CASE 1
The problem they now have,
after the damage has already been done, is how to get back from what they did,
since the world has realized what they did isn’t okay, and that beautiful is
seen in so many ways, that there are different kinds off beautiful. A big thing is also the size of the person, they could qualify by the hair and facial features, but if they are even a bit bigger than average it's not even possible to recruit them, since they are supposed to be wearing the company's clothes, and the company only makes up to size L, which is a size M in the real world.
The biggest problem with the company's recruitment process was, according to me, that they didn't think a few years into the future, and maybe try to predict that the way they were doing things wouldn't work in the future.
That they only chose sales associates according to their appearance, and that there was only one specific kind of beautiful according to Abercrombie & Fitch. They had to be models. They had to sometimes choose a person that was from a ''minority'' so that the company could avoid getting sued, which is so wrong. They also chose some people that would only work is the back, and not be allowed on the floor, because they didn’t look good enough to be shown in the store, which is just crazy to think that just because you’d have a few zits or something like that you’d not be qualified to work a certain job.
Since they didn't check the personality or any personal information of the applicant in the recruitment process, then they also didn't have any idea if the person was at all suitable for the job, if they had any skills at all for the job, e.g. social skills or were good people. They had no idea if the sales associate them selves would even buy the products, or like them, or the brand.
How can the company expect them to be able to sell the products efficiently to customers that aren't that sure about buying or not? That kind of a thing could make or break your sales for the day. Or if the employee would be good at their job and if they weren't, then they could create complaints to the business and take down the sales for that period and lose customers to a competitor.
I’m not surprised that it’s not going that great for the company, not only because of the way they recruited people, but also the rules they had. How can the company afford to just send someone home because of something so little like their nail polish, or how would they think that it would even be profitable? Who would cover that persons shift, or would they be understaffed until the person comes back, and how would that again be in any way profitable. These kinds of things should have been thought off form the point of view of the business's viability.
I get the feeling like they haven’t even thought from the point of view of the profitability off the business, or if they have, then they have been self-centered, to not think that what they were doing was wrong in any way. But the fact that they were aware of that they had to recruit some minorities to avoid law suites, makes is worse than being just oblivious off what they were doing was wrong.
There is also the fact that there was literally a person strolling the mall, looking for candidates. I don't know if they even made it possible for anyone to apply, or if you had to be chose to apply for the job, and if so, then it's terrible.
I found two other article about discrimination during the recruitment process.
The first one is about the discrimination against a woman with Asperger's syndrome, during the recruitment process. They didn't change the test so that it would fit here, since Asperger's syndrome makes it harder to complete multiple choice questions. They Government Legal Service offered her more time but refused to offer her the possibility to do it in a different format. The Employee Appeals Tribunal (EAT) found that this was indirect discrimination according to the EEOC rules.
The second article was about a Jewish woman that wasn't chosen to get the job, because she couldn't work on a Saturday, because she told the interviewer that she observed the Sabbath, so she wouldn't be able to work on Saturdays. The only thing the company required was that an employee would be able to work five days a week, which she would have. As prof she had the email the company sent her, saying that they still were looking for people that would be able to work on Saturdays. The company wasn't able to provide any evidence of justification to this, since there was no requirement to have to be able to work on Saturdays, and they could also have another employee work that day. What this company did was also indirect discrimination according to the EEOC rules.
Sources:
Cook, A. What it was really like working as an Abercrombie 'Model'. Huffingtonpost, 28.6.2018. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/Alicia-cook/what-it-was-really-like-working-as-an-abercrombie-model_b_7154042.html. Accessed: 19.1.2018.
Darwin Gray, 2018. Discrimination during the recruitment process.
http://darwingray.com/news/discrimination-during-the-recruitment-process . Accessed: 23.1.2018.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B. and Cardy, R.L. 2016. Managing Human Resources. Global Edition 8/E. Pearson.
Willis, K.Kristie Willis: Discrimination in recruitment. HR review, 20.7.2015 http://www.hrreview.co.uk/strategy-news/kristie-willis-discrimination-recruitment/58403 . Accessed: 23.1.2018.
The biggest problem with the company's recruitment process was, according to me, that they didn't think a few years into the future, and maybe try to predict that the way they were doing things wouldn't work in the future.
That they only chose sales associates according to their appearance, and that there was only one specific kind of beautiful according to Abercrombie & Fitch. They had to be models. They had to sometimes choose a person that was from a ''minority'' so that the company could avoid getting sued, which is so wrong. They also chose some people that would only work is the back, and not be allowed on the floor, because they didn’t look good enough to be shown in the store, which is just crazy to think that just because you’d have a few zits or something like that you’d not be qualified to work a certain job.
Since they didn't check the personality or any personal information of the applicant in the recruitment process, then they also didn't have any idea if the person was at all suitable for the job, if they had any skills at all for the job, e.g. social skills or were good people. They had no idea if the sales associate them selves would even buy the products, or like them, or the brand.
How can the company expect them to be able to sell the products efficiently to customers that aren't that sure about buying or not? That kind of a thing could make or break your sales for the day. Or if the employee would be good at their job and if they weren't, then they could create complaints to the business and take down the sales for that period and lose customers to a competitor.
I’m not surprised that it’s not going that great for the company, not only because of the way they recruited people, but also the rules they had. How can the company afford to just send someone home because of something so little like their nail polish, or how would they think that it would even be profitable? Who would cover that persons shift, or would they be understaffed until the person comes back, and how would that again be in any way profitable. These kinds of things should have been thought off form the point of view of the business's viability.
I get the feeling like they haven’t even thought from the point of view of the profitability off the business, or if they have, then they have been self-centered, to not think that what they were doing was wrong in any way. But the fact that they were aware of that they had to recruit some minorities to avoid law suites, makes is worse than being just oblivious off what they were doing was wrong.
There is also the fact that there was literally a person strolling the mall, looking for candidates. I don't know if they even made it possible for anyone to apply, or if you had to be chose to apply for the job, and if so, then it's terrible.
I found two other article about discrimination during the recruitment process.
The first one is about the discrimination against a woman with Asperger's syndrome, during the recruitment process. They didn't change the test so that it would fit here, since Asperger's syndrome makes it harder to complete multiple choice questions. They Government Legal Service offered her more time but refused to offer her the possibility to do it in a different format. The Employee Appeals Tribunal (EAT) found that this was indirect discrimination according to the EEOC rules.
The second article was about a Jewish woman that wasn't chosen to get the job, because she couldn't work on a Saturday, because she told the interviewer that she observed the Sabbath, so she wouldn't be able to work on Saturdays. The only thing the company required was that an employee would be able to work five days a week, which she would have. As prof she had the email the company sent her, saying that they still were looking for people that would be able to work on Saturdays. The company wasn't able to provide any evidence of justification to this, since there was no requirement to have to be able to work on Saturdays, and they could also have another employee work that day. What this company did was also indirect discrimination according to the EEOC rules.
Sources:
Cook, A. What it was really like working as an Abercrombie 'Model'. Huffingtonpost, 28.6.2018. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/Alicia-cook/what-it-was-really-like-working-as-an-abercrombie-model_b_7154042.html. Accessed: 19.1.2018.
Darwin Gray, 2018. Discrimination during the recruitment process.
http://darwingray.com/news/discrimination-during-the-recruitment-process . Accessed: 23.1.2018.
Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Balkin, D.B. and Cardy, R.L. 2016. Managing Human Resources. Global Edition 8/E. Pearson.
Willis, K.Kristie Willis: Discrimination in recruitment. HR review, 20.7.2015 http://www.hrreview.co.uk/strategy-news/kristie-willis-discrimination-recruitment/58403 . Accessed: 23.1.2018.
Kommentit
Lähetä kommentti