Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My argument is that if you make it hard to fire someone, then less people will get hired. That is labour restrictions.
These are the categories under labor restrictions
B. Labor market regulations
(i) Hiring regulations and minimum wage
(ii) Hiring and firing regulations
(iii) Centralized collective bargaining
(iv) Hours regulations
(v) Mandated cost of worker dismissal
(vi) Conscription
Seems pretty relevant to me.
Quote:
Employers who hire friends first are going to hire friends first, period.
Certainly not true. Many employers hire friends because that is the safest way to hire people. It is no surprise that in countries where it is hard to fire people, it is also much more common to hire friends.
Quote:
I said it once and I'll say it again: People using the excuse that "minorities will sue" as a reason to not hire minorities have no and never had interest in hiring minorities anyway, regardless of what the law says or does not say. It's an excuse.
Now you are into black and white territory. The option is not only to not hire minorities, but to hire less minorities. I know plenty of employers who are not really racists at all, but is hesitant to hire minorities simply because they are hard to fire.
And they don't even live in a country where minorities have extra security. All employees have equal amount of labour security.
Quote:
Honestly though, discrimination DOES happen. And if nothing else, companies exposed for treating its employees differently based on race, religion, sexuality, etc. SHOULD be exposed in some way, so that customers can take their business elsewhere.
That's something libertarians seem to have skipped over... pure unregulated capitalism requires complete information to consumers. Can't have one without the other.
I don't see any reason why consumers can't be informed about their racists practices. Generally when racist hiring/firing is discovered it leads to a media scandal that severely hurt the business.
Also, while it may look like it. I am not a libertarian. I don't believe in no control, and I do think racist hiring/firing should be punished if discovered.
However in a lot of cases it is not clear if the employer fired him because he is black/gay/hispanic/etc or because he did not produce enough value. By having tough laws you will end up hurting non-racist employers too, who just want to get rid of an useless employee. Hence, by making it tough to fire minorities, then it makes sense for all employers to discriminate against minorities in the hiring process.
What I am saying is not to remove all laws, but that we should not try to use the law to prevent racist employers from firing minorities. That will only lead to them not being hired in the first place, because if they are performing badly, then it will be hard to fire them again.
My argument is that if you make it hard to fire someone, then less people will get hired. That is labour restrictions.
These are the categories under labor restrictions
B. Labor market regulations
(i) Hiring regulations and minimum wage
(ii) Hiring and firing regulations
(iii) Centralized collective bargaining
(iv) Hours regulations
(v) Mandated cost of worker dismissal
(vi) Conscription
Seems pretty relevant to me.
Certainly not true. Many employers hire friends because that is the safest way to hire people. It is no surprise that in countries where it is hard to fire people, it is also much more common to hire friends.
Now you are into black and white territory. The option is not only to not hire minorities, but to hire less minorities. I know plenty of employers who are not really racists at all, but is hesitant to hire minorities simply because they are hard to fire.
And they don't even live in a country where minorities have extra security. All employees have equal amount of labour security.
I don't see any reason why consumers can't be informed about their racists practices. Generally when racist hiring/firing is discovered it leads to a media scandal that severely hurt the business.
Also, while it may look like it. I am not a libertarian. I don't believe in no control, and I do think racist hiring/firing should be punished if discovered.
However in a lot of cases it is not clear if the employer fired him because he is black/gay/hispanic/etc or because he did not produce enough value. By having tough laws you will end up hurting non-racist employers too, who just want to get rid of an useless employee. Hence, by making it tough to fire minorities, then it makes sense for all employers to discriminate against minorities in the hiring process.
What I am saying is not to remove all laws, but that we should not try to use the law to prevent racist employers from firing minorities. That will only lead to them not being hired in the first place, because if they are performing badly, then it will be hard to fire them again.
The law does not make it hard to "fire minorities." That is in the imagination of employers who do not know the law.
However, the law DOES make it hard to fire minorities when you are practicing discrimination against them.
Don't discriminate, and you'll have no problems.
The law protects all people. White straight men have sued and won for employment discrimination. But, it's actually not that easy to sue someone for discrimination unless there's a good case. And if there's a good case, the employer needs to check their employment practices. It's a BAD way to run a business if your employees feel harassed or treated differently for any reason, but especially bad if its for reasons they cannot change.
Your chart is confusing to me. The higher number of restrictions (on the right side) shows a lower number for Unemployment. This is exactly counter to what you are stipulating. Did you label it wrong or just chart it wrong? I agree with your premise, but your chart does not seem to reflect what you are saying. What am I missing?
There are some people in protected classes that are ready to sue on the drop of the hat. I used to work with someone like that in a previous company. While I am not sure he ever did sue anyone, he obviously "saw" discrimination everywhere he went. Fast forward to the current company I am working at, and a job opening comes up in the area of the country this guy lives. For a moment I considered getting in touch with him, because I knew he could do the job. I might even get a referral bonus for bringing in a new employee. $3K is nothing to sneeze at.
I elected to do nothing. Was I discriminating? I think so, but it wasn't because of his "protected status". It was because of the way he (ab)used his "protected status".
What he said is that he thinks gay employees should have the same protections as every other employee with nobody having more protections than others. What happened to the desire to "just be treated like everyone else?"
Your chart is confusing to me. The higher number of restrictions (on the right side) shows a lower number for Unemployment. This is exactly counter to what you are stipulating. Did you label it wrong or just chart it wrong? I agree with your premise, but your chart does not seem to reflect what you are saying. What am I missing?
Actually they rank it the other way as it is a factor for an economic freedom ranking.
0 is the lowest, which means a lot of labour restrictions
10 is the highest, which means no labour restrictions
There are some people in protected classes that are ready to sue on the drop of the hat. I used to work with someone like that in a previous company. While I am not sure he ever did sue anyone, he obviously "saw" discrimination everywhere he went. Fast forward to the current company I am working at, and a job opening comes up in the area of the country this guy lives. For a moment I considered getting in touch with him, because I knew he could do the job. I might even get a referral bonus for bringing in a new employee. $3K is nothing to sneeze at.
I elected to do nothing. Was I discriminating? I think so, but it wasn't because of his "protected status". It was because of the way he (ab)used his "protected status".
Every one of us in America is part of a protected class.
Blacks are not a protected class. Race is.
Women are not a protected class. Sex is.
Jews and Muslims are not a protected class. Religion is.
Gays and bisexuals are not a protected class. Sexuality would be.
Thus, even all the straight, white, Christian males out there are protected under our current regime.
If SWCMs find that they often have no or little reason to sue for discrimination due to their status, that's something they should be thankful for.
The law does not make it hard to "fire minorities." That is in the imagination of employers who do not know the law.
However, the law DOES make it hard to fire minorities when you are practicing discrimination against them.
Don't discriminate, and you'll have no problems.
If the laws do not make it hard to fire minorities, then it won't protect them against racist employers. Because they can just make up an excuse and fire them.
There is no such thing as a perfect law. It is very difficult for a judge who is not familiar with the situation to know if the employer fired the worker because he did not provide enough value or because he is black. Sometimes it is even a mixture of both.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
