It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EEOC: High school diploma requirement might violate Americans with Disabilities Act

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

EEOC: High school diploma requirement might violate Americans with Disabilities Act


www.washingtontimes.com

The “informal discussion letter” from the EEOC said an employer’s requirement of a high school diploma, long a standard criterion for screening potential employees, must be “job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” The letter was posted on the commission’s website on Dec. 2.

Employers could run afoul of the ADA if their requirement of a high school diploma “‘screens out’ an individual who is unable to graduate because of a learning disability that meets
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Where to begin with this? The ADA is a classic example of how the road to hell is always paved with the best of intentions with government.

It in many instances costs businesses ever increasing amounts of revenue, from increased hiring regulations to having to keep handicapped spots open.

Now, how in any way can not having a high school diploma be considered on par with not being able to walk or being blind? It is an individual choice and people know the consequences of it. Even if they don't have a diploma, they have options such as getting a GED or taking remedial night courses.

Perhaps this is the next step in dumbing down the population further. Make there be no advantage at all of completing school to getting a job.

www.washingtontimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


From the Moonie Times:




The commission’s advice, which does not carry the force of law, is raising alarms among employment-law professionals, who say it could carry far-reaching implications for businesses.


This whole article is misleading.

My opinion: If you can do a job right, work hard, and keep learning new things throughout your life-what does it matter if you graduated High School or not?



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Whats with the attack on Education in America? Lowering standards, I remember when the Army dropped the HS diploma requirement...

Making public education so crappy, and secondary education prohibitively expensive, than lowering of standards... seems some one wants us to view education as unimportant...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
This is not surprising to me at all. I have been a recruiter for 5 years, and employers have already been starting to do away with the HS diploma requirement on their own. During my first recruiting role I focused recruiting mainly on call center operations, and they changed the education requirement to either a HS diploma or at least 5 years minimum relevant experience (they actually did that for several of their more entry-level positions).

I remember how shocked (and frustrated) I was when I heard about the change. However, we didn't only screen candidates by asking them basic questions and having them come in for a behavioral interview; they also had to take a skills assessment to help determine if they were smart enough for the job, and you would be surprised (or not with how our educational system now works) at how many high school grads completely bombed the test.

Now, that being said, it is not hard to obtain a GED - in some places it's around $50, and you can even get accredited ones online.

There really should be no reason, disabled or not, why someone could not obtain either a diploma or a GED... unless maybe they are blind, mute, and deaf? There are special programs that are able to help out most any disabled person, so why the ADA is further trying to push the issue, I don't know.

Can anyone else think of a reason why someone would not be able to get a diploma or a GED (since it's the HS equivalent most anyplace will accept a GED instead of a diploma)?

edit on 1/2/2012 by celebration because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   
As absurd as it sounds, one day businesss will not be able to turn away applicants simply because they are incompetent. Say hello to dr. Stupid! Lol.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


Does this have something to do with that other thing?

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops





posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by celebration
Can anyone else think of a reason why someone would not be able to get a diploma or a GED (since it's the HS equivalent most anyplace will accept a GED instead of a diploma)?
I was a factory plant manager and hired individuals with all kinds of qualification requirements, from fairly skilled maintenance workers to repair and maintain the machines, to unskilled entry level workers, who didn't need a high school degree. If they were dyslexic, that may prevent them from getting the HS diploma or GED (without special training or assistance), but they could still do the job.

I even hired the services of a sheltered workshop who employed otherwise unemployable mentally handicapped people who couldn't possibly get a GED degree no matter what they did. But they could slide pieces of insulation on a bare wire which was all I need them to do. They were happy and I was happy.

I'm a big fan of the qualification testing, written tests, but also manual dexterity, that's specifically related to manual dexterity requirements of the job. Those were better indicators of success for factory workers, than whether or not someone had any kind of degree, GED or otherwise. A degree may be an indicator, but I'm convinced some high schools push kids through graduation that probably shouldn't have graduated based on their actual aptitude, and I suspect they are pressured to do so to some extent. So the degree isn't all that meaningful when it's awarded so loosely.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


Does this have something to do with that other thing?

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops






You know, I didn't even think about the other thread I posted until you brought that up. It might be stretching it abit, but overall I think this is all a part to keep people dumb and ignorant.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Good. Educational achievement should be a beneficial factor, not an automatic disqualification of an otherwise qualified candidate.

Experience and the showing of skill should be more important than some piece of paper for most jobs.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I was working at an independent testing lab in the 1990s and the boss asked me to help screen applicants. So I wrote a short multiple choice test for them to take. Asking questions just to determine whether they had ever been around a testing environment. Some units conversion, themocouple color codes, what metals are the best conductors, easy questions all related to the job

HR weenies told me we could not use the test. Said it was discrimination.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


Im not sure what you mean by "dumbing down the population". Just because someone was unable to finish high school doesnt mean they're stupid. To be honest, Id call judging a potential employee based solely on which paper they may hold rather than skill, intelligence or actions of the individual to be the real "dumbing down" of the population.

