reads that any purchases for use at city recreation facilities made by sports booster clubs for "apparel, shoes, athletic equipment and/or any athletic product" must be approved by the city first"

      Since which the mayor has reversed his stance, and blamed the city attorney for giving him bad advice.

    2. FrozenShamrock

      Re: The ALCU might be confused

      The issue was not that Kaepernick was the spokesman it was that the city presumed to tell other entities what could or could not be worn on public property. Anyone can boycott any company they like; the city can't refuse service to an individual or group for not following the city 's boycott if they would otherwise be entitled to that service.

  20. Thomassmart

    Not defending the companies in any way, but I haven't seen this mentioned in the comments:

    I believe it costs more to advertise to a larger group of people. The assumption might be that "women wouldn't be interested anyway, so why waste advertising budget on showing them the ad.". Again, not defending this view but it could be part of the reason (which is still sexist/discriminatory).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Learn to read?

      Thomas, I think you need to actually read. 4 pages of comment and just about 1 in 3 commentators said 'because money'. To which every time 'because it's the law'.

  21. Claptrap314 Silver badge

    ACLU policies

    Have changed. After Antifa crashed the Charlottesville protests, the ACLU has stated that they will no longer represent neonazis. Compare their statement about representing them in Chicago. Given that Antifa is WAY more violent than the neonazis over the last few years, one could be forgiven for being surprised.

    The ACLU has long leaned left. Until last year, this was not official policy, however.

  22. Claptrap314 Silver badge

    Cost-effectiveness verses abstract ideals.

    Suppose you had a company that was in the construction business. You decide to run a sign campaign advertising for workers. The sign company has various sign locations all over town, and the prices of these signs depends mostly on the total amount of traffic.

    You going to buy signs next to the football stadium or next to Pottery Barn?

    --

    I interview with Amazon. They have a fascinating process regarding customer engagement. They send one, and only one, email out every night. The various groups within Amazon bid to have their material in that email. They are penalized if a purchase does not happen. I have an account, but I have never bought anything with it. Guess what? I don't get those emails any more.

    --

    What is happening here with Facebook is very, very similar. So long as there is a cost for running ads on F, ad sellers are going to be very, very sensitive to ROI on their ads. For whatever reason, there are far, far, fewer women looking for work in tech than men. That means that smaller businesses are not going to pay to put ads for workers in front of women. It costs them too much.

    I don't like this. At all. However, I am aware of the basics of economics. So let's thing about what happens next.

    This is a business opportunity for someone who can identify tech-prepared women and target them for job ads. In particular, if someone is so foolish as to use F for job hunting, the nature of the links that they are following should be a very strong indicator of what sorts of jobs to offer them. Also what kind of websites they spend their time at. (Excluding women for ads on this site would just be stupid.) If F is not presenting this to employers, they are blowing it, big time.

    I have a lot of complaints against big social, but the problems of microtargetting actually do sort themselves out. Every case of business discrimination becomes an opportunity for another business to snatch a valuable worker.

    I just received my first job ad targeting conservatives in tech last week. Especially if the bigs continue in their drive to create workplaces that I view as hostile and toxic, I am certain that I will receive more.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Conservatives in tech?

    I know this was touched on further up the comments - but those adds, presumably harking back to the glory days of 1960s 'send a man to the moon' will presumably target black women? Certainly got to have a better ROI than targeting chip on shoulder white men who can't accept that a law is a law.

  24. MachDiamond Silver badge

    There are times........

    When it's needed to be able to hire a specific sex.

    Washroom attendants aren't as common these days, but there are similar posts such as an attendant in a locker room at a spa/public pool/school where it would be very awkward and creepy to have a male supervisor in a female locker room or a female supervisor in a male locker room. It's worse when it's a school and we're talking about under 18's. This is an easy case.

    A harder case example is when a male owner of a photography company wants to start making school photos, children's sports photos, etc. There is a huge bias against a man working with kids, but a female photographer or assistant has no such automatic bias and can pose the kids, brush their hair or straighten their coat. It's a lucrative business so it's not just weirdo guys that want to get into it. (It's really good money, actually, but a lot of work). If the male company owner advertises for a female assistant, is it discrimination?

    A doctor may want a nurse/assistant that is the opposite sex to assist patients and to be present to avoid lawsuits. This can be especially the case for gynecologists.

    I'm sure that if I thought about it some more I could come up with other situations. One last one that I remember vividly was during the set up of a concert with union labor. The Union always calls up workers based on seniority and doesn't take into account how strenuous the job might be. An old guy couldn't hold his end of a really heavy speaker and dropped it on a coworkers hand. The job needed a bunch of young bucks rather than the wisdom of long experience. I worked on one more job with that Union and ran before I was injured.

    Real discrimination comes when a job can be done (physically, mentally, politically) by any number of people but the opportunity is only offered to a select few based on artificial criteria. I'm past the age and health where I would be worth my salt as a basic roadie on a tour so I shouldn't be considered and part of that would be age related. If there were also the need for an electronics tech or another post where brains were used more than brawn, I should be given a chance at it.

    It's tough to draft a set of laws that can apply to every single situation. Details do matter.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like