[PRCo] Re: Pgh Railways Street Car Operators Wanted Ad

[Schneider Fred]

To follow through with what Phillip has said, screening is OK as long  
as it does not violate federal employment laws.    You cannot legally  
advertise any restrictions that would prevent interviewing or hiring  
of someone based upon sex, race, handicap, and a variety of other  
factors unless you can prove that they are legitimate qualifications  
for that job.   In Nevada, where prostitution is legal, you can  
legally advertise for a female to lay down in bed and screw some one  
with out violating federal sex discrimination laws.   You can  
advertise for a woman for a television or movie or stage part of the  
script calls for a woman.   These are legitimate examples of  
discrimination.    But you cannot discriminate against a man who has  
a heart condition and who wants a job as a statistician because it  
isn't job related.   Sorry that it is going to jack up your health  
insurance costs but those are breaks.

If you have to carry a fare box from one end of a double-end car to  
the other end and it might weigh 100 pounds loaded with coins, that  
could be a legitimate restriction.    But it would be hard to say you  
need to be able to carry 200 lbs. just because you need to carry a  
switch iron, your lunch box, and box of coins and transfers.

You can always increase the qualifications to limit people searching  
for work ... that's fine just as long as the restrictions you place  
in the advertisement are legitimate.

Oral tests probably have a degree of legitimacy, particularly for  
railway operations because the people need to be able to understand  
what a dispatcher is telling them over a telephone or by means of  
radio.    In Brussels, and admittedly we are not there, an oral test  
would be a great idea because they require all transit employees  
facing the public to be able to speak both Flemmish and French (the  
dividing line between both languages is roughly where Brussels is  
situated).    I cannot see the need for a language test for someone,  
as an example, who washes buses or empties fareboxes because you can  
hire a supervisor who is bi-lingual.   The example here is that most  
of companies in Lancaster in the 1970s and 1980s that processed  
chickens hired Spanish-speaking people (in that period they were  
Puerto Ricans so it wasn't question of illegals ... they are us) as  
poultry eviscerators ... they then hired a few people who were bi- 
lingual as line supervisors.   Of course in a suit over affirmative  
action issues, I think the government would also rule that you were  
discriminating if you failed to hire someone to wash the bus just  
because he didn't speak English.   Remember that the Supreme Court  
has always side stepped a ruling that we are not a one-language nation.

I am not sure how the postal service handles this issue but I imagine  
that there could be routes in some cities where it would be very  
advantageous to have letter carriers who speak Spanish (Phoenix,  
Tucson, New York, Dallas, El Paso, Los Angeles, Lancaster, Cleveland,  
Philadelphia, New Orleans) and so forth or Vietnamese or Korean  
(parts of Philadelphia).


On Oct 23, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Phillip Clark Campbell wrote:

> Mr.McGuire;
> I seriously doubt the 'qualifications' for the job were designed
> to purposely exclude women; rather, they were based on the
> needs of the position.  I am surprized that weight and a few
> other parameters are not included.  Indeed, into the 1980s
> Seattle transit required applicants to 'lift' 200-pounds and carry
> it an 'X' distance.  "The times" today suggest this has been
> eliminated but I don't know that;  it would seem that 1980 is a
> very late date to have such a 'reportedly' discriminatory
> qualification.
>
> We tend to categorize items into B&W boxes but the reasons
> behind qualifications can be multi-faceted can't they.  The
> economy today has resulted in ca 10% unemployment; 15% in
> Michigan.  This makes for literally thousands of applicants to
> any one open position.  'A' way to screen is to increase the
> qualifications.  This 'may' result in getting laws reversed that
> 'reportedly' discriminate - age, weight, strength, height, etc.
> Educational requirements may be increased as well as 'experience'
> which revives the age-old argument:  'Where does one get prior
> experience without the experience of the job?'
>
> In 1941 the world was recovering from a severe Depression;
> unemployment in the U.S.A. was over 30% at the peak.  Job
> qualifications was a way to screen applicants 'reportedly' to get
> the best possible employee.  Again, I seriously doubt the intent
> of any of the qualifications was to 'exclude.'
>
> In the archives for the list some have stated that many transit  
> agencies
> use 'testing' for positions today.  Some use a combination of written
> and oral testing;  the latter would seem to be highly subjective  
> rather
> than objective.  This results in a score and a list according to score
> from which applicants are called.  'Discrimination' is claimed against
> testing since 'legal' immigrants have trouble with the language; other
> reasons are given as well.
>
> I can't say how qualifications for a position will increase but if
> the economy doesn't get better fast, if unemployment remains
> high or increases, I feel it is safe to say that qualifications for
> employment shall also increase as one tool of many to screen
> the multitude of applicants.
>
>
>
>  Phil
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Mark McGuire <macmarka at netzero.net>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Thu, October 22, 2009 6:35:57 PM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Pgh Railways Street Car Operators Wanted Ad
>
> Makes perfect sense...in that era. Could you imagine posting
> an ad like that these days?
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------
> From: robert netzlof <wb3iqe at rocketmail.com>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Pgh Railways Street Car Operators Wanted Ad
> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
>
> --- On Thu, 10/22/09, Mark McGuire <macmarka at netzero.net> wrote:
>
>>  Interesting that if indeed a woman,
>> you'd have to be fairly tall by womens' standards. I'm
>> wondering why you had to be 5'8" or taller.
>
> So as to avoid hiring women without coming right out and saying so?
>
> Bob Netzlof a/k/a Sweet Old Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>