Religious Discrimination?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Why do you hate me so? I think you want me to pull my hair out!

HAH!

I hope this doesn't happen to you alot, but just in case you should aks everyone to pacifically be sure to use proper grammer.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Take into account that what you have been told is hear say.

What exactly is this business? Small company or large what kind of work (sounds like lower level factory work which sucks anyway).

Its a somewhat nationwide corporation with federal contracts. not a 30 employee small business we are talking about here.

from what i understand a part time job opened in their local office and the hiring manager encouraged a young lady to apply. She was actively seeking a job and was hired by a temp agency who placed her into the position. in such a case it is my understanding that you are an employe of the agency not the actual business

she worked the position for about 30 days - it was really more or less a "gofer" role requiring few real skills

a supervisory position opened up

historically (i am told) this corporation hires supervisors "from within" ie not off the street, not from other "vendors" and not from other agencies. this disqualified the woman from applying for the position because she was a temp and worked for "ABC staffing services" or whatever

the hiring manager opened the position up to "all vendors and temps" the day he posted the job, thus giving her (and really any other person on the planet) the ability to apply and she did.

several well qualified candidates, most of whom had 3 to 5 years seniority applied

all were interviewed and the job posting removed and the person who a month ago never knew the company existed was promoted to supervisor after 30ish days on the job as an entry level temp.

it is at this point where kathy told nancy told karen told becky that the hiring manager and the two people who help him conduct interviews go to the same church as the temp girl turned supervisor.

needless to say feathers are ruffled, and considering its mostly women involved in the situation i have been listening to it since about 6pm

[Simmy]

seeing as employee A is obviously under-qualified for the position that was filled... were the applicants who were qualified for the position discriminated against based upon their religion?

NO, they were discriminated against based on their lack of religion.
Get more done with Mormons...

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Its a somewhat nationwide corporation with federal contracts. not a 30 employee small business we are talking about here.

from what i understand a part time job opened in their local office and the hiring manager encouraged a young lady to apply. She was actively seeking a job and was hired by a temp agency who placed her into the position. in such a case it is my understanding that you are an employe of the agency not the actual business

she worked the position for about 30 days - it was really more or less a "gofer" role requiring few real skills

a supervisory position opened up

historically (i am told) this corporation hires supervisors "from within" ie not off the street, not from other "vendors" and not from other agencies. this disqualified the woman from applying for the position because she was a temp and worked for "ABC staffing services" or whatever

the hiring manager opened the position up to "all vendors and temps" the day he posted the job, thus giving her (and really any other person on the planet) the ability to apply and she did.

several well qualified candidates, most of whom had 3 to 5 years seniority applied

all were interviewed and the job posting removed and the person who a month ago never knew the company existed was promoted to supervisor after 30ish days on the job as an entry level temp.

it is at this point where kathy told nancy told karen told becky that the hiring manager and the two people who help him conduct interviews go to the same church as the temp girl turned supervisor.

needless to say feathers are ruffled, and considering its mostly women involved in the situation i have been listening to it since about 6pm

Now it is more clear it sounds to me like the hiring manager has some (cough cough) interest in the girl he is horny and he gave her the job hoping for something in return.

the part about them going to the same church sounds like a bit of the old "telephone" game.

Of course I notice that many companies say they only promote from within yet they do not always do it even in more legitimate cases.

Of course I was not trying to say that small companies are crappy often they are very good employers.Of my friends and neighbors the ones that work for smaller companies seem happier.

Oh and since SWMBO is talking about it best to say "yes you are correct dear what a scum bag manager".

[AVGWarhawk]

I see it was a particular woman that was with the company 30 days that got the nod. Was the final decision maker a male? What other assets was the candidate bringing to the table. I'm with Stealhead. The fix was in.

[Skybird]

By the way you told the story, the question cannot be answered. Coincidence is not the same like causality. The causality cannot be shown from the info given.

What to do? Run an examination and question the responsible on why he employed A despite his obvious underqualification. Depending on the answers, overturn his decision or not.

[Feuer Frei!]

As if the hirer will inform us of why he made the decision to hire.
No amount of questioning will give us the true answer.

And why should he?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

As if the hirer will inform us of why he made the decision to hire.
No amount of questioning will give us the true answer.

And why should he?

A superior boss or board can demand the hirer to explain and give good reasons on why he hired an underqualified candidate. His decision can be overturned if he has no reasonable explanations. The records on the other candidates still can be compared again.

The hirer can even be removed from his post for nepotism.

[Feuer Frei!]

That may be so however:

Giving feedback on a recruitment is a favour, not an obligation, due to the time it takes to compile the reasons why a employee was hired.
Bosses in a lot of cases are actually under order from lawyers to not get into the reasons why or why not a person was hired. In case a unsuccessful applicant isn't 'happy' with the explanation given and wants to take it further. Discriminatory reason, i'm looking at you.

Also a lot aren't comfortable with sharing the reasons with you because of personal and awkward details.
Or, they did tell you the reason and you still aren't happy with the feedback given.
There are a raft of reasons why a hirer is not obligated to give you feedback on your job application.
Sure, you can appeal and have it reviewed, but let's face it, unless it's a high-roller job application for a international company, with a panel of 8 interviewing you, then you will need to deal with the answer of: "unfortunately at this time your application was unsuccessful".
If you ask for further clarification, even then you are never going to get the real reason why a applicant got the job over you, even though they were less qualified than you.

I'll add also to this, which is not hypothetical: http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/b...y/4081.article

[Skybird]

Well, I stick to that thought experiment as outlined in this thread.

If reality in a country is such as you describe and regulations - like certainly in the EU - would hinder me to fill jobs as I see fit, instead to give quotas to people I see as unqualified or for other reasons would not like to employ, I would not launch a business in such a country. Doing so would mean to make myself vulnerable to a policy and a political style that I do not like and do not wish to support by my investments and personal resources.

I never felt like wanting to be a businessman, I simply do not have the according genes, but if I would do it and found a company or business myself, I would not do it inside Europe or North America. Too over-regulated, too much political madness, to much untrustworthiness in the legal stability of law and order.

Honestly said I would not know where to go. South Africa maybe. Brazil, with great caution. Everything, just not the EU, where bureaucracy and growing redistribution and PC ideology is going to gag and strangle all and everything.

I'm quite happy not to be a businessowner. Not my cup of tea. - He who has nothing to lose cannot be blackmailed, robbed or threatened.