• 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
No it is fine. Libraries, schools, friends, kinkos, Apple store, at&t, malls, all of these places have a way to do the application online. Also here is something else--saves on paper waste, helps organize better, etc.

You are silly.
 
No, it's not discrimination. In today's world it makes total and complete sense to do everything through the internet. Eventually, this is how all companies will go about hiring. Personally I can't wait for the day, I ****ing hate paperwork.
 
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...

Yes, I agree with you, it is a clearly violation of civil liberties, companies must give additional opportunities to apply per post.
 
Centrist77 said:
Huh? are you even being serious?
did you just say "What about companies that require applicants to submit resumes, even if the job for which they are applying has nothing to do with resumes?"

You know that is NOTHING like we are discussing or I said right?
Click to expand...

No need to get pissy...

Centrist77 said:
Not to mention a resume is a list of your qualification so that IS needed for a job and resumes can be written.
Click to expand...

Most businesses aren't going to read a handwritten resume, and I don't blame them. For the same reason that businesses might demand an online application, they might demand a typed resume: It's too much of a hassle for them to screw around with other formats. I mean, practically anything can be construed as a violation of civil rights if the business just doesn't feel like jumping through hoops when there are plenty of applicants who can follow their rules.

I think that not wanting to dick around with people who can't follow common instructions is a perfectly legitimate business concern. If someone could demonstrate that the business was requiring online applications specifically because they wanted to exclude members of a protected class from applying for the job, that would be different. But I don't think that the "adverse impact" laws really apply if there is a legitimate business interest at stake in streamlining their application process.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
No need to get pissy...



Most businesses aren't going to read a handwritten resume, and I don't blame them. For the same reason that businesses might demand an online application, they might demand a typed resume: It's too much of a hassle for them to screw around with other formats. I mean, practically anything can be construed as a violation of civil rights if the business just doesn't feel like jumping through hoops when there are plenty of applicants who can follow their rules.

I think that not wanting to dick around with people who can't follow common instructions is a perfectly legitimate business concern. If someone could demonstrate that the business was requiring online applications specifically because they wanted to exclude members of a protected class from applying for the job, that would be different. But I don't think that the "adverse impact" laws really apply if there is a legitimate business interest at stake in streamlining their application process.
Click to expand...

LOL who got "pissy" ? I even said good night to everyone in the thread and said "nice talks" with a simley face cause I had to go, is that something pissy people do? Its a message board objective adults should never be pissy on here unless some extreme random case lol

Anyways instead of deflecting stay on topic and address my post. Nobody said the company should "jump through hoops" or that these people can't follow instructions. My post is about a company requiring something that is not need for the actual job.
 
Blackdog said:
Anyone can go to the unemployment office to fill out an application for free. They will even help you. Not to mention library's and cyber cafés.

No this is not a violation of civil rights.
Click to expand...

If a person has a disability, say they are blind as an example, and the online forms are not accessible then yes there is likely discrimination.
 
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...



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:
 
Centrist77 said:
Anyways instead of deflecting stay on topic and address my post. Nobody said the company should "jump through hoops" or that these people can't follow instructions. My post is about a company requiring something that is not need for the actual job.
Click to expand...

Right, and I'm saying that "not needed for the actual job" should not be the test we use. It should be "not needed for the company's effective operations." You're right that requiring an online application is not relevant unless the job entails working online...which is why I brought up the point that requiring a resume is not relevant unless the job entails working with resumes. But I think we are in agreement that it's legally acceptable for businesses to ask for resumes from applicants.

But both of those things (requiring an online application or a typed resume) are OK as far as I'm concerned, because businesses generally have a legitimate interest in making their hiring process as efficient as possible. From what I can glean from the Wikipedia page on "adverse impact" (the relevant legal doctrine here), I think the courts would agree with me. Generally speaking, there is one situation in which businesses can use policies that have an adverse impact on a protected class: business necessity. Although it's not clear what exactly would fall into that category, I don't think it would be hard for a business to argue that online applications are a business necessity for one reason or another.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
If a person has a disability, say they are blind as an example, and the online forms are not accessible then yes there is likely discrimination.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is everybody is ASSuming that whatever their access is to a computer with internet is the same for everybody, well simply not true.
 
Kandahar said:
Right, and I'm saying that "not needed for the actual job" should not be the test we use. It should be "not needed for the company's effective operations." You're right that requiring an online application is not relevant unless the job entails working online...which is why I brought up the point that requiring a resume is not relevant unless the job entails working with resumes.

