[quote=“TainanCowboy”]T.S. & Brian -
I worded my post as clearly as I am able to do.
That is my personal belief. An employer has an obligation to their business to hire the person that they believe is best for their business.
To do otherwise is detrimental to their business model.[/quote]
And if their beliefs are founded on ignorance, misunderstandin, or plain stupidity then the person who would, in fact, be the best one to hire shall remain unemployed?
A job is an opportunity. Denying someone the opportunity to earn a living, because you believe that their race or gender makes them unsuitable, is unreasonable discrimination.
An employer has an obligation to their business to hire the person that is best for their business, and not to make that decision on the basis of factors that are irrelevant.
And you, sir, have an obligation to the human race to behave like a decent human being instead of condoning racism.
That said, I do agree that the ad under discussion is probably not wilfully racist, which is why I suggetsed that someone should quietly point out to him how that sort of language is viewed by most of us. A little education might be far more effective than finger-pointing, and even if not it should be tried before we start a witch-hunt.
Loretta, your last seems really strident and over the top, but perhaps that is just me.
I’ll state again: The guy is most likely looking for someone who has a certain set of skills and is unaware of who possesses them.
Who says you’ve been denied anything? Prove it. Did you contact the advertiser about the job? Are you even qualified for the job? Really, the guy made a mistake in the wording of his ad. I see no real proof of denied opportunity. I’d bet anything, in fact, that a foreigner who applied for the job-- and was qualified-- would be hired. Such is the amazement and fascination locals have with regards to foreigners who possess any sort of Chinese skill.
Provide some proof this guy is a racist in reality. He made a slip-up in posting an ad in a language that likely isn’t his first. Love to see how well you’d write in Chinese. Implying or–as is happening here-- asserting that full-blown racism has occured is flat-out slander.
Want to tackle racism? There are lots of opportunities to do that in the real world. But chasing down little wording errors of the sort we see here is nothing less than PC thuggery and an entirely different kind of ignorance.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]T.S. & Brian -
I worded my post as clearly as I am able to do.
That is my personal belief. An employer has an obligation to their business to hire the person that they believe is best for their business.
To do otherwise is detrimental to their business model.[/quote]
Which is why we started passing laws like the Factories Acts, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act, and the Race Relations Act, to name but a few!
Anyway, this started out as a note to the mods to perhaps do something with the post, not as a PC witch hunt. At the same time, though, I have to say I dislike the automatic assumption that ABCs speak read and write better Chinese than me, just as they I’m sure don’t like being complimented on their English by white people when in America.
I seem to have been on particularly bad form this morning, so if I may clarify. Make that “If I may try to clarify…”
By that I meant that I agreed with the people who are saying that the person posting the ad probably didn’t mean to be offensive or exclusive in the way that his ad suggested. He was, as others have said, probably unaware of quite what he had done and I have twice advocated the idea that someone should just talk to him - without needing to accuse him of anything.
However, the wording of the ad is racist. And the thought processes behind the ad may - potentially - be unfairly discriminatory. It is not OK to simply ignore this sort of stuff. Something has to be done, such as a quiet note educating the poster.
To say that someone who appears to be discriminatory is perfectly entitled to exclude people on the basis of their ethnicity is not acceptable. Tainan Cowboy doesn’t appear to be a racist person himself, but he is posting that it is acceptable for anyone who hasn’t thought about what they are saying to publicly operate exclusive hiring practises that people have fought long and hard to end.
I am not personally affected by this ad, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the ad is not acceptable. Anyone saying that it is acceptable to post this racist shit is being unreasonable, and if that makes me respond ‘stridently’ then perhaps that is just evidence that I do actually care about what I see here.
TC, I know nothing about you or your life other than that you are apparently stating that it is acceptable for people who have never even realised that they may be discriminating unfairly to continue to do so.
Can the boss post an ad on Forumosa.com that specifies race, gender, sexual orientation and/or religion or similar? I believe the answer should be a resounding “No.” We are primarily a community of Westerners; if we were not distinct from the Taiwanese in our culture, there would be no need for the fora.
There are plenty of other fora or outlets for the job poster to post ads that specify precisely what sort of person he wants. A kind word to him that using “bilingual” would be better than specifying “ABC/CBC” might suffice in this case, but to me the question here is not what to do about it but whether it is allowable, i.e., whether the job ad requires action at all. I believe firmly that it DOES.
Ironlady wrote [quote]Can the boss post an ad on Forumosa.com that specifies race, gender, sexual orientation and/or religion or similar? I believe the answer should be a resounding “No.”[/quote]
How about age, arse hairiness, beer-swilling ability and weight? Ah, there are so many things to be offended by!
[quote]And I put forth the notion that it is his right to clearly state the employee requirements he wishes to hire for his business.
If one does not meet those stated requirements they have the option of not applying for the position. This will save them from wasting their time and his.[/quote]
Me:
[quote]So you’d support a job ad looking for a non-Jewish person’. Or ‘must be white’?
[/quote]
TC:
[quote]I worded my post as clearly as I am able to do.
That is my personal belief. An employer has an obligation to their business to hire the person that they believe is best for their business.
[/quote]
Well, I didn’t want to be accused of misinterpreting your post, so I asked for clarification.
As far as I can tell there’s only two ways of interpreting it, based on your word ‘requirements’.
That could mean what abilities are actually required for the job. In that case (with a few exceptions such as acting work) a person of any ethncity could have the abilities required. If that is what your post meant, then I think you agree with me. Ethnicity should not be specified in a job advertisement.
2.You mean what the employer personally believes is required. In that case, if the employer believes that only ‘whites’ have the intelligence required for the job he/she has the right to specify ‘whites only’.
