Best and worst crimes for employment?

[DGuller]

My point is that you can't really prevent such information from being shared if the applicant wants to - unless you have companies do the illogical thing of throwing out better candidates.

It won't be illogical if there are legal repercussions for doing it.

It would be illogical for companies to not seek the candidate who is best fit for the position.  It would be illogical for candidates to not share information that could bolster their application.

Does this in any way address what I just said?

[garbon]

My point is that you can't really prevent such information from being shared if the applicant wants to - unless you have companies do the illogical thing of throwing out better candidates.

It won't be illogical if there are legal repercussions for doing it.

It would be illogical for companies to not seek the candidate who is best fit for the position.  It would be illogical for candidates to not share information that could bolster their application.

Does this in any way address what I just said?

Should have included the word "still". Even if there were legal repercussions it would be illogical for both parties. Though I guess if your aim is to make sure that companies have less quality workers, that would be one method.

[DGuller]

Should have included the word "still". Even if there were legal repercussions it would be illogical for both parties. Though I guess if your aim is to make sure that companies have less quality workers, that would be one method.

There are more than two parties involved.

[The Brain]

At least we can do IQ tests.

[garbon]

Should have included the word "still". Even if there were legal repercussions it would be illogical for both parties. Though I guess if your aim is to make sure that companies have less quality workers, that would be one method.

There are more than two parties involved.

Yeah, I guess the applicants who would be less of a fit.

[DGuller]

Should have included the word "still". Even if there were legal repercussions it would be illogical for both parties. Though I guess if your aim is to make sure that companies have less quality workers, that would be one method.

There are more than two parties involved.

Yeah, I guess the applicants who would be less of a fit.

Yes, like the applicants who are pregnant.  Or the applicants who have children, and thus might need to, *gasp*, take extra sick days to take care of their children.  Or applicants who have disabilities.  Or applicants who are gay.

[dps]

The HR person who instructed me on how to conduct interviews did recommend changing the subject quickly when a candidate voluntarily disclosed something we are prohibited from asking about.

What we were taught was that while there are things that we can't ask about, we can always listen to what the applicant volunteers.

[crazy canuck]

You don't need any reason other than "I liked the other guy better". Who cares.

Because once an employer has information they shouldnt have regarding a prohibited ground of discrimination then the onus shifts to the employer proving that the prohibited ground played no factor in the decision not to hire.  "I liked the other guy better" no longer cuts it in those circumstances.

[Martinus]

Isn't this loop whole created by the applicants?

It's created by some of the applicants that want to get an unfair advantage.  It's enabled by employers who consciously or subconsciously act on such information.  After a while, it can create a situation where you have to make use of that loophole as an applicant in order to avoid the assumption that you belong to the legally protected undesirable class, which then completely negates the law.

So an employer should ignore evidence in front of them?

You make it sound like it is harder than it is. You simply set out the information that prospective employees must provide and disqualify applications that volunteer extra information.

Many companies now do it when it comes to pictures of applicants, for example.

[Martinus]

It's a stupid law.  Why shouldn't employers be allowed to know some fuckup was dishonorably discharged?

Weren't gay people prior to repeal of DADT dishonorably discharged? Then it could be seen as an indirect way of finding out someone's sexual orientation.

[Martinus]

Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information, especially sensitive information, is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.), sexual orientation, religion, political views, medical record etc.

[DGuller]

Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.).

I guess there is something Poland is better at than US. 

[Martinus]

Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.).

I guess there is something Poland is better at than US. 

It's mainly thanks to the EU, though. I guess if our politicians had free reign, it would be rabid American-style capitalism.

[DGuller]

Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.).

I guess there is something Poland is better at than US. 

It's mainly thanks to the EU, though. I guess if our politicians had free reign, it would be rabid American-style capitalism.

Whew, everything makes sense again.

[garbon]

Yes, like the applicants who are pregnant.  Or the applicants who have children, and thus might need to, *gasp*, take extra sick days to take care of their children.  Or applicants who have disabilities.  Or applicants who are gay.

The employer wasn't seeking said info and the applicant voluntarily supplied it? That's what we're discussing right? It is nice to say that such voluntary admissions have no influence, but that's unrealistic, no?

Besides you and Marti's suggestion seems to be that people volunteered any of that above info should be disqualified. Should someone be disqualified for saying they have kids/are disabled/are gay?