But both of those things (requiring an online application or a typed resume) are OK as far as I'm concerned, because businesses generally have a legitimate interest in making their hiring process as efficient as possible. From what I can glean from the Wikipedia page on "adverse impact" (the relevant legal doctrine here), I think the courts would agree with me. Generally speaking, there is one situation in which businesses can use policies that have an adverse impact on a protected class: business necessity. Although it's not clear what exactly would fall into that category, I don't think it would be hard for a business to argue that online applications are a business necessity for one reason or another.
Click to expand...

"which is why I brought up the point that requiring a resume is not relevant unless the job entails working with resumes."
LOL again this is NOTHING like my example, a resume can very well be required because its a list of you skill set and job history LMAO

are you saying a company shouldnt be able to ask you for a background check unless you work with background checks? LOL sorry what your saying has not logic behind and doesnt make sense.

You are free to think that and I think it would be much easy to argue that a person was discriminated against.
My argument, something was asked of the applicant that isnt required for the job and he was denied a chance of employment because of it. Pretty illogical.

Yours, we denied him employment simply because he wanted to turn in a paper applicant and we dont deal with paper, it would of slowed us down and made us inefficient.

If Im on that jury I think to myself what an asshole that company sounds like. Just saying if you think its so rare a person could get internet access then the company should have no problems accepting the hand full of hard copy apps every year lol
 
Centrist77 said:
"which is why I brought up the point that requiring a resume is not relevant unless the job entails working with resumes."
LOL again this is NOTHING like my example, a resume can very well be required because its a list of you skill set and job history LMAO

are you saying a company shouldnt be able to ask you for a background check unless you work with background checks? LOL sorry what your saying has not logic behind and doesnt make sense.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that. But then, I'm not the one of the two of us who is arguing that businesses can't require things from applicants that aren't relevant to the job that they're applying for.

Centrist77 said:
You are free to think that and I think it would be much easy to argue that a person was discriminated against.
My argument, something was asked of the applicant that isnt required for the job and he was denied a chance of employment because of it. Pretty illogical.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "required for the job." By definition it's required for the job, or there wouldn't be a case. Do you mean required for the employee to PERFORM the job? If that's the case, then I'm not understanding why you think resumes and background checks are different from an online application.

Centrist77 said:
Yours, we denied him employment simply because he wanted to turn in a paper applicant and we dont deal with paper, it would of slowed us down and made us inefficient.

If Im on that jury I think to myself what an asshole that company sounds like. Just saying if you think its so rare a person could get internet access then the company should have no problems accepting the hand full of hard copy apps every year lol
Click to expand...

"What an asshole that company sounds like" isn't a good enough reason. And there can be legitimate business reasons for doing so. Maybe they outsource all their applications to someone in another office or another country, so they don't even see the applications themselves. Maybe they have a computer program that quickly scans all the applications for red flags, and they can't do that with paper applications. Maybe they're trying to be environmentally friendly by not wasting paper. Maybe they use an algorithm to sort all the applications and look for key words or experiences. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why a company might want to do this.
 
Kandahar said:
1.)No, I'm not saying that. But then, I'm not the one of the two of us who is arguing that businesses can't require things from applicants that aren't relevant to the job that they're applying for.



2.) I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "required for the job." By definition it's required for the job, or there wouldn't be a case. Do you mean required for the employee to PERFORM the job? If that's the case, then I'm not understanding why you think resumes and background checks are different from an online application.



"What an asshole that company sounds like" isn't a good enough reason. And there can be legitimate business reasons for doing so. Maybe they outsource all their applications to someone in another office or another country, so they don't even see the applications themselves. Maybe they have a computer program that quickly scans all the applications for red flags, and they can't do that with paper applications. Maybe they're trying to be environmentally friendly by not wasting paper. Maybe they use an algorithm to sort all the applications and look for key words or experiences. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why a company might want to do this.
Click to expand...

1.) yes I see that my example and how it has nothing to do with yours is over head for some reason.
2.) because again they are totally different examples applied logically. A resume is a list of your qualification so it is need to determine if you are QUALIFIED to perform. A background check is also needed to determined if you are QUALIFIED or DISQUALIFIED to perform.
Requiring you to do something "on line" if its not needed to perform you job is not needed at all. Theres no value of it and its the company requiring you to do something that is not needed to perform. On line access isnt needed to do the job so it shouldnt be needed to apply.
3.) Nope if thats the system they want then its their responsibility to make it work, not the applicants, they want to streamline the process its their job to figure it out, none of those are legit reasons to "deny" applicants and equal employment opportunity. The burden in this case is on the company not the applicant. now if it was a needed SKILL then the burden would be back on the applicant.

