• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

You Must Apply Online: Is This a Violation of Civil Rights?

You Must Apply Online: Is This a Violation of Civil Rights?

  • Total voters
    35
ARealConservative said:
no more then requiring a resume. I mean, what about all the poor souls that don't have access to a computer or typewriter
Click to expand...


Paper and pen works great and can be supplied by the employer just like internet access or simply just accepting a hardcopy ;)
 
Some employers require that you pass a pre-employment physical.
Some employers require that you pass an aptitude test.
Some employers require three professional references.
Some employers require that you be a non-smoker.
Some employers require credit checks that can remove you from consideration.
Most employers require drug screenings.
Most employers require background checks.

Are those things discrminatory? No. Because an employer is allowed to decide (outside of race, religion, and sexual orientation) the type of employee they want working for them. If they want to use electronic application processes and you want to work for them then you have to use their application process. You aren't being mandated to appy for that job.
 
tessaesque said:
Internet access if available for free at public libraries and cyber cafes. E-mail is available on almost all cell phones (even the base models). If they cannot access these facilities I would question their ability to access their place of employment. The government even offers cell phones to low-income/welfare recipient households in many areas.
Click to expand...

Thats simply YOUR story not everyone reality, cyber cafes? lol cause those are everywhere in the country, operate 24/7 and give you free computer access and internet usage on every corner no matter where you live.

Cell phone for the poor and type you resume on it or do a job application on it, right.

No need to question their access to employment based of acces to free internet they arent related at all.

AGain to be clear Im not saying its a large majority of people that couldnt accomplish this but what I am saying is it shouldn't be, my access is not your access and I cant ASSume that everybody can just do this, peoples lives and parts of the country are VERY different from eachother.

Again Im looking for logic why a job would require you to have access to something you don't need to perform the job. And I have already admitted that maybe im overlooking something. All I need is proof/logic that it makes sense for a job to do so and to turn down the 12 hardcopy apps they might get a year since its so easy for everyone to get internet access.
 
tessaesque said:
Some employers require that you pass a pre-employment physical.
Some employers require that you pass an aptitude test.
Some employers require three professional references.
Some employers require that you be a non-smoker.
Some employers require credit checks that can remove you from consideration.
Most employers require drug screenings.
Most employers require background checks.

Are those things discrminatory? No. Because an employer is allowed to decide (outside of race, religion, and sexual orientation) the type of employee they want working for them. If they want to use electronic application processes and you want to work for them then you have to use their application process. You aren't being mandated to appy for that job.
Click to expand...



LMAO those are all need for job PERFORMANCE different indeed.
 
Centrist77 said:
Thats simply YOUR story not everyone reality, cyber cafes? lol cause those are everywhere in the country, operate 24/7 and give you free computer access and internet usage on every corner no matter where you live.

Cell phone for the poor and type you resume on it or do a job application on it, right.

No need to question their access to employment based of acces to free internet they arent related at all.

AGain to be clear Im not saying its a large majority of people that couldnt accomplish this but what I am saying is it shouldn't be, my access is not your access and I cant ASSume that everybody can just do this, peoples lives and parts of the country are VERY different from eachother.

Again Im looking for logic why a job would require you to have access to something you don't need to perform the job. And I have already admitted that maybe im overlooking something. All I need is proof/logic that it makes sense for a job to do so and to turn down the 12 hardcopy apps they might get a year since its so easy for everyone to get internet access.
Click to expand...

If every employer only accepted e-applications you might, possibly, on some far distant planet actually have a point. But that isn't the case. So it isn't discrimination. Apply somewhere else or get resourceful. If you want to work there are many, many areas at which you can gain access to the internet to apply (if you want to work for an employer that requires e-applications). As far as resumes go? Nothing wrong with requiring a typed resume. Employment service centers offer help with these for free.

As I said, if a potential employee cannot access the resources he needs to GET the job, I question is ability to acess the resources he needs to DO the job. Having requirements is not discrimination unless it involves race, sexual preference, or religion.
 
Centrist77 said:
The first part I agree with the numbers probably will be low so there for business should have no problem accepting any hard-copy resume or application since it will be very low. Its hilarious that a paper resume/application is referred to has "nonsense" LMAO

I mean if you truly the numbers will be very low and rare wheres the harm in not accepting those what 12 hard copies a year?

I agree than the majority of people should be able to get access but if they cant they should never be denied, why punish people trying to get a job when we have all the free loaders that we do.

Im just saying Ill never see the logic behind requiring an applicant to do something that is not require for the actual job.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Because getting to a computer is so easy, you're just making up excuses of why someone can't when they can.

There's no excuse for it.
 
tessaesque said:
If every employer only accepted e-applications you might, possibly, on some far distant planet actually have a point. But that isn't the case. So it isn't discrimination. Apply somewhere else or get resourceful. If you want to work there are many, many areas at which you can gain access to the internet to apply (if you want to work for an employer that requires e-applications). As far as resumes go? Nothing wrong with requiring a typed resume. Employment service centers offer help with these for free.

