dimpy.handa
Dimpy Handa
After joking around with a friend of mine the other day and arguing her into accepting that I deserve a pay raise for being better looking than my co-workers, I gave some serious thought to the concept.
In certain lines of work, such as my own, where employees work extensively with the customer, the concept of factoring looks into the hiring process is completely logical. Several years ago, the issue came up with Abercrombie and Fitch, where the company was sued for basing employment and position on attractiveness and even race of the applicants.
As I see it though, such things are simply advertising. When was the last time you saw an overweight model for Victoria's Secret? Or a beer bellied male in an underwear advertisement?
If a company can regulate appearance in ways such as uniforms, dress codes, rules about grooming, and the likes than why is hiring the pretty red head over the ugly Betty cause for an uproar? In both cases, the employer is simply aiming for the best possible image for their company to promote success.
If it is a case of selecting based on have's and have not's instead of purely on competence, then who are we to step in and tell them not to? The consumer has the choice and right to take their business elsewhere if they are at ends with the company's views or policy's or incompetence, so why stick bureaucratic noses into the matter? Should the consumer be denied his right to choose which they find more important?
Perhaps it's all a conspiracy to suppress the aesthetically gifted with a mighty push in order to send a small few at the bottom of the pile into the prostitution business, to the benefit of the fat cats. Certainly more plausible that the 9/11 inside job theory.
In certain lines of work, such as my own, where employees work extensively with the customer, the concept of factoring looks into the hiring process is completely logical. Several years ago, the issue came up with Abercrombie and Fitch, where the company was sued for basing employment and position on attractiveness and even race of the applicants.
As I see it though, such things are simply advertising. When was the last time you saw an overweight model for Victoria's Secret? Or a beer bellied male in an underwear advertisement?
If a company can regulate appearance in ways such as uniforms, dress codes, rules about grooming, and the likes than why is hiring the pretty red head over the ugly Betty cause for an uproar? In both cases, the employer is simply aiming for the best possible image for their company to promote success.
If it is a case of selecting based on have's and have not's instead of purely on competence, then who are we to step in and tell them not to? The consumer has the choice and right to take their business elsewhere if they are at ends with the company's views or policy's or incompetence, so why stick bureaucratic noses into the matter? Should the consumer be denied his right to choose which they find more important?
Perhaps it's all a conspiracy to suppress the aesthetically gifted with a mighty push in order to send a small few at the bottom of the pile into the prostitution business, to the benefit of the fat cats. Certainly more plausible that the 9/11 inside job theory.