Those companies can simply scan the "rare occasional" document to a active PDF and the problem is solved.
 
Centrist77 said:
That is not true for all people in all cases.
Click to expand...

There are libraries that have the internet. There are schools that have the internet. There are people you know that have the internet.
 
Centrist77 said:
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...

So then you really aren't a fan of the whole resume/interview process whatsoever?
 
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...

I haven't really found a place that hasn't done this; and it's super annoying.
 
Why not stop all this filling out multiple applications nonsense, online here, offline there! It makes no sense at all with today's technology. We are filling out the same info over an over. We have a thing call a computer now! It's easy enough to fill out once now and let the government tax info keep our work history updated. Anything immediately current can be stated in an interview. Each employment office would be able to send an employer a copy upon request of the applicant. One button at an employer's website will be the whole application process. Why drive a four thousand lb automobile to fill it out when a computer can deliver it for a fraction of the cost at the speed of light? As long as everyone accommodates those unable to use a computer for some reason, this should be the way we do things. We have an economic crisis here, we do not have the luxury to do things stupid any more, everybody needs to get on board with this.
 
TheGreatSandeno said:
There are libraries that have the internet. There are schools that have the internet. There are people you know that have the internet.
Click to expand...

That is what is avalable to YOU.
Libraries also have time limits and hours of operation and you have to get to them and some have fees. Not all schools allow access and also have time limits and if you dont have access maybe you dont have friends that do.

A few people keep saying this stuff but I think it supports me, why should a person have to do all that and if its so easy how many paper apps are they gonna have to handle, 12 a year? Im sure the company will be alright and wont suffer. lol
 
TheGreatSandeno said:
So then you really aren't a fan of the whole resume/interview process whatsoever?
Click to expand...

How did you come to make that fallacy up? resume/interview is NEEDED, internet access is not, but like I said IF internet access was needed to perform the job then id have no problem with it.
 
Risky Thicket said:
If a person has a disability, say they are blind as an example, and the online forms are not accessible then yes there is likely discrimination.
Click to expand...

Disabled persons have many assistance programs and electrical devices to aid them. This is not an example if a civil rights abuse.

Trying to pick the most extreme cases will not work.
 
Sounds like a good way to help weed out the stupid and lazy. ;)

.
 
Centrist77 said:
That is what is avalable to YOU.
Libraries also have time limits and hours of operation and you have to get to them and some have fees. Not all schools allow access and also have time limits and if you dont have access maybe you dont have friends that do.

A few people keep saying this stuff but I think it supports me, why should a person have to do all that and if its so easy how many paper apps are they gonna have to handle, 12 a year? Im sure the company will be alright and wont suffer. lol
Click to expand...

You keep ignoring the unemployment office. If they are unemployed and looking for work, getting there should not be an issue.

And so far you have presented little to show it is a civil rights abuse.

Being poor is not a race, handicap or disability; it is not something out of your control like the others I mentioned. So unless any of you can show that being poor is something out of their control, their is no civil rights abuse.
 
no more then requiring a resume. I mean, what about all the poor souls that don't have access to a computer or typewriter
 
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.
 
Blackdog said:
You keep ignoring the unemployment office. If they are unemployed and looking for work, getting there should not be an issue.

And so far you have presented little to show it is a civil rights abuse.

Being poor is not a race, handicap or disability; it is not something out of your control like the others I mentioned. So unless any of you can show that being poor is something out of their control, their is no civil rights abuse.
Click to expand...

I didnt ignore, it doesnt change anything. Who cares, way do they have to be unemployed maybe the work already but want to switch, make more money etc? LOL

I said earlier that pushing civil lawsuit to the end may be hard but it is definitely discrimination in a way an a unfair practice. Like I said at the end of the day I cant think of a logical reason for a job to require you to have access to something you don't need to perform the job thats just silly and something I would always side with the applicant.

Maybe Im over looking something? are there other examples where this goes on?
 
Risky Thicket said:
If a person has a disability, say they are blind as an example, and the online forms are not accessible then yes there is likely discrimination.
Click to expand...

Computer software and equipment is available for the blind. Most often, it can be acquired at no cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom