Major retailers have found a new way to promote their bottom line, which is by hiring employees based on looks so that customers will raise their bottom line every year. After all a “guy wants to hang out in a store with good looking gals,” right? According to Marshall Cohen, a senior industry analyst, he feels that it is prerequisite for many companies to hire based on image, so they can enhance their brand in a competitive retail environment. When it comes to the issue of of hiring based on looks, it in iniquitous to do so, because hiring based on looks can lead to many lawsuits for competitive retailers that use biased hiring practices. Hiring based on looks can limit applicants who apply for a job, not to mention it can lead to different
…show more content…
For instance, according to an article by the HR Specialist, “ Studies show that people who submit applications and resumes with names common among whites are 50% more likely to land interviews than those with names common among other racial groups” (HR Specialist). This proves that companies want employees that are from a white, caucasian background, they don't want an employee from another racial background. As a result, companies that hire based on recognition can get caught by the EEOC. Due to this, they can be taken to court and either win or lose the case. Also, the same article claims that “...the EEOC resolved 28,321 race discrimination charges, resulting in more than $79 million in payouts to employees” (HR Specialist). In other words, the EEOC is out to get major retailers that do wrong to applicants. If major retailers keep on choosing employees based on looks, race, name, etc. then they can risk getting sued. As a result, companies can be shut down if they are sued for enough money or if they don't win the case. This can affect the economy severely because major companies are being shut down. All in all, companies should not hire based on names, looks, race, etc. because the EEOC can sue …show more content…
In fact, in the NY Times article, “Going for the Look,” A & F’s communication director, Tom lennox, states that “We want to hire brand representatives…. with natural classic American style, look great while exhibiting individuality, project the brand and themselves with energy and enthusiasm....” (NY Times). This highlights the fact that A&F wants to hire brand representatives with “natural American style,” while exhibiting individuality. In other words they want white workers, but how can they exhibit individuality if more than 80% of their workers are the same white, preppy, blonde beauties? This is why they shouldn't participate in biased hirings. It doesn't give anyone a chance to try and apply for job, because they know that they will be rejected if they are not white and preppy. Additionally, the same article states that “.....methods have changes for capturing the consumers’ awareness of the brand...being able to find a brand enhancer...is critical… A guy wants to hang in a store where he can see good looking gals” (NY Times). In other words, Cohen believes that only good looking people can become a brand enhancer. Is that the new method of capturing the consumers’ awareness? This violates the laws. If companies hire only good looking people, that is discriminating against people who might not be good looking. Ultimately, no company should hire based on looks. They
For instance, according to an article by the HR Specialist, “ Studies show that people who submit applications and resumes with names common among whites are 50% more likely to land interviews than those with names common among other racial groups” (HR Specialist). This proves that companies want employees that are from a white, caucasian background, they don't want an employee from another racial background. As a result, companies that hire based on recognition can get caught by the EEOC. Due to this, they can be taken to court and either win or lose the case. Also, the same article claims that “...the EEOC resolved 28,321 race discrimination charges, resulting in more than $79 million in payouts to employees” (HR Specialist). In other words, the EEOC is out to get major retailers that do wrong to applicants. If major retailers keep on choosing employees based on looks, race, name, etc. then they can risk getting sued. As a result, companies can be shut down if they are sued for enough money or if they don't win the case. This can affect the economy severely because major companies are being shut down. All in all, companies should not hire based on names, looks, race, etc. because the EEOC can sue …show more content…
In fact, in the NY Times article, “Going for the Look,” A & F’s communication director, Tom lennox, states that “We want to hire brand representatives…. with natural classic American style, look great while exhibiting individuality, project the brand and themselves with energy and enthusiasm....” (NY Times). This highlights the fact that A&F wants to hire brand representatives with “natural American style,” while exhibiting individuality. In other words they want white workers, but how can they exhibit individuality if more than 80% of their workers are the same white, preppy, blonde beauties? This is why they shouldn't participate in biased hirings. It doesn't give anyone a chance to try and apply for job, because they know that they will be rejected if they are not white and preppy. Additionally, the same article states that “.....methods have changes for capturing the consumers’ awareness of the brand...being able to find a brand enhancer...is critical… A guy wants to hang in a store where he can see good looking gals” (NY Times). In other words, Cohen believes that only good looking people can become a brand enhancer. Is that the new method of capturing the consumers’ awareness? This violates the laws. If companies hire only good looking people, that is discriminating against people who might not be good looking. Ultimately, no company should hire based on looks. They