Do companies have a right to discriminate?

[Grammatron]

Before I begin I would like to say I want to have a serious discussion on the rights of companies, flame war starters need not apply.


I was reading listening to a radio -- though you could read about the same topic in this article -- and they were talking about Abercrombie & Fitch and how it is accused of hiring white people to sell the merchandize. This got me thinking; shouldn't the company be allowed to hire all white/black/yellow/pink people if they want to? The logic of economics would dictate that they would lose out on good employees and customers if they adapt the policy which would make them stupid, but do they have a right to be "stupid"? I would argue that yes they do because it's their money. What do you think about it?

 

[ssibal]

Companies should be able to hire or not hire whomever they want as long as they are not funded with tax dollars in any way.

 

[corplinx]

Its a touchy subject, I'll quote Dr. Walter E. Williams:

I value freedom of association. An important part of the right of association is the right not to associate for a good reason, bad reason or no reason at all. That's not to say that I don't find some forms of association offensive. But the true test of one's commitment to freedom of association doesn't come when he allows others to associate in ways he deems desirable. The true test of his commitment comes when he is willing to allow others to associate in ways he deems offensive.

One might be tempted to think that if owners were free to reject customers by race segregation would be widespread. But that's nonsense because there's a difference between what people can do and what they'll find in their interests to do. Think about it. During the United States' Jim Crow era and South Africa's apartheid era, there was an elaborate legal structure mandating and enforcing racial segregation. Whenever you see a law on the books, your best guess is that the law is on the books because not everyone left to their own devices would behave according to the specifications of the law. After all why would there be a need for a law saying bars or theaters cannot admit blacks if no white bar or theater owner would admit blacks in the first place?

He makes some good points. Of course, he is an academic and is subject to ivory tower syndrome just like leftist academics.

the article i quoted from

 

[Khalid01]

I agree with you, Grammatron. (and I usually don't) This is one case when I find the slogan, "the market will take care of it," to bear truth. As long as the customers know that they may be purchasing from a retailer that discriminates in hiring employees, then they can decide whether to perpetuate that; and risk appearing as fascists or some such. It's much analogous to what can be done regarding child labour, one (easy) solution is information and the will of the consumers to stop supporting it. It may not be the only solution, of course, but it would be the easiest and cleanest, in terms of economics and international relations.

Somehow, I even support general permittance of discrimination, even though it can get out of hand, and I myself am not racist; it is indeed the company's money and right. If they're foolish enough to refuse a good employee, and want to risk their reputation, then that's their own responsibility. The hiring of an employee is between the employee and the employer (mostly), and I think the government should refrain from infringing on the rights of stupid companies when it comes down to two individual entities. It's very unfortunate when discrimination happens based on race, sex, or any arbitrary, non-qualifying trait; it's undoubtedly very stupid, but like most other objectively stupid things in society, it should be permissable.

The only two cases that I would significantly encourage anti-discrimination laws are when: the company is in a city, county, or state that is on average highly discriminatory; and/or the company is a government subsidy, in which case, discrimination is profoundly impermissable, and should halt the practice, or lose its government support. The latter instance makes for an interesting debate topic in regards to politicians, given when they might have supported a discriminatory subsidy.

 

[Glory]

Its a touchy subject, I'll quote Dr. Walter E. Williams:



He makes some good points. Of course, he is an academic and is subject to ivory tower syndrome just like leftist academics.

the article i quoted from

The problem was not a law requiring segregation. The problem is a policy that may not be strictly prohibited by law. Segregation was not imposed by the legislature. It was a way of life that the Supreme Court finally put an end to.

Glory

 

[corplinx]

The problem was not a law requiring segregation.

You may want to google for the phrase Jim Crow

As you can see, segregation was legislated.

 

[Earthborn]

The logic of economics would dictate that they would lose out on good employees and customers if they adapt the policy which would make them stupid, but do they have a right to be "stupid"? I would argue that yes they do because it's their money. What do you think about it?

