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.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57821
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmexman
I have seen listings for jobs like Accounting Technician and HR personnel require a driver's license, even though there is nothing in the job description that indicates driving is a required duty of the job, much less an essential function. I don't get it. Why is that? It is discrimination; only jobs where driving is an essential job duty should require the applicant to have a driver's license, and it should say so on the application.
There are legitimate reasons. We require a driver's license, for example, because there may be times when the employee must go to one of our other locations for meetings or other work. We provide a pool car for that. If they used Uber or Lyft it would cost us more to reimburse them than the small cost of gas for the hybrid cars that we already have. It's not discrimination because no license is not a protected class. It's like a requirement for an admin to be able to lift 50 lbs., when it's a rare event, such as bringing in a case of printer paper.
It's not discrimination because no license is not a protected class. It's like a requirement for an admin to be able to lift 50 lbs., when it's a rare event, such as bringing in a case of printer paper.
It can be a protected class if the reason they can't drive is because of a disability and you could reasonably accommodate them for the occasional times like you mentioned. That is different than when someone doesn't have a license by choice or because it's been revoked due to traffic law violations.
There are legitimate reasons. We require a driver's license, for example, because there may be times when the employee must go to one of our other locations for meetings or other work. We provide a pool car for that. If they used Uber or Lyft it would cost us more to reimburse them than the small cost of gas for the hybrid cars that we already have. It's not discrimination because no license is not a protected class. It's like a requirement for an admin to be able to lift 50 lbs., when it's a rare event, such as bringing in a case of printer paper.
I've only had two jobs where I wasn't expected to drive to job sites. No job has ever posted that they require a license. The two jobs were in downtown Boston, and in the event that you couldn't take the T to a site, Uber or taxis were reimbursable expenses on the project.
Requiring a drivers license makes sense in many circumstances and completely needless in others. Outside of travel being an essential function other reasons might be because of location. If the employer is in a metro area with good public transit than should not be a factor.
Or it could be the employer has been burned by hiring to many people w/o reliable transportation. Many of us have seen that before.
On an interesting side note I found researching back in the mid-80's just under 90% of eligible drivers had their licenses by the age of 19, now it's under 60%
I have seen listings for jobs like Accounting Technician and HR personnel require a driver's license, even though there is nothing in the job description that indicates driving is a required duty of the job, much less an essential function. I don't get it. Why is that? It is discrimination; only jobs where driving is an essential job duty should require the applicant to have a driver's license, and it should say so on the application.
Perhaps it's an antiquated way of saying "a valid state issued identification card", and they just haven't updated the terminology.
Or perhaps there could possibly be times that the employee is required to move between offices or go someplace else during the workday.
It can be a protected class if the reason they can't drive is because of a disability and you could reasonably accommodate them for the occasional times like you mentioned. That is different than when someone doesn't have a license by choice or because it's been revoked due to traffic law violations.
Not having a Licese does not make them a protected class, the underlying condition does. SO yes you could be expected to accomodate, but not because they don't have a license but because they have the underlying condition. It may seem like splitting hairs, but that is what the ADA is.
I think there's the usual confusion of multiple situations for one monolithic (and possibly sinister) one.
No, there is no hard reason to demand a driver's license for many jobs.
But it's a quick touchstone, especially outside of dense city areas, of a person's general standing, 'uprightness' and ability to do more than just stumble around. (It means they actually took the trouble to qualify and get the card; it probably means they qualify for auto insurance; it means they don't have DUIs or drug arrests or just got out of prison.) In short, a smaller company tossing in that requirement is putting up a small hurdle to applicants to screen out a whole tier of undesirable applicants - whether it's meaningful or not, or just hiring superstition or another "magic bullet" someone learned in a webinar or from an airplane book.
I am willing to bet no significant number of job ads can be found that require a DL (as a DL, not "photo ID" or whatever), unless it's a genuine job need, from any but relatively small companies. A big employer is resigned to doing all the background checking themselves and not relying on weak inference from the presence of a DL.
And, many jobs, whether it's really a requirement or limitation or not, can be better served by someone who is immediately mobile for a dozen business-related purposes. Uber and public transit are not really substitutes for a car when you're asked to run over to the south store and bring back some records or product or something.
That brings us to the other part of having a driver's license: conscientiousness. Someone who's lost their license due to accidents, DUIs, or unpaid fines (as opposed to conveniently using public transportation or being disabled) isn't apt to be a conscientious employee.
^This!
I wouldn't feel comfortable hiring someone who was irresponsible enough to have driving privileges revoked. This is a true test of character.
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.