From the context of your post - ‘requirements HE WISHES’ I assume that you mean the latter, and thus defend racist hiring practices. Without clarification, this is just an assumption (which is why I asked the question directly), but nonethelss a reasonable assumption to make.
Brian -
This is getting to be a bit much.
If you want to bitch, moan or salve the offended PC sensitivities the compain to the OP. And the OP ain’t me. GOT THAT?
Once again…I do not condone racism in any of its forms. And that includes hiring based on skin colour or ethnic or racial grouping.
What I do support is the rights of an employer to hire a person based on that employers determination as to what is best for the employers needs. (Notice how non-sexist that sentence was?)
If this violates some Taiwanese civil code, they will suffer the penalties.
For several reasons I am a bit touchy regarding this damn “racist” accusation being thrown my way.
If I was the only “racist” you ever met then your Mama would be damn glad you met me. End of story.
[quote]Once again…I do not condone racism in any of its forms. And that includes hiring based on skin colour or ethnic or racial grouping.
[/quote]
But you appear to be condoning the OP, who states clearly that he is basing his hiring on ethnic or racial grouping. (Forget what TS says – he’s merely assuming that the OP “didn’t mean it.” I make no such assumptions but take the post at face value.)
So, do you condone the OP’s post or not? Yes or no will suffice.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]And I put forth the notion that it is his right to clearly state the employee requirements he wishes to hire for his business.
If one does not meet those stated requirements they have the option of not applying for the position. This will save them from wasting their time and his.[/quote]
This is the original statement, which other can agree or disagree with. It actually doesn’t refer to the original post at all, so if Tainan Cowboy is talking about stated requirements other than race, then this post is largely meaningless, as the thread is about job candidate selection based on race. Not worth getting all het up about really.
Do you mean that Tainan Cowboy is just posting an irrelevant remark about how fair it is to list your requirements - which I think is a jolly good idea - and wasn’t actually commenting on the original subject at all?
Well, that’s alright then. I’m all in favour of employers not wasting people’s time, as long as they’re not being racist.
Racism is something that I and most of the moderators feel very strongly about. Gender discrimination is too, but that isn’t quite the hot potato here that race is, it seems.
We will be placing this in a prominent place by our classified ads: “The international community in Taiwan is a diverse one. We do not encourage companies practising race and gender discrimination to advertise their jobs here - in fact, sexist or racist ads may be deleted. Thank you for your attention.”
There are ways around this rule that aren’t too offensive. Just saying that “ABC women are encouraged to apply”, gives the reader a good idea of what’s going on, without being overtly discriminatory.
I sent this e-mail to an advertiser who wondered why the ad he/she posted was discriminatory:
[quote]You specified you were specifically looking for ethnic Chinese candidates born in the U.S. (ABC). While I think I’m aware of the kind of candidate you’re looking for - one fluent in Mandarin and English - please be advised that this kind of language is offensive to many people, just as if someone advertised that they were looking for a white teacher, when what is really desired is a native English speaker. If in fact someone specifically wants a white teacher over an equally qualified teacher of another race, we would ask the advertiser to please advertise elsewhere.
Granted, most of the discrimination in Taiwan is against non-white teachers, but the moderators have come to a concensus that any kind of racial discrimination is unwelcome.
I hope you can understand our position on this. If you have any
additional questions or concerns, please let me know.[/quote]
[quote=“Maoman”]You specified you were specifically looking for ethnic Chinese candidates born in the U.S. (ABC). While I think I’m aware of the kind of candidate you’re looking for - one fluent in Mandarin and English - please be advised that this kind of language is offensive to many people…[/quote] :bravo: :bravo:
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Brian -
This is getting to be a bit much.
If you want to bitch, moan …[/quote]
Did it look like I was bitching or moaning? Read my post again. Was I accusatory, rude or insulting?
[quote]I do not condone racism in any of its forms. And that includes hiring based on skin colour or ethnic or racial grouping.
What I do support is the rights of an employer to hire a person based on that employers determination as to what is best for the employers needs.[/quote]
You have two positions here. Obviously the two could sometimes come into conflict, and a choice would have to be made. Non-racist hiring VS the right of the employer to choose whomever he/she likes. In your first post you only mentioned the second.
[quote]complain to the OP.
And the OP ain’t me. GOT THAT? [/quote]
I am perfectly aware that you were not the OP, but the discussion had already gone from the general to the specific. I was arguing a poiunt with you. Or are we only allowed to address points made by the OP?
I hate to interrupt this wonderful exporting of Western values to our ignorant hosts, but would the PC people please consider the following segment of reality.
As one who occasionally used employment agencies when hiring people in an extremely PC Western nation, I can attest to the fact that these agencies routinely screen people based on all the taboos: race, religion, gender, age, head garb, etc. In fact, such screening practice is one of their main selling points. One offer went something like this:
“So, you can tell me any other requirements–anything. You are obviously an industrial facility, do women do well here? I mean you don’t want to waste time on someone that’s not going to stick around. Don’t worry, we’re not bound by the same rules that an employer is.”
It happens everywhere, and I for one admire the honesty of it here. At least they’re telling you up front not to waste your time! Or would you rather get hired by someone forced to do so, then get fired for some BS reason, then go to court and sue, only realize that the job sucked anyway?
End of reality segment. Now switching back to the fantasy world in which everyone gets along and holds hands and sings songs while floating around a big globe. Please continue marching ahead, blindly convinced that all the -isms are worse than polio.
I know a few lawyers in London who make very comfortable livings taking employers and agencies to court in discrimination cases. I used to dream of being discriminated against, but sadly I was too handsome.
