Was I discriminated against?

[Airhog]

I work at a job where almost all of the hiring they do is from their own work force which is temporary labour. I am one of those temporary laborers. I applied for a job some time ago but supposedly didnt score high enough on the test to warrant an interview. Now someone I work with who has no reason to lie and has been an employee there talked to the supervisor on my behalf sometime before I took the test. The supervisor told the guy I know that he would basically would give any Non-contract employee's preference over any temp employee's. IMHO that statement is discriminatory. Even the details of my test were a bit shaky. The test was weighted towards some questions, and this wasnt known to me before taking the test, only after I got my score and was informed. The bad thing is, if it had'nt been weighted like that, I would have scored high enough. Of course, the person hired is a Non-contract employee. I was the only contract person that applied, and there was only 2 other applicants.

Im really just throwing out my thoughts here, I have no intentions of acting on this in any way, but I thought it would be a good topic for discussion, and I would love to hear your opinions on this.

[digamma]

"Contract workers" are not a protected class under federal anti-discrimination laws.

[clintl]

It's a routine business practice to give internal employees (and by that, I mean company employees, not contract employees) preferred status. Many companies and organizations will frequently open positions up ONLY to internal candidates.

[Airhog]

well I am an employee of the company, I work at the company. And all job postings at our company are open to anyone that works in the plant as long as you meet the qualifications. Very rarely do they have a position open for transfer only, which like you said is for other non-contract employee's only.

[Airhog]

dola here, but Also the job required an AA in electronics to apply. I dont believe the person the selected has an AA in electronics, because he basically just works on the line. But thats really a moot point.

[LoneStarGirl]

discrimination only occurs if you are not a white male under 40. Everything else is pretty much in the protected class.

[mgadfly]

discrimination only occurs if you are not a white male under 40. Everything else is pretty much in the protected class.


Title VII even protects white males under the age of 40 (with the exception of affirmative action programs put in place by an employer to correct past discriminatory practices). Everyone might be in a protected class.

But here, there is no legal basis for a discrimination case as "contract worker" is not protected. Now, is it "discriminatory" in the general meaning of the word? Sure, but I'm discriminatory all the time and with good reason. I discriminate against rotten fruit when purchasing food at the grocery. I discriminate against smelly people when chosing a place to sit on the bus. I discriminate against assholes when chosing my friends. Discrimination itself isn't bad (illegal discrimination is in my opinion).

As for temps vs more permanent workers for the company, I can see a lot of good reasons why I might discriminate in favor of the more permanent employees. So, I'd say it is fine.

[Airhog]

Is there any circumstances which might have made this discrimination? What if I was the more qualified candidate? One final question here, but why do some people have such a dim view of contract labor? Why would you favor a non-contract employee? Many of the contact employee's just wish to be hired on by the company, and many of them have been there for 8+ months or more

[Warhammer]

Is there any circumstances which might have made this discrimination? What if I was the more qualified candidate? One final question here, but why do some people have such a dim view of contract labor? Why would you favor a non-contract employee? Many of the contact employee's just wish to be hired on by the company, and many of them have been there for 8+ months or more

I do not think there is any circumstance that might have made this discrimination. Unfortunately, many times there are internal politics that get in the way of hiring. For example, I want to move employee X into a new position. For legal reasons, I need to post a new job opening, plus I need to make the requirements fit employee X, but not so much that it is obvious that I only have him in mind. So I will fudge the requirements a bit, and go through the hiring process, only to put employee X there like I wanted. It happens all the time in bigger corporations.

The reason I would favor a non-contract employee is a reward for good service. The reason many people leave companies is for a better position, more pay, etc. I do not want all my dollars that I have invested in a person to go to waste by having them leave for a new company. Also, bringing in an outside person into the company increases payroll, which could mean more permanent job cuts later. The larger the permanent work force let go, the worse it looks for a company.

[Franklinnoble]

discrimination only occurs if you are not a white male under 40. Everything else is pretty much in the protected class.


Fact.

[Raven Hawk]

The only way that this could be considered discrimination is if you can prove that their policy of hiring internal employees as opposed to contract employees has and adverse impact.

By this I mean that if 80% of the contract workers are minorities and 80% of the internal work force are not minorities, then you could argue that the policy itself is discriminatory. Even though the policy doesn't single out a protected group, it can still be discriminatory if it has this adverse impact.

