By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Would you hire a transgender if you were the boss of a store?

ReimTime on 21 July 2015
pokoko said:
ReimTime said:


Ironically I would say refusing to hire a transgender based on those points is kind of lumping you into the same group in a way. Choosing to not give them a chance shows that you don't...... believe in them? Maybe it shows the community member that you share their views? It's very arguable either way but to refuse hire of somebody based upon gender just seems like a kick in the teeth every time.It definitely does not put you on the same level of the discriminators but I would argue that it is still mild discrimination.

It's absolutely discrimation and it's certainly not something I'd be happy about.

However, let's say you've got $25,000 invested in a business.  You're not even seeing returns yet, as everything is rolling back into inventory or going toward your loan.  That business, for the foreseeable future, is your life.  Now, what if that business was in a location where you know for a fact that you'd have trouble if you hired a transgendered person.  You know people would protest, you know they'd stop doing business at your store, you know they'd come in and make rude comments and harrass your employees.

What would hiring that person accomplish?  You'd make a point, sure, but would it be worth it?  It would make you feel good and it might make them feel good but how would you feel if you lost your store?  How would you feel if sales dropped and you had to let employees go?  Would that point be worth it if someone started breaking your windows every weekend and your best employees left because they were scared?

Owning a business is a bloody tough responsibility even in the best of situations.

To be perfectly honest if I ran a store in such a neighborhood I would try my best to leave. Not being able to do that, I would regretfully refuse (with high explanation) said persons from employment and save up so I could move away.

*edit* In a perfect world



#1 Amb-ass-ador

Around the Network
fireburn95 on 21 July 2015
ReimTime said:
fireburn95 said:
ReimTime said:


Ironically I would say refusing to hire a transgender based on those points is kind of lumping you into the same group in a way. Choosing to not give them a chance shows that you don't...... believe in them? Maybe it shows the community member that you share their views? It's very arguable either way but to refuse hire of somebody based upon gender just seems like a kick in the teeth every time.It definitely does not put you on the same level of the discriminators but I would argue that it is still mild discrimination.


But managers can still have a personal preference on who they hire (at least in the UK, dunno but doubt it is different in USA)

Someone I used to work for didn't hire overweight people, and while it was a big chain and they adhered to equality laws, he still chose to not consider an overweight person after the interview.

It can't really be discrimination if you think the physical nature of someone (be it transgender or fat) could have the slight possibility of affecting your business/customer service.

Welllllllllllllll yes it's still discrimination (exclusion based on personal preference) because that is the definition:

"Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

In relation to how I said I would hire based solely on capability etc, being a customer when I go into a store/restaraunt etc I judge based on service, not race/gender etc.


Discrimination against nature vs discrimination against factors you can change however. 

You shouldn't discriminate over someone being born brown, but you can essentially do it over someone with fake red hair color because that was a choice which can be changed, and you might have personal preferences in that case.

I get the ethics behind transgender is that is not a choice, but it is a choice to change gender, not sex, so it wouldnt really apply if someone discriminated on the grounds of appearance of the individual.



Skullwaker on 21 July 2015
fireburn95 said:
Admirable, but if you were losing customers because of the physical nature of an employee, you wouldn't get rid of that employee?

If we're talking 'obvious Transgenders' here, then would you at the least request they dress differently for work? (I.e. Less makeup) which isn't a unreasonable request as people do often have to change physical aspects for a career (I.e. Overweight people who find job hunting hard having to lose weight to be more competitive)

No, not really. I don't feel that the problem in that scenario is the employee.

Well, if they're within the bounds of the company's dress code I would just feel wrong for giving them specific requirements. And it's not like wearing too much makeup is a trait exclusive to transgender people, y'know? I can't even think of any trait that's exclusive to transgender people.



Official Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE Thread

                                      

Wagram on 21 July 2015

Sure, why not? If they can do the work as decently as anyone else then I don't see a reason not to.



fireburn95 on 21 July 2015
Goodnightmoon said:
Skullwaker said:
Absolutely. I've experienced enough in my short time on this earth to know that judging someone in that way is simply wrong.

I would treat them as I treat any other worker. So, as long as they are qualified for the position, they have the job. Even if I lose customers as a result, I would refuse to fire them for that. A line has to be drawn when it comes to human decency.

^ This

And if I lose customers because of that, then that´s not the kind of costumer I want.

Also depending on the kind of business, the target audience and the zone of the city it could even be a plus as it could be saw as a modern and shameless business, wich is cool, but even if not, we can´t be denying jobs to functional people just because of that, specially in countries where that is already well accepted, i do understand it would be impossible in countries like Russia without someone bleeding though.

I mean, I'm not saying the customers leave because they're transphobic, but some may just avoid returning because they are less comfortable with the social situation of an 'obvious transgender'

For example, I probably wouldn't return to a bakery store where the server was a 'typical-ghetto' just because it is very socially awkward, not that I am discriminating against ghettos or him



Around the Network
Aerys on 21 July 2015

No, consumers comfort comes first so i only hire babes



Predictions for end of 2014 HW sales:

 PS4: 17m   XB1: 10m    WiiU: 10m   Vita: 10m

 

ReimTime on 21 July 2015
fireburn95 said:
ReimTime said:

Welllllllllllllll yes it's still discrimination (exclusion based on personal preference) because that is the definition:

"Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

In relation to how I said I would hire based solely on capability etc, being a customer when I go into a store/restaraunt etc I judge based on service, not race/gender etc.


Discrimination against nature vs discrimination against factors you can change however. 

You shouldn't discriminate over someone being born brown, but you can essentially do it over someone with fake red hair color because that was a choice which can be changed, and you might have personal preferences in that case.

I get the ethics behind transgender is that is not a choice, but it is a choice to change gender, not sex, so it wouldnt really apply if someone discriminated on the grounds of appearance of the individual.


To follow dress code, yes. I do think that if somebody with red hair, excessive visible body piercings/tattoos etc. should be able to be declined if it clashes with the dress code. But the whole "they choose to identify as this gender" is an ethical debate that I do not wish to get into; sorry.



#1 Amb-ass-ador

RadiantDanceMachine on 21 July 2015
fireburn95 said:

Let's say it was your standard brick n mortar retail store. This employee would have to face customers.
Let's say the applicant is good, well qualified and apparently reliable.

Me? I probably wouldn't, at least not in a job where you face customers daily. We've all been in that situation where we are with someone random, and the only thought in our head is "is that a boy or girl? :o"
That's not really the reaction you want consumers to have. When you see a transgender, you often think immediately "this is a trans-person" even if you completely are accepting of their lifestyle. It's just that thought though and you feel like they would be more of a liability, even if they are completely hard working.

Your answer? be brutally honest and I do not mind if you tell me I am wrong.

The way you think sets you up for a discrimination lawsuit. If they are a qualified and excellent candidate and you deny them due to trans and not because there are equally or better candidates then you can be sued.



-CraZed- on 21 July 2015

For me it would depend on the type of business. If I owned a small retail shop and they were reliable, hardworking and good with customers sure, but they probably wouldn't be high on my list of candidates. If I owned a Hooters, or a bikini coffee stand (they're quite popular here in the NW) probably not. If they started to drive away customers I'd have to seriously consider letting them go. which would go for any employee regardless of their gender, race or sexual orientation.



OttoniBastos on 21 July 2015

.

Last edited by OttoniBastos - on 12 November 2019