Well, the logic of economics would dictate that if they discriminate against a minority group that is only a few percent of the population, that they will lose only a few percent of good employees, and only a few percent of the customers and only be a few percent stupid. But as a consequence, the entire minority group suffers from the discrimination. If other companies in the area choose to be that few percent stupid as well, then you end up with a minority group that is needlessly unemployed.

Your analysis would work fine when the groups in the population are about equal in size and in bargaining power. But that's hardly ever true, now is it?

 

[Grammatron]

Re: Re: Do companies have a right to discriminate?

Well, the logic of economics would dictate that if they discriminate against a minority group that is only a few percent of the population, that they will lose only a few percent of good employees, and only a few percent of the customers and only be a few percent stupid. But as a consequence, the entire minority group suffers from the discrimination. If other companies in the area choose to be that few percent stupid as well, then you end up with a minority group that is needlessly unemployed.

Your analysis would work fine when the groups in the population are about equal in size and in bargaining power. But that's hardly ever true, now is it?

You would be correct if the employer was a monopoly or accounted for the majority of employment, the example company I provided is neither. There for my point remains a valid one; they would be hurting themselves by limited their options and customer base. Also, I for one would not shop there and so wouldn't many people I know. It's a lose/lose situation in the long run unless they want to remain a tiny business.

 

[Earthborn]

Okay, so how many people will stop shopping there? How many people will start to shop there more often because they support the discriminatory policy? And how would it change if they lower their prices a few percent? And how many companies will start to do the same if they learn that they can get away with it?

Yes, they will probably lose something. But they probably figured that out themselves and think it is worth it.

 

[Glory]

You may want to google for the phrase Jim Crow

As you can see, segregation was legislated.

I never said it wasn't. Once the Jim Crowe laws were repealed, though, discrimination didn't go away, did it? People just went on doing things as they always had done. It was no longer illegal to hire a black man. It also wasn't illegal to refuse to hire any black men. Hence, the problem with Dr. Williams' argument.

Glory

 

[Grammatron]

Okay, so how many people will stop shopping there? How many people will start to shop there more often because they support the discriminatory policy? And how would it change if they lower their prices a few percent? And how many companies will start to do the same if they learn that they can get away with it?

Yes, they will probably lose something. But they probably figured that out themselves and think it is worth it.

Not many? No one wants to handicap themselves by limited their labor pool and if they do then let them be stupid.

Tell me, should the government control to make sure that the people you hire to wash your car, clean your house, repair your vehicle are diverse and that you are not discriminating?

 

[Otther]

What about the other companies? They would be able to employ the minority at lower costs. Combining that with how the minority will probably only buy from a non-discriminatory company... the minority's could easily be strong enough to give one company the edge over another.

 

[Darat]

I agree with you, Grammatron. (and I usually don't) This is one case when I find the slogan, "the market will take care of it," to bear truth. As long as the customers know that they may be purchasing from a retailer that discriminates in hiring employees, then they can decide whether to perpetuate that; and risk appearing as fascists or some such. It's much analogous to what can be done regarding child labour, one (easy) solution is information and the will of the consumers to stop supporting it. It may not be the only solution, of course, but it would be the easiest and cleanest, in terms of economics and international relations.

How would a customer know discriminatory practices were in place? Should the business be forced to put a statement at the front of the store, on its letterheads etc. stating its discrimination?

The same with "child labour" - how do you know if the keyboard you are typing on was not made by "child labour" or not and also do you have a problem with child labour?

...snip...

The only two cases that I would significantly encourage anti-discrimination laws are when: the company is in a city, county, or state that is on average highly discriminatory; and/or the company is a government subsidy, in which case, discrimination is profoundly impermissable, and should halt the practice, or lose its government support. The latter instance makes for an interesting debate topic in regards to politicians, given when they might have supported a discriminatory subsidy.

