Peter: In a nice complement to that story that it’s not discriminatory to reject job applicants because they’re too smart, the EEOC has determined that requiring a high-school diploma can be discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I’m certainly in favor of expanding job opportunities for the disabled, but using the law to effect that expansion cannot work and leads to morally perverse outcomes (and a vast expansion of state control over individuals). Instead, how about we stop artificially loosening the labor market through mass immigration, legal and illegal, permanent and “temporary”? That way, employers will have an economic incentive to recruit and retain workers at the margins of employability — not just the physically and mentally disabled, but also ex-cons, recovering addicts, et al. The best, and least statist, social policy is a tight labor market.
One of my first "real" jobs was for a small, privately owned tech firm. Said owner was an unscrupulous nutcase. He had me complete an IQ test at the job interview (a "real" one...i.e. it had to be sent off to be scored) and one of those True/False personality tests (MMPI IIRC).
Boy, I wish I would have realized it was illegal for him to do that, at the time. Sure, I got the job, but it would have been nice to stick it to him good. (He ended up hurting a lot of people by running that business into the ground with his nutty and semi-medicated incompetence.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour "least statist" policy requires a national ID and work permit for every American, as well as some rigorous extensions of a nationwide security apparatus designed to identify millions of migrants in order to deport them or exclude them from the formal economy until they flee the country.
Seems like open borders - the general lack of a government policy on the subject of migrants - would be less statist than that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks, Mark K, for pointing out the essential: a tight labor market can be a good idea.
1. Open borders as an alternative to national ID? Gosh, I cannot recall the last time I wasn't required to present an ID for routine things such as hotel lodging, getting my senior citizen discount, or even riding long-distance transportation (not just airlines). What's so bad about national ID? Admittedly it would be rather hostile to freedom if one couldn't simply stand there minding his own business without showing ID, but an ID is already necessary for numerous economically pertinent things. Besides, does anyone remember draft cards during the Vietnam War? Young men were often stopped for no reason, if they were strangers in town, and checked for whether or not they had a draft card (easily forged, in those days). I am not suggesting that folks be arrested off the street and jailed if they have no ID handy, for no other reason. I'm saying it's like those young college chicks who "forgot their IDs" when they show up at the pub. No ID, no beer. Period.
2. Nutcase boss? Would have gone out of business much faster, had there been a labor shortage. And, he wouldn't have bothered to do those tests, if the best test-scorers didn't need him.
3. Any business that cannot compete without a labor surplus, probably has a product or service that is not economically necessary, or has incompetent management.
4. I recall reading about an EEOC case that (I believe) was in southern Louisiana somewhere, a couple of decades ago. It seems that some local company advertised for a Stationary Engineer, with additional requirement of high school diploma. I believe that job title refers to physical plant maintenance, a kind of trade like plumber or electrician (not sure). A local black man, who was appropriately trained as a Stationary Engineer (journeyman or whatever) and who had relevant experience, applied for the job. But he had no high school diploma, and was immediately refused at HR. So he contacted EEOC. It turned out that the person hired was actually black 9with the diploma). But EEOC ruled in favor of the complainant, and I agree, even though I am not politically correct. Facts showed that among working journeymen Stationary Engineers in that region, most non-diploma holders were black, but most diploma-holders were white; also, the company could not show why a diploma was necessary. Thus, when the man in question was turned away it was discriminatory (adverse impact) regardless of the final outcome. Now, whatever you think of EEOC or adverse impact, ask yourself: Could any of that have possibly happened if there were a labor shortage (whether due to immigration or not)? No! The company would have been so happy to see the guy who later complained, and wouldn't have put in the diploma requirement if it wasn't really needed. Incidentally, his skill or work values were never in question.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePerhaps they're just getting us ready for the release of Obama's school records, and they're heading us off at the pass with this ruling. When they are released and there is not even a high school diploma, well, they'll not only accuse us of racism for demanding that he have at least a HS diploma, but we are also against people with disabilities since he will now fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse