Should it be legal to discriminate if that's what the client wants

[Argus]

I came across this while reading the BBC site. It's clearly an employment agency for the rich, and it makes few bones about what it's looking for in the way of shapely young women for its high priced jobs. For example, it asks for an attractive woman to be a personal assistant/flight attendant to a wealthy man, and specifies cup size. According to the company the client has a special uniform designed by Dior and wants a 'Jackie O look' for his PA.

Which means they can either advertise for it or remove the discriminatory language and cause hundreds of people to apply, go through the motions, and then be rejected in favor of the one they actually want, with the look they actually want.

As far as I'm concerned people are going to hire whoever they want anyway, and specifying who they want saves others the trouble of applying for a job they're not going to get anyway.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-37573886

[Moonlight Graham]

You're right that it's just going to waste everyone's time and they're just going to hire a hot young babe anyways. It makes no sense because the entertainment industry hires based on looks all the times, like actresses/actors, not to mention strip joints.

Guys just want a little booby to look at. hard to legislate that away.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[BC_chick]

I don't see the issue with this. I think the guy who was requesting a certain cup size might have done himself more of a disservice by not indicating why but that's his problem.

As you may recall, I agreed with HRC that there is a gender-discrmination component for restaurants that hire both men and women yet stipulate sexy attire for the women, but there is no such discrimination in a case like this. Hiring attractive people In itself is not discriminatory.

As for the line about the codes words actually meaning 'young' and discriminatory - bullocks. Lots of jobs ask for mature candidates and nobody yells discrimination then.

Edited October 7, 2016 by BC_chick

[Argus]

I don't see the issue with this. I think the guy who was requesting a certain cup size might have done himself more of a disservice by not indicating why but that's his problem.

I'm guessing he's looking for a "personal assistant" who will provide a lot more personal services than normal given the salary quoted between 110,000-140,000 pounds. (CAN 180k-230k)

[BC_chick]

I'm guessing he's looking for a "personal assistant" who will provide a lot more personal services than normal given the salary quoted between 110,000-140,000 pounds. (CAN 180k-230k)

OMG, so like a rich old man is hoping to hire a sexy PA hoping to have a little side action with her?? The horror!

My virgin eyes will forever be scarred reading this thread but I still think there is still no discrmination. That's a huge stretch.

[?Impact]

On 10/7/2016 at 1:03 PM, Argus said:

I'm guessing he's looking for a "personal assistant" who will provide a lot more personal services than normal given the salary quoted between 110,000-140,000 pounds. (CAN 180k-230k)

As long as the interview makes it clear that more is involved. The ad is "look but don't touch".

[Bryan]

On October 7, 2016 at 11:51 AM, BC_chick said:

Hiring attractive people In itself is not discriminatory.

Of course it's discrimination. But it's a perfect example of why discrimination is not the evil thing people make it out to be. People discriminate all of the time, that's life. You cannot make everyone like you, it's impossible. 

[eyeball]

So what if the client was a Prime Minister looking for...a nanny lets say, would it still be a perfect example of something people do all the time?

I'm merely asking.

 

[Argus]

23 hours ago, ?Impact said:

As long as the interview makes it clear that more is involved. The ad is "look but don't touch".

You can't write such stuff down but I'm sure the person will be sounded out about how amenable she is to 'more personal services' before being hired.

You don't get a quarter million a year for being a personal assistant and sometime stewardess.

[herples]

Here is how Canadian laws define discrimination.

"3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. "

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/fulltext.html

 

I do not see how his ad would be discriminatory since it would not fit any of these categories. 

[Bryan]

1 hour ago, herples said:

Here is how Canadian laws define discrimination.

"3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. "

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/fulltext.html

 

I do not see how his ad would be discriminatory since it would not fit any of these categories. 

That defines PROHIBITED discrimination. Other forms (like the one in the OP) are still discriminatory, they're just allowed.

The funny part is, obviously discriminating in the listed forms is also still allowed all of the time. Often it's even mandated by the government.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, herples said:

Here is how Canadian laws define discrimination.

"3 (1) For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered. "

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/fulltext.html

 

I do not see how his ad would be discriminatory since it would not fit any of these categories. 

It would be discriminatory on the basis of both age and sex. Why does a Personal Assistant have to be female? And why does she have to have a certain breast size?

[herples]

 

2 hours ago, Bryan said:

That defines PROHIBITED discrimination. Other forms (like the one in the OP) are still discriminatory, they're just allowed.

The funny part is, obviously discriminating in the listed forms is also still allowed all of the time. Often it's even mandated by the government.

As in the article argus posted, " As for specifying clothing sizes, an employer has to be able to show that it is essential to the nature or context of the work."

And in the link I posted, "15 (1) It is not a discriminatory practice if (a) any refusal, exclusion, expulsion, suspension, limitation, specification or preference in relation to any employment is established by an employer to be based on a bona fide occupational requirement;"

1 hour ago, Argus said:

It would be discriminatory on the basis of both age and sex. Why does a Personal Assistant have to be female? And why does she have to have a certain breast size?

 

It is questionable but if the company can prove it is real requirement then it wouldn't be discrimination. One look at this site and it's for promotional, fashion and spoiled rich men. 

 

 

[Wilber]

Offensive as it might be, it's better if people know exactly what is expected of them going in. Better to know that your prospective employer is a creep than find out after you have quit another job to go work for them, or waste your time auditioning for a job you have no chance of getting.

[Guest]

They are already legal.

[Benz]

It would become an issue if he hires a woman that fit the requirements and then fires her next year if he thinks she is no more attractive enough for him as he requested. When you fire someone, you can't use discrimination of this kind. Unless he can prove that she is no longer capable to do the job.

Think about a bar tender or a waitress in a bar. The boss can argue that he needs an image that sells more. Whether we like it or not, there is not much we can do. Unless one can prove there is another bad motivation behind it.

Regarding the PA, she can legally ask for compensation if she can prove that the employer is unreasonable.