As I said, if a potential employee cannot access the resources he needs to GET the job, I question is ability to access the resources he needs to DO the job. Having requirements is not discrimination unless it involves race, sexual preference, or religion.
Click to expand...

So are you implying that if ONE company doesnt want to hire women thats ok, cause women can just go somewhere else? Or does that logic only work for YOUR example?

Thats YOUR opinion and for some people it is NOT true its that simple.
Again Im not saying companies cant use e-apps or want them, but if a person give them a hard copy cause that all they have access to I dont think they should have the right to simply reject it on that alone especially if internet access isnt needed for the job performance.

My company does E-Apps, we accept hard copies and we have a room here that you can do you resume/app in if you like. We wanted to stream line the process so we did so, we didn't place the burden on the applicant because that's not fair and it discriminates. And even though we have a room to do so in we only operate so many hours and HR is only here so many hours so we do still accept hard copies. Which aren't many. I hate working for a company with so much common sense.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's really just a rare instance, not enough to require all businesses to have paper applications or some other nonsense.
Click to expand...

Paper application would be discrimination against people who can't write.
 
Kali said:
Do you feel that places who only take job applications Online is a Violation of Civil Rights?

I feel this is a violation of equal employment opportunity due to the fact that not everyone has a computer at home to be able to apply.
Click to expand...

Kali said:
Most libraries limit the time you can spend on their computers and most of these online application process take longer than 30 mins and sometimes can be up to an hour or more.

I feel all of these places should have a computer set up for you to fill out one on site. Some places do like Wal-Mart and K-Mart.
Click to expand...

My local libraries will HELP with this entire situation if you just talk to them about what you're doing.

What about having to go in person and have an interview? Isn't that a violation of people's rights seeing as how many don't have adequate transportation?

The concern is just silly.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Because getting to a computer is so easy, you're just making up excuses of why someone can't when they can.

There's no excuse for it.
Click to expand...

no your making up excuses that everyone can, when they in fact cant. Also many that can, cant do it in a timely fashion. Thats just the reality of things.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
My local libraries will HELP with this entire situation if you just talk to them about what you're doing.

What about having to go in person and have an interview? Isn't that a violation of people's rights seeing as how many don't have adequate transportation?

The concern is just silly.
Click to expand...



No again because adequate transportation would be required to perform you job.
 
Centrist77 said:
no your making up excuses that everyone can, when they in fact cant. Also many that can, cant do it in a timely fashion. Thats just the reality of things.
Click to expand...

You're calling it fact, so I have to say it: prove it.
 
Internet access is not a protected class, nor should it be.
 
tessaesque said:
You're calling it fact, so I have to say it: prove it.
Click to expand...

Prove what?
That some people dont have access to the internet? LMAO you cant be serious.
Some people barely have access to clothes and food and you think "everyone" has access to internet oh brother.
 
megaprogman said:
Internet access is not a protected class, nor should it be.
Click to expand...


Dont know if anyone is saying that, Im certainly not.
And I also agree with you.
 
Centrist77 said:
Prove what?
That some people dont have access to the internet? LMAO you cant be serious.
Some people barely have access to clothes and food and you think "everyone" has access to internet oh brother.
Click to expand...

No, prove that some people absolutely cannot access the internet to apply for a job, under any circumstances. Beacuse that's what you're claiming. Prove what you're claiming. Don't deflect because you typed yourself into a corner.
 
Centrist77 said:
Dont know if anyone is saying that, Im certainly not.
And I also agree with you.
Click to expand...

Generally when one raises a civil rights issue, I tend to think of whether this particular problem ties into a protected class or not. If not, while it is still an issue, it is not a civil rights issue.

tessaesque said:
No, prove that some people absolutely cannot access the internet to apply for a job, under any circumstances. Beacuse that's what you're claiming. Prove what you're claiming. Don't deflect because you typed yourself into a corner.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be absolute? Surely statistical evidence showing a disadvantage from one socio-economic class to another, is enough to recognize that a problem exists. (not that I have such evidence, but I just don't see why it should be absolute before it is a problem)
 
Last edited:
I will repeat again.

I will gladly concede if examples can be given that this is common place and im missing something.

I just don't think its right for an employer to DENY an opportunity of employment based on something that has no impact on job performance.

This doesnt sound over critical to me.
 
megaprogman said:
Generally when one raises a civil rights issue, I tend to think of whether this particular problem ties into a protected class or not. If not, while it is still an issue, it is not a civil rights issue.



Why does it have to be absolute? Surely statistical evidence showing a disadvantage from one socio-economic class to another, is enough to recognize that a problem exists. (not that I have such evidence, but I just don't see why it should be absolute)
Click to expand...

