Employers' Freedom vs. Non-discriminatory Treatment
Peter: Employers should have the freedom to choose whomever to hire, because it’s their right to do so. Since they have been hired by their respective companies and given the full power to choose, they should be able to decide for the company who to accept as suitable candidates or employees. They have the control here.
Hailey: No, I don’t think so. It is the employers’ responsibility to hire applicants who can benefit their companies most. If they have all the freedom to choose, they may show personal prejudice or discrimination against certain race or gender or even class. If they simply dismiss applicants of certain race, gender, or class without really evaluating these applicants, they may easily overlook applicants who are very, very skillful or talented, and who are very good or suitable for the companies. This will result in higher cost for the companies, which is not what the companies want.
Peter: Why do the employers have to care so much, now that they have been fully authorized to employ whomever they like? They can do whatever they please, as long as they are doing it within their range of authority. If later the bosses of these employers find out that these employers have underperformed, these employers can bear the responsibility for whatever they have done. So, it’s still OK for employers to have the freedom.
Hailey: If so, these employers not only lack responsibility for their job, but they also lack devotion to their companies, generosity for the job applicants, moderation for their selfish actions, and reliability as trusted workers for their companies.
Peter: Well, that doesn't take the employers’ freedom away.
Hailey: Then, perhaps companies should be more cautious while hiring people to employ others to work for the companies, so that the companies can avoid hiring disloyal or untrustworthy people and avoid causing losses for the companies.
Jim: Hailey is right. If the employers hire with bias whomever they like and do as they please, how many people do you think will suffer from their actions which are pleasurable only to themselves, Peter? Don’t forget that job applicants have civil rights to have equal employment opportunities, as the employers have the right to freedom. Besides, why do the employers want to take the risk of being caught for underperformance and losing their jobs, while they can try to treat everyone equally and appraise every job applicant without any discrimination? This way, they not only can be safer with their jobs, they also gain more respect from more people. Isn’t this better than the joy of discrimination?
Peter: The employers might not need so much respect from those strangers--the job applicants. They are unlikely to meet in the future. Some employers even like the challenge of risking their jobs; they may think that the pleasure of taking the challenge is worth the risk of losing their jobs.
Jim: Some employers? That means there are also employers who prefer job safety to the enjoyment of taking the challenge. Anyway, do you really think the employers do not need much respect from the job applicants? Maybe you should look at this from a “larger picture” perspective. One employer not being respected is fine. What happens when there are a thousand? One person being discriminated against is fine. What about a thousand or a million or even more being discriminated against for the same reason? What will happen to the name of employers? More importantly, don’t you think that that will cause a very big social problem? Now it’s no longer a one-employer’s issue; it’s a nation’s issue. People who are being discriminated against might gather together to show their hatred towards employers and possibly others by acting violently. This can disturb the country’s peacefulness and order. Now do you still think the employers do not need so much respect from strangers?
Peter: You could be right. But some discrimination every now and then is hardly avoidable.
Hailey: It should be kept to the minimal.
Jim: Right. And employers’ freedom to hire whomever they like should be moderated.
Hailey: No, I don’t think so. It is the employers’ responsibility to hire applicants who can benefit their companies most. If they have all the freedom to choose, they may show personal prejudice or discrimination against certain race or gender or even class. If they simply dismiss applicants of certain race, gender, or class without really evaluating these applicants, they may easily overlook applicants who are very, very skillful or talented, and who are very good or suitable for the companies. This will result in higher cost for the companies, which is not what the companies want.
Peter: Why do the employers have to care so much, now that they have been fully authorized to employ whomever they like? They can do whatever they please, as long as they are doing it within their range of authority. If later the bosses of these employers find out that these employers have underperformed, these employers can bear the responsibility for whatever they have done. So, it’s still OK for employers to have the freedom.
Hailey: If so, these employers not only lack responsibility for their job, but they also lack devotion to their companies, generosity for the job applicants, moderation for their selfish actions, and reliability as trusted workers for their companies.
Peter: Well, that doesn't take the employers’ freedom away.
Hailey: Then, perhaps companies should be more cautious while hiring people to employ others to work for the companies, so that the companies can avoid hiring disloyal or untrustworthy people and avoid causing losses for the companies.
Jim: Hailey is right. If the employers hire with bias whomever they like and do as they please, how many people do you think will suffer from their actions which are pleasurable only to themselves, Peter? Don’t forget that job applicants have civil rights to have equal employment opportunities, as the employers have the right to freedom. Besides, why do the employers want to take the risk of being caught for underperformance and losing their jobs, while they can try to treat everyone equally and appraise every job applicant without any discrimination? This way, they not only can be safer with their jobs, they also gain more respect from more people. Isn’t this better than the joy of discrimination?
Peter: The employers might not need so much respect from those strangers--the job applicants. They are unlikely to meet in the future. Some employers even like the challenge of risking their jobs; they may think that the pleasure of taking the challenge is worth the risk of losing their jobs.
Jim: Some employers? That means there are also employers who prefer job safety to the enjoyment of taking the challenge. Anyway, do you really think the employers do not need much respect from the job applicants? Maybe you should look at this from a “larger picture” perspective. One employer not being respected is fine. What happens when there are a thousand? One person being discriminated against is fine. What about a thousand or a million or even more being discriminated against for the same reason? What will happen to the name of employers? More importantly, don’t you think that that will cause a very big social problem? Now it’s no longer a one-employer’s issue; it’s a nation’s issue. People who are being discriminated against might gather together to show their hatred towards employers and possibly others by acting violently. This can disturb the country’s peacefulness and order. Now do you still think the employers do not need so much respect from strangers?
Peter: You could be right. But some discrimination every now and then is hardly avoidable.
Hailey: It should be kept to the minimal.
Jim: Right. And employers’ freedom to hire whomever they like should be moderated.
posted by jim at
8:36 AM
|
0 comments
