We call this Meritocracy. To those who find issues with the racial and gender setup in companies, Meritocracy must be ejected as a leading principle, and identity based selection has to take priority. Some years ago we called that "racism" and "sexism", or "unfair discrimination", but definitions have been conveniently changed.
While Meritocracy based companies do not have to know an applicant's race and gender, so called "Equal Opportunity" companies must know. So it's near certain they will reject applicants whose race or gender is unknown to them, especially when they have to meet the quota at that point in time.
The things they say publicly are just generic PR statements - actions speak louder than words. These metrics require collecting employee statistics discriminated by gender and race.
Most of the formal bonus definitions are internal documents that are not released publicly. Private e-mail screenshots are sometimes shared anonymously on Blind. Some companies make a small part of their diversity incentives public. Another reason is that without the employee gender and race statistics, the company is vulnerable for discrimination lawsuits.
My anecdotical personal experience was pretty interesting. When I was hired, I declined to state my race or gender in the forms as I'm not comfortable with the idea of racial and gender profiling. Within few days, however, I've received an e-mail telling me that although I can continue working at the company, they cannot pay me until I choose one of the two genders in my profile. In , Facebook began giving its staff recruiters more points for diversity hires, potentially leading to higher bonuses in its point-based incentive system.
Accenture, like Facebook, Google and Apple in the preceding years, released its internal data publicly, a move seen as a progressive step toward transparency. Microsoft expands the bonus program even to the partner companies directly rewarding them based on the diversity statistics:. In June , Microsoft implemented a change in approach to rewardimprovements in the diversity of firm leadership.
Uber is certainly not the first company to formally incorporate diversity goals into executive compensation programs. I know that in the USA they're required to collect this information The hiring manager does not see it.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission conducts audits to determine if employers are meeting their legal obligations to offer equal employment opportunities to four designated groups : women, Indigenous persons, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. The phrasing of these questions across every major employer in Canada being the same isn't an accident. Having your data very specifically in the format which auditors want it will save you a mountain of time should their attention ever come your way.
The Commission is now preparing a new audit methodology. Effective December , we will apply a new auditing concept — a horizontal auditing process. This means that we will audit several organizations at once, looking at a specific issue. For example, we might look at how well Indigenous people are represented within the banking industry or how well persons with disabilities are represented in the transportation industry. If you are a major player in any Canadian industry there is reasonable concern that you will be part of these audits.
Because whether intentionally or not, they have allowed racial characteristics to inform their hiring decisions. We have a word for people like that. But that's not the point I want to stress.
There's also a difference when gathering that data before, or after the hire. If they gather it before they hire you, there is no reason to think that it doesn't play a role in the hiring decision. To put it another way, a company that uses that data before hiring is indistinguishable from a company that doesn't. As others have noted, while there's no rational reason to gather this data in the context of a non-racialised society, it could be a legal requirement.
In fact it is in many places. Still this answers the cause , but not the reason of why they gather that data. The reason is: Unfortunately, those Western societies which have enacted such laws have legally allowed race and other demographic markers to play a part on how we treat people. Again, we have a word for such behaviour. This decision undermines what was achieved by the Civil Liberties of the '60s in the US and elsewhere. Now I have to take a moment to answer some comments I can foresee being written.
The overarching theme in my answer to those hypothetical comments is: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I will elaborate. I don't see how these rash, short-sighted, and short-term solutions will undo a problem of generations.
They are rash because any attempt at discussion will brand you a racist if you're in disagreement. Therefore, no proper dialogue has been established in the common discourse. They are short-sighted because they lack any sort of analysis, and fail to account for the problems they are going to create. They are short-term because One solution that I apply myself is the following: Treat people according to their actions and not according to their demographic.
This is antithetical to law, as it stands. Again, not self-evident: How do you define when to end the regime of different treatment? How long is short-term , and how much "short-term" harm is acceptable, before we can agree the idea has gone too far? Finally and most crucially : Why should anyone, from any demographic, allow themselves to be treated differently to anyone else?
When I listen to those activists who push such ideas, I'm left with the impression that they'll only be happy once the injustice inflicted on the non-dominant demographics is replicated entirely on the dominant demographic - and then some - for good measure. It is easy to see how this will lead to nothing but resentment - some of which will unfortunately be placed on those demographics granted preferential treatment.
It is unknown how much damage this will do, or how it would be quantified, but the potential for severe damage is clearly there. To at least define the maximum of this hypothetical, one outcome might be a regression to a state before the Civil Liberties movement. I consider this unlikely, but not unfathomable. By the way, earlier in the answer I said there's a word for that. Did you find the word yet? It's racism. Treating people differently based on their race.
That's what the word is. Feel free to lie when answering these questions. Why do applications ask Hispanic or Latino? Is it illegal to ask date of birth on job application? How do you respond to how much do you want to get paid? What to say when an employer asks what salary you want? Previous Article Why do employers ask for ethnicity? Next Article Is it illegal to ask race on a job application? Back To Top. Military discharge questions could result in obtaining medical disability information on an applicant, which is protected by the Americans With Disabilities Act ADA.
They can also lead to disparate impact based upon race or violation of state military discharge anti-discrimination laws. To obtain information about an applicant's military service, an employer is permitted to make inquiries on the dates of military service, duties performed, rank during service at the time of discharge, pay during service and at the time of discharge, training received, and work experience.
Previous sick days used in employment: In general, employers should avoid asking any questions about the amount of the sick leave taken in the applicant's past positions.
Race inquiries: An applicant's race, color or national origin should not be asked on an employment application. Some employers may track their applicants' race for affirmative action plans or compliance with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures UGESP , but this should be done apart from an application.
Employers normally use a separate form or a tear-off section removed from the application. This information is not used in the selection process and is voluntary for the applicant. Citizenship: Inquiries about an individual's citizenship or county of birth are prohibited and can be perceived as discrimination on the basis the individual's national origin. Applicants cannot be discriminated against based on their citizenship status, except in rare circumstances when required by federal contract.
An employer can inquire if an applicant is legally eligible to work in the United States and inform the applicant that proof of his or her eligibility to work in the United States must be provided if selected for hire. Maiden name, Miss, Mrs. Social Security number: Although asking applicants for their Social Security numbers is not unlawful, requesting this information from applicants is not recommended due to identity theft and privacy concerns.
Employers do not need this information until it is time to run a background check or complete a W-4; therefore, including it on an application carries unnecessary risk.
In addition, some states require security measures to be in place if applications asking for Social Security numbers are transmitted electronically or mailed without being in a sealed envelope. Salary History: Some states prohibit an employer from requesting salary history information from candidates.
These laws are designed to promote greater pay equality by forcing employers to develop salary offers based on job requirements and market pay levels.
Criminal History: Often referred to as "ban-the-box" laws, many state and local laws require employers to remove criminal-history questions from employment applications to protect applicants and candidates convicted of a crime from automatic disqualification during the selection process.
You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. Please enable scripts and reload this page. Reuse Permissions.
0コメント