OOOOOOH I get you

I agree but "I" stated earlier that civil rights would be tough to see through to the end, I just think this can be argued as plain old discrimination and unfair practices.
 
Centrist77 said:
OOOOOOH I get you

I agree but "I" stated earlier that civil rights would be tough to see through to the end, I just think this can be argued as plain old discrimination and unfair practices.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that it is discrimination or unfair either. Its just employers trying to automate hiring a bit and reduce costs and having to apply online is a side effect. Honestly though, the best way to remedy something like this would be to add a few kiosks to the local unemployment office.
 
megaprogman said:
Generally when one raises a civil rights issue, I tend to think of whether this particular problem ties into a protected class or not. If not, while it is still an issue, it is not a civil rights issue.



Why does it have to be absolute? Surely statistical evidence showing a disadvantage from one socio-economic class to another, is enough to recognize that a problem exists. (not that I have such evidence, but I just don't see why it should be absolute before it is a problem)
Click to expand...

The point is, this guy is arguing that employers shouldn't be allowed to limit their application process to internet only because people cannot access the internet. If they absolutely cannot acess the internet, there is a legitmate problem. If they can access the internet, but it's slightly inconvenient, there isn't a problem.

It's inconvenient for me to print out paperwork I need to fill out at home because I don't own a printer. But I load it on a flash drive and go up to kinkos, where I have to pay to print the documents. Internet access for the unemployed is available at the very same place they would go to apply for unemployment benefits. It is also available at libraries and countless other locales...for free.

My contention is that unless there is an absolute, we don't have an issue. He's stating that it's a fact that people cannot access the internet. The implication for justifying e-applications being a civil rights violation is solely based in the fact that they absolutely cannot access the internet.
 
Last edited:
tessaesque said:
No, prove that some people absolutely cannot access the internet to apply for a job, under any circumstances. Beacuse that's what you're claiming. Prove what you're claiming. Don't deflect because you typed yourself into a corner.
Click to expand...

I didn't type myself into any corner at all you are desperately trying to support your argument and can't.
Hell earlier people were saying how some don't even have typewriter access to draft a resume now all of a sudden everyone has internet access? that simply absurd LMAO

also I never said "under any circumstances" those could be anything. I could show you proof and you could simply say, that person could come over your house to use the internet. Im not playing silly games im living in reality ;)
 
Centrist77 said:
I didn't type myself into any corner at all you are desperately trying to support your argument and can't.
Hell earlier people were saying how some don't even have typewriter access to draft a resume now all of a sudden everyone has internet access? that simply absurd LMAO

also I never said "under any circumstances" those could be anything. I could show you proof and you could simply say, that person could come over your house to use the internet. Im not playing silly games im living in reality ;)
Click to expand...

Proof would suggest that they couldn't come to my house, so how could I use that argument? You either phrased things poorly (true), or misrepresented yourself (who knows). The fact is that not all employers require on-line applications. The fact is that applying online does not discriminate based on sexual orientation, race, religion, or disability. The fact is that employers can require anything they want of applicants at any point in the application process, as long as they do not discriminate on the issues listed above. The fact is, you cannot prove that any single person could never access the internet to apply for a job if they felt so compelled.

Those are facts. Your statement was not. I don't have to support any argument, yours is the one in question.
 
tessaesque said:
The point is, this guy is arguing that employers shouldn't be allowed to limit there application process to internet only because people cannot access the internet. If they absolutely cannot acess the internet, there is a legitmate problem. If they can access the internet, but it's slightly inconvenient, there isn't a problem.

It's inconvenient for me to print out paperwork I need to fill out at home because I don't own a printer. But I load it on a flash drive and go up to kinkos, where I have to pay to print the documents. Internet access for the unemployed is available at the very same place they would go to apply for unemployment benefits. It is also available at libraries and countless other locals...for free.

My contention is that unless there is an absolute, we don't have an issue. He's stating that it's a fact that people cannot access the internet. The implication for justifying e-applications being a civil rights violation is solely based in the fact that they absolutely cannot access the internet.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the amount of trouble finding a computer is. If it is not something readily available, then their ability to search and apply for jobs may be reduced, meaning fewer jobs applied for per day, possibly leading to a longer time unemployed. For example, if the nearest available computer is at the unemployment office or library and there is a waiting period or a person has to make an appointment. If a person is using their friend's computer, they may not be able to use it as long as they need to do apply for the maximum number of jobs they could apply to in that particular day. Its in this sort of dynamic where I see the problem. Its less a matter of willpower as you imply and more of a matter that life is complex and there is a lot of small inefficiencies in our day that can add up quickly, that exist no matter the size of our balls. Those inefficiencies do end up having a public cost, such as in extended unemployment.

Therefore while absolutely not being able to apply is an obvious problem, the reduced ability to job hunt is also a problem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom