A lot of laws based on what they have advocated have caused a lot of problems for employers.
Hiring is based on the person/organisation who is intending to hire. If they hire a good worker have the right motivations they get what benefits they deserve. Its just like trade. They are purchasing someone’s labor. So if they got what they want out of it they win, be it money, work, other reasons. If they hire and get it wrong they also lose based on their bias.
I like what milton friedman has said.
If employers are bias and cannot get the productivity out of the worker. They pay for their bias because they paid extra for the worker.
Look at this…. the government have a quota system in which you can hire only x amount of foreigner workers to singaporeans/pr but they disallow you to put that singaporeans or pr only in your advertisement. So many foreigners call in and get rejected. Employers have a large number of phone calls to reject and also some who want to get hired scold employers that they never stated in their advertisements that they are hiring singaporeans or pr. Well they CAN’T, because IT IS NOT ALLOWED. You know one thing? you cannot have your cake and want to eat it too you know.
Read it up all here:
Now I shall go on continue ranting, as I have stated before employers will pay for their bias.
Its the employer’s job to put as descriptively what kind of candidate he or she thinks suits the job most because that is most likely the outcome.
If I am in a chinese medical hall I am simply likely to hire a chinese who can speak chinese to cater to my customers simply because I think it will work the best. If an malay/indian or any other race that comes in and does it better. It’s my loss. But I see everyone hiring chinese. I shall do the same because I don’t like to take chances to be out of norm. If loss is my loss is not yours.
If I am a contractor company hiring laborers, I’ll hire a strong man to toil, work and carry stuff. There is a reason why they separate the man’s sports from the women’s sport.
Similarly if I am a ladies underwear selling shop I would hire a lady to serve the customers. You don’t want your customers getting uncomfortable also you probably reduce your sexual harassment problems.
Elderly employees. This one is also a big issue. It seems like it is harder to fire older employees. So its better not to hire them in the first place. You don’t want to go through all the hassle of hiring them. Finding they are not up to par with the work you require them to do. Then firing them is a pain in the everywhere. Again I like to say a company is there to make money not a charity not a social enterprise they are there to maximize shareholder’s value. They hire whoever gives them less headaches and more productivity.
In the end the employer is only going to choose the one that he/she thinks suit them the best. Regardless of what they cannot state in their advertisement. It only causes them more work to receive calls and screen applicants. When the company and organisation is making money they come in and tax them. When the company loses money it doesn’t come in and help them and they want businesses to run the way they see fit. My risk my choice. Like I said if employers choose to hire an unproductive worker. They don’t make so much or lose money. Their money their risk their choice. Your money your company you get to decide what people you want to hire.