However, if you're a white male under 40 without a disability or military service, you're pretty much fucked.

[Klinglerware]

Fact.

Evidence?

[gottimd]

I object.

[Franklinnoble]

I object.

Overruled.

[gottimd]

Permission to treat the witness as hostile.

It looks as those Franky and I have Threadjacked this.

[Franklinnoble]

Permission to treat the witness as hostile.


You need to request a motion or something... dammit, watch more courtroom drama shows, will you?

[gottimd]

You need to request a motion or something... dammit, watch more courtroom drama shows, will you?

I watch Law and Order: Elevator Crimes, and that show that was on USA with Mario Lopez as a bike cop, and CSI: Idaho, and Law and Order: Wookie Love Unit.

[Desnudo]

Overruled.

I don't know what the hell kind of unit you're running here.

[Franklinnoble]

I don't know what the hell kind of unit you're running here.

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Desnudo? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Hornsmaniac, and you curse the elitists. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Hornsmaniac's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

[mgadfly]

However, if you're a white male under 40 without a disability or military service, you're pretty much fucked.

This simply is not the case. Say, for example, that Southwest Airlines wanted to hire all female flight attendants and put them in stretch pants and gogo boots. A white male under the age of 40 would be able to sue under Title VII and win as the plaintiffs did in Wilson v. Southwest Airlines (also assuming they applied and were denied due to their gender-not qualifications- and T7 applied to the employer).

[Airhog]

I do not think there is any circumstance that might have made this discrimination. Unfortunately, many times there are internal politics that get in the way of hiring. For example, I want to move employee X into a new position. For legal reasons, I need to post a new job opening, plus I need to make the requirements fit employee X, but not so much that it is obvious that I only have him in mind. So I will fudge the requirements a bit, and go through the hiring process, only to put employee X there like I wanted. It happens all the time in bigger corporations.

The reason I would favor a non-contract employee is a reward for good service. The reason many people leave companies is for a better position, more pay, etc. I do not want all my dollars that I have invested in a person to go to waste by having them leave for a new company. Also, bringing in an outside person into the company increases payroll, which could mean more permanent job cuts later. The larger the permanent work force let go, the worse it looks for a company.

This last paragraph doesnt make sense to me. They already pay the wages of the Contract Employee's. The only benefits I do not get is medical coverage and a 401K. Also, if they transfer this person to this position, then they would most likely have to hire someone to fill his position. Our company maintains a ratio of core to contract employees. And lastly, the Person that was hired wasnt a skilled person, he was a non-skilled person. Most of those people are lifers at my company, because there is no way they could get a job doing anything else for what they make now, so I dont really see your point in rewarding them even though it does make sense in some cases where you have someone with a degree that is not doing a job that requires it.

I do get what you saying as a whole message though. This company is pretty good about contract employees that have paid their dues so to speak, and I have seen several contract employees being hired. Politics does play a big role though. Usually departments want to hire the temps that work in their area first, but that doesnt bother me since I work in the best area in the plant.

[finkenst]

Airhog, the last paragraph by Warhammer makes perfect sense to me. I speak as a former contract employee who converted to fulltime employee at the same company.

It is *much* easier to shed "contract workers" than it is to lay-off FTEs in times of economic uncertainty.

Think of it as Employees-on-demand (as opposed to ebusiness-on-demand).

My employer did pay for training in my field...

The only way your circumstance would remotely be discriminatory is if they hired another "outsider" rather than you.

[Airhog]

I guess it does make sense, and I do appreciate the remarks. I personally believe his remarks were discriminatory, but I dont believe the company discriminated against me.

Like I told one the Co-worker who told me this. Maybe I dont want a supervisor that acts like this.

In any case, I love the department I work for, and my supervisor is very nice. He has made it clear, that when the next round of hiring for our department happens, I have a very good shot at being hired.

I consider myself lucky in not worrying to much about being shed. It is difficult for the company to find decent Electronic Techinicians. My plant has only had to shed its contract workers once, and none of the Technicians were let go, just the non-skilled assemblers.

[kingnebwsu]

You see, the "5" button doesn't light up. I think I'm gonna be sick ;)