The answer to this question is obvious. If the job depends at all on being able to correctly recognize colors, then the rejection of anyone who cannot is compulsory.
Would you hire a man with one arm to dig a hole?
A law against this would simply be a formality, created to appease the loudest of those who are mentally incapable of handling reality due to emotional or other shortcomings. These laws are easy to step around but the unfortunate reality is that those less experienced at stepping around this nonsense are left at a disadvantage and the end result is that those least deserving of being sued(i.e. small business, can't afford good lawyer) are destroyed by it and those most deserving are unscathed. Best course of action would be to do away with such laws completely.
I reserve the right to not hire any person for any possible reason, including their choice in coffee.
The answer to this question is obvious. If the job depends at all on being able to correctly recognize colors, then the rejection of anyone who cannot is compulsory.
Why? In this day and age it's easy to provide technological solutions to many handicaps. In this case, it'd be pretty easy to provide a smartphone app that allowed one to recognise wiring or resistor colours.
Sure, there will be some areas of employment that will always be inaccessible to certain handicaps but, with a little ingenuity, there's a a way around many disabilities.
QuoteWould you hire a man with one arm to dig a hole?
You want to ban one armed people from driving mechanical diggers?
QuoteA law against this would simply be a formality, created to appease the loudest of those who are mentally incapable of handling reality due to emotional or other shortcomings. These laws are easy to step around but the unfortunate reality is that those less experienced at stepping around this nonsense are left at a disadvantage and the end result is that those least deserving of being sued(i.e. small business, can't afford good lawyer) are destroyed by it and those most deserving are unscathed. Best course of action would be to do away with such laws completely.
That indicates an attitude that says it's OK to ignore the rule of law if you can get away with it. Many would find that an unacceptable stance to take.
QuoteI reserve the right to not hire any person for any possible reason, including their choice in coffee.
As you have made no qualification, at all, are we to presume that your "possible reason" would include gender, skin colour or religion?
The only compulsory ban to employment that there should be is a proven lack of empathy or compassion for others.
Color blindness in some areas might be a potential problem. I thankfully can see a full range of color and could see how not being able to might pose problems in electronics.
I use color coding extensively to identify wires, etc.
And of course many parts are color coded.
But the other side of it is, if somebody really wants a job and is really good at something, chances are they have figured out ways to deal with it. Its really hard to say.
The problem is, if there are a lot more people who want a job than jobs, things like that get used more to remove large groups of people from consideration.
Its a different kind of handicap, one which may (or may not) impact the job.
QuoteI reserve the right to not hire any person for any possible reason, including their choice in coffee.As you have made no qualification, at all, are we to presume that your "possible reason" would include gender, skin colour or religion?
The only compulsory ban to employment that there should be is a proven lack of empathy or compassion for others.
That indicates an attitude that says it's OK to ignore the rule of law if you can get away with it. Many would find that an unacceptable stance to take.
The only compulsory ban to employment that there should be is a proven lack of empathy or compassion for others.
Darwin will lose his appetite to science if he knew that a few hundreds years later, the so called humanity will prevent human beings from evolving.
My rule is very simple: if you can't keep up your capability of making money for me as other people can, you are not for me.
If I am to hire anyone with disability, I will simply ask a simple question: can you find a way to work around it and keep up your productivity? If not, good bye.
I don't give a damn shit about the law. I don't have to tell the employee that he was rejected for his disability. I can find any reason to fire anyone. Coming late, even only once, bam, expelled. Being caught swearing, bam, expelled. If a boss wants to mess with his employees, there are more than enough ways to get it done.
And BTW, I don't know if such companies exist in UK, but in China, we have labor consulting companies providing training service to company managers on how to dodge laws to exploit employees legally. If it doesn't strictly break the law, why should I be worrying about it? Rule No. 1 for lawyers -- good or bad doesn't matter, all it matters is how the behavior matches the text of law.
I suspect, if asked, that Darwin would have considered the evolution of social rules and law just as much a part of evolution.
Those really rich men, such as defense lawyers for super rich criminals and those dark bankers, will not agree.
If evolution jumped to perfection
we would not have psychopaths and sociopaths
If evolution jumped to perfection in one single leap we would not have psychopaths and sociopaths - we do.
If evolution jumped to perfection in one single leap we would not have psychopaths and sociopaths - we do.The qualities that make a psychopath a potential danger to society can also make them an excellent brain surgeon. They are cold and unemotional. They get on with the pursuit of their goals regardless of what happens. They aren't easily thrown by bad stuff that might happen along the way, like a burst blood vessel in the middle of an operation.
Few qualities that might be selected for or against by evolution are clearly positive or negative to the species prospering. Qualities usually have a mix of positive and negative effects, and it takes considerable study to see where the balance lies.
If evolution jumped to perfection in one single leap we would not have psychopaths and sociopaths - we do.The qualities that make a psychopath a potential danger to society can also make them an excellent brain surgeon. They are cold and unemotional. They get on with the pursuit of their goals regardless of what happens. They aren't easily thrown by bad stuff that might happen along the way, like a burst blood vessel in the middle of an operation.
Few qualities that might be selected for or against by evolution are clearly positive or negative to the species prospering. Qualities usually have a mix of positive and negative effects, and it takes considerable study to see where the balance lies.
That's a classic example of not seeing the wood for the trees. Psychopath and sociopath were mere illustrations, appropriate to context of discussing social rules and law simply because they are typified by disregard for the law. If that stops you seeing the actual argument, substitute rapists, paedophiles or mass murderers or whatever class of individual you personally would see as necessitating the existence of social control or law to ameliorate their baleful effects on society as a whole.
The point, in case you missed it, is that classic evolution doesn't weed out the bad-uns, indeed it doesn't work at the level of a species as a whole. But, just possibly, in a species that has a concept of itself as a whole ('mankind') and can communicate and record information in a way that has not been seen on earth before homo sapiens it's possible that civilisation/society/whatever-you-call-it has become a new way for evolution to work - selecting between emergent social and legal systems in a way that benefits the survivability of the species as a whole.
To take it back to scoff-laws - it is possible to see morals, social rules and law as having utility for society as a whole. For most of us, I suspect that seeing certain behaviours (such as discriminating against the handicapped) as unethical or immoral or 'just plain wrong' is enough, but for those who it isn't enough then perhaps an argument from the utility to society is more attractive.
If evolution jumped to perfection in one single leap we would not have psychopaths and sociopaths - we do.The qualities that make a psychopath a potential danger to society can also make them an excellent brain surgeon. They are cold and unemotional. They get on with the pursuit of their goals regardless of what happens. They aren't easily thrown by bad stuff that might happen along the way, like a burst blood vessel in the middle of an operation.
Few qualities that might be selected for or against by evolution are clearly positive or negative to the species prospering. Qualities usually have a mix of positive and negative effects, and it takes considerable study to see where the balance lies.
I don't give a damn shit about the law. I don't have to tell the employee that he was rejected for his disability. I can find any reason to fire anyone. Coming late, even only once, bam, expelled. Being caught swearing, bam, expelled. If a boss wants to mess with his employees, there are more than enough ways to get it done.
And BTW, I don't know if such companies exist in UK, but in China, we have labor consulting companies providing training service to company managers on how to dodge laws to exploit employees legally. If it doesn't strictly break the law, why should I be worrying about it? Rule No. 1 for lawyers -- good or bad doesn't matter, all it matters is how the behavior matches the text of law.