Should a learning disablity be considered a medical condition? Thats debatable. Should someone be labeled stupid their entire life because they had to drop out at 16 to take care of their family? Absolutely not.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I use to see companies that required HS diplomas or other training when you went to the office to fill out a application.

But when you got in the field on job sites you would find this same company had a large number of illegals working for them. Many that did not even speak English.

Many construction jobs where in lived had a number of companies working under contracts and you could find a list of contract winners and go around and apply

It was common to find education requirements wanted only to get a job with another company and find the companies with the strange requirements were the ones that worked illegals.
Sometimes they even were working illegals doing jobs that required state licenses that they could not have like state electricians licenses.

These companies would claim they could not find qualified americans to do the job.

When i ran a mining company i never ask for a HS diploma.
The only requirement was you knew how to do the job and spoke English for safety reasons like if something was falling you yelled a warning in English. I have seen people get hurt because the illegals would yell SOMETHING in Spanish and other workers would not understand them.

Its just like the companies that only hire people that are already working and won't hire the unemployed.
I will bet that this rule only covers some people that want to work for that company and others are hired without following that rule. Like people straight out of school that they can pay less.
edit on 2-1-2012 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Education is overrated...and yet necessary at the same time.

If I worked in house, they would REQUIRE me to hold a Ph.d. I have been doing my job for over10 years, and with praise and excitement from the very same company that would not hire me to work in house...because I do not even hold a bachelors degree.

At one time, in another country, I was practice anesthesiologist for a very well reputed equine clinic. I was trained until I could operate in the dark. I routinely was entrusted will horses worth millions of dollars...not one accident, not one mistake, not ever. But coming back to the US I found I had to go to school for 12 years to learn how to do what I already knew how to do...how funny. In fact people routinely bypassed the "puerto rican" vet to bring their animals to me. (I worked for a most outstanding vet, and he wasn't always available, and people would call me out to the barns at night rather than risk their horse's life with the Puerto Rican).

This country is over regulated, over educated and anally retentive. Being smart and well educated has nothing to do with passing a test. We used to rely on the apprentice system that taught by experience and supervision rather than rote....and it's probably not a bad idea to consider going back to that.



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
My step dad never graduated high school and he's the lead inspector at a fortune 500 company. He make $30 an hour and brings home $2500 a week. I have a close friend that works there also he never gradutated either. He only makes $23 an hour though. My grandfather never made it past the 8th grade and he died a wealthy man.

Just because someone never graduated don't mean their stupid. I've seen mystep dad do triganometry.
edit on 2-1-2012 by wantsome because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse
 


While I sympathize with your statement, I have to wonder if employers can legally discriminate against a person because of a lack of a High School diploma due to a disability where this leaves those people. My son has a qualified ADA handicap and he will probably never get a high school diploma. Likewise, he may not even be able to function as an adult. However, in the off chance he could do something productive in his adult life, shouldn't he be allowed that opportunity? I'm not saying that an employer couldn't chose another applicant, but to deny someone capable of doing a job the opportunity to apply only leads to more people on welfare and other public assistance.

I am all for employers being able to select any person they wish, but I would question something like a high school diploma as being necessary for many jobs. Thus, it could be argued that people with disabilities would be most impacted by this type of hiring requirement. I do not particularly like the EEOC or any other federal branch dictating what employers do. However, the EEOC was designed to save companies money. Before the EEOC lawsuits would be filed by individuals without the EEOC reviewing. Additionally, the EEOC has set guidelines to help business stay out of potentially litigious actions. There is some good and bad. Removing the EEOC might just bog employers down with expensive class action lawsuits by disability groups.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by NuminousCosmos
 


It doesn't have the force of law. How ever the EEOC can bring lawsuits against companies and cost them millions. My wife worked for a company that was hit with a false EEOC claim. The investigation cost the company nearly $200,000 and took six months. There was no action taken, but the damage was done.

The EEOC's "opinion letters" do not carry the weight of law. However, they do put business owners on notice about which law suits and investigations may be forthcoming. This "opinion" will have many companies scrambling to cover their rear proactively.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Lot's of smart people don't get a diploma. They might have trouble at home, causing them to care less about their studies. Or they could have Aspereger Syndrome, or be depressed.
A high school diploma requirement for simple jobs should be replaced by a test.
Or a 'probation' period sponsored by the gouverment. that way an employee can proove himself without financial risk to the person hiring him (such agreements exist here in Belgium)



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join