Why is the assumption always that the government be "hamstrung" with regulations that the private sector isn't? No wonder we tend to complain that governments overspend compared to the private sector!

And how would you measure an ‘average level of discrimination' in an area? After all you can't be proposing to force private companies to tell you their business are you? And why under special circumstances if you believe the "market should decide" do you think the 'the market shouldn't decide’?

 

[Grammatron]

What about the other companies? They would be able to employ the minority at lower costs. Combining that with how the minority will probably only buy from a non-discriminatory company... the minority's could easily be strong enough to give one company the edge over another.

Exactly (except for minorities getting paid less bit), so in the long run it will all balance out as companies who discriminate will lose business and might even go out of business. Most places will realize the benefits of not limited their employment pool and thus will strive.

 

[Grammatron]

<snip>

And how would you measure an ‘average level of discrimination' in an area? After all you can't be proposing to force private companies to tell you their business are you? And why under special circumstances if you believe the "market should decide" do you think the 'the market shouldn't decide’?

I can ask you the opposite, what's the correct level of diversity that should exist at the company?

 

[Jon_in_london]

There is obviously a degree of hypocrisy with the way things are at the moment. There are laws making discrimination illegal in the workplace. However, what about those roles where the appearence and gender of the employee are important. For instance, I dont think 55 year old male would get a job as a waiter in a Hooters bar. But is this not discrimination based on age and gender?

 

[Earthborn]

No one wants to handicap themselves by limited their labor pool and if they do then let them be stupid.

No one? Are you absolutely sure of that? I remember several situations in history when horribe discrimination, even genocide started when shopkeepers started excluding certain population groups from their stores, as clients or employees. Are you saying that those didn't happen?

I can ask you the opposite, what's the correct level of diversity that should exist at the company?

I think the level of diversity should be irrelevant (no quotas). What is relevant is how accessible the economy is to people in minority groups. The things are not necessarily the same!

If someone wants to apply for a job, they should not be judged on things that are irrelevant to the job. Not just because the employer wants to.

 

[Earthborn]

Exactly (except for minorities getting paid less bit), so in the long run it will all balance out as companies who discriminate will lose business and might even go out of business.

In the case of a minority group that consists only a few percent or less of the population, how long do you allow 'the long run' to last? Decades? Centuries?

 

[Michael Redman]

Can a company descriminate on the basis of race? No. Should they be allowed to? That's a different question. (Witht the same answer, in my opinion.)

The argument that the market will take care of itself is the same as the libertarian argument that, left to itself, the market would prevent companies from polluting. You may be able to construct a nicely worded argument, but our real world experience proves the theory false in practice.

The theory simply ignores some fundamantal human characteristics which cause us to behave differently than we would in the idealized model. Humans do not always act in what is objectively their best interest, but the free-market-solves-all-social-problems theory relies on them doing so.

Free market: Good for creating wealth. Bad for creating social policy.

 

[Ed]

Can a company descriminate on the basis of race? No. Should they be allowed to? That's a different question. (Witht the same answer, in my opinion.)

The argument that the market will take care of itself is the same as the libertarian argument that, left to itself, the market would prevent companies from polluting. You may be able to construct a nicely worded argument, but our real world experience proves the theory false in practice.

The theory simply ignores some fundamantal human characteristics which cause us to behave differently than we would in the idealized model. Humans do not always act in what is objectively their best interest, but the free-market-solves-all-social-problems theory relies on them doing so.

Free market: Good for creating wealth. Bad for creating social policy.

The assumption being that someone "knows" what is right? And who are these omnisient entities? If you reject the notion that market forces (ie. the population at large) will correct the problem, then you are implying that there is a "right" answer beyond the ken of the hoi poli. And how do you know that it is "right" anyway? It feels good? No one suffers? Is discrimination wrong? Why? Is it ever justifiable? If it is justifiable in some cases then discrimination is not, ipso facto, wrong. So who determins that it is "wrong" in this case?