Patronizing in personnel selection?
A woman is free to choose her partner. She doesn't have to enter into a relationship with an ugly man out of pity.
It is different with companies.
They have to let the state dictate who they can hire and who they cannot exclude.
(women, disabled people)
What do you think about that?
I never want to get a job just because government laws allow me to do it!
I want the job if the company is confident in my abilities. I want them to become rich and successful because of me. I don't want a job out of pity.
If I were the boss, I would choose my staff based on their abilities.
(No matter if woman, disabled, or foreigner)
It just depends on whether the person knows their craft.
Or is my attitude bad?
(Please write to me honestly; perhaps I haven't recognized certain things correctly yet. I'm happy to be corrected with good arguments.)
(1 votes)
Loading...
That’s bullshit. The state doesn’t tell you who you have to hire. There is no women’s rate for employers. It is true that from a certain size of the enterprise, as far as I know from 20 employees, a certain number of disabled persons must be employed. This has something to do with social justice and inclusion. But if you don’t, you’ll pay a compensation. No one comes to your company and says you have to hire this severely handicapped person now!
So it’s all bullshit with the female quota. Thank you
You have a false worldview.
Women certainly choose their parters not only to look outside, and companies may in principle hire who they want.
Female rate?
I suppose that’s a question?
Is it also in the form Subject – Predicate – Object?
“They must be prescribed by the state to whom they cease…” is of course total nonsense.
More is not to be said here, since everything follows from this premise.
This argument that only the skills should be counted is what I heard earlier and then also saw.
Unfortunately, today I notice that it does not work.
Of course, there are employers who are open and progressive.
Many are not, however, and exclude certain people from the outset.And then these professional groups must be much better than normal.
If one has seen this exclusion in the context of one to another, one sees it differently.
But that doesn’t make any sense. Better hire a good African than a bad German.
I’ve never had to hire someone I didn’t want to hire because of state guard.
Small business? But what about the bigger ones? Women’s rate?
Female rate 100%
I would also make 😊👍 very good
I don’t know where to start to contradict.
Grammar, spelling, social science, sexual education, human rights, basic law…
That’s the point.
You would act like that.
Unfortunately, some others did not, which is why after it did not work by itself for some time, the state intervened.
My boss once told me that when it was about a job placement (incl. promotion), his colleague had advised him not to choose me. Just because I was a young woman. There was only one other candidate, male, who was significantly poorly qualified and had less professional experience. My boss chose me, if I hadn’t had a chance in my colleague’s department. Fun Fact about it: This has been a few years ago, I didn’t get pregnant like “feared”, the colleague, on the other hand, went a year later for 3 months in parental leave and at the next child for 5 months, currently child 3 is on the go, freshly announced…
And something like my boss said is not a single case with us in the company. In the next 10 years, some executives of different levels are retired, then this may change, but as long as some of them have a serious status. And the problem is: many are looking for themselves as successors, yes, people who are similar to themselves.
I also find it sad that there must be such quotas, but rather from duty than no change.