Do employers have a right to discriminate against color-blindness?

[ivaylo]

Not so obvious. If you don't hire a brilliant electronics designer because he can't recognize color coded resistors you are not the great businessman you think you are. I assume you need one that is...

[Cerebus]

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.

  Would you hire a man with one arm to dig a hole? 

You want to ban one armed people from driving mechanical diggers?

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. 

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.

I 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.

[cdev]

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.

[pinkman]

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.

You need to think this one through.  Maybe a large corporation could bear this financial burden, but any smaller business could not.  If you are talking resistor colors, maybe there is a solution, but obviously use of thru hole resistors is rather rare now so that's not the point - The point is other tasks which require recognition of colors.  This was my point.  You cannot force someone to bear this burden; It must be by choice.

  Would you hire a man with one arm to dig a hole? 

You want to ban one armed people from driving mechanical diggers?

The analogy clearly involved a shovel, not a mechanical digger, ok.............................................

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. 

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.

That stance is reality.  You have to accept it and deal with it.  Either that, or get a mind reading device and start prosecuting people for thought crimes like in that Minority Report movie 

I 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 reason does not need to be specified - It varies by person doing the hiring - This is why I said "any reason".  Would you want to work somewhere that you are not wanted?

The only compulsory ban to employment that there should be is a proven lack of empathy or compassion for others.

Your emotions relating to such matters are yours alone; Be aware that attempting to force others to feel them with you will not actually accomplish anything productive, unless you consider stifling free will to be productive.

[pinkman]

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.

Agreed.  It all comes down to whether or not the person doing the hiring considers it to be a good business decision and whether or not the person desiring to be hired can demonstrate reasonable proficiency at the tasks required for the job.  If the person can not be reasonably proficient as compared to the average worker in that position then they should find another line of work that they can be reasonably proficient in, or they should find someone willing to hire them out of pity or kindness.  Forcing a hire by using legislation is not useful as there are always ways around such a law, and ultimately it is not good for business.

[cdev]

If somebody has a functional handicap, they have to do the work of convincing that employer its not a problem so they are hired and then doing a kick ass job.

In the final analysis employers are not there to provide jobs, you are there to provide them a service and get paid for it.

Relying on a law (if one existed and I dont think one does) is lunacy. Its not going to do anything except get somebody disliked who wouldn't otherwise be disliked.

The work relationship is based on what you (and your employer) bring to the table to help one another.

[nes999]

I was involved with a discrimination suit a few years back. We advertised for a class 8 truck driving job. This persons job would be bringing construction supplies/ equipment to various jobsites. Its alot of heavy lifting and in/out of the truck.

We had one applicant who didn't have legs. Who also only had about 6 months of experience.  He expected us to put a lift in the truck and have a hand controls put in. He also expected us to have a helper with him to load/unload the truck.

We ended up choosing a veteran who had 5 years of experience.

Low and behold the gentlemen thought all that work to a truck is "reasonable accommodations".  This truck would have only been able to be driven by him. The handicap installer estimated 6 figures for all of the work needed to be done for this truck to get him working. Plus he needed a helper.


We ended up winning but the costs to go to court are ridiculous.

If you can do the job I don't care what your handicap is and we are willing to work around it. However everything has its limits.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[james_s]

I don't think being unable to read resistor color codes would be a serious limitation, color banded through-hole resistors are rarely used in modern equipment outside of the occasional flameproof or small power resistor. I typically verify with a multimeter anyway as I've been burned a few times by color bands that were somewhat ambiguous under fluorescent light.

[EEVblog]

I 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.

There is a compelling argument for making it illegal to discriminate against things you have no control over, e.g. gender and skin colour, and indeed most(?) countries have laws against discriminating based on that alone.
But religion?, sorry that's your choice.
You believe in UFO's or Homeopathy?, your choice.
Trump supporter, your choice.
Hair colour or other appearance attributes? your choice.
And insert a dozen other things people may judge you over.

I had to give a reality check to a group of EE students some time back. They came armed with all sorts of questions about "Is it true that there is gender or race discrimination in the industry", as if that's the #1 impediment to getting a job. I had to tell them there are dozen other things they'll get judged on before gender or race. Use the incorrect intonation of voice or body language in an interview and it's all over red rover, and that's just for starters.

[jpanhalt]

In the US, sexual preference, marital status, and religion are protected as is gender and color.   Age is also protected, but the protections have limits, e.g, an 85 y.o. is not protected when applying for an entry-level position.

[eb4eqa]

I am color blind and the biggest challenge for me is telling traces appart from others, in many different instruments. Yellow and green seem to be the common option for two-channel scoper for example, and they look identical to me on the screen. That is why:

http://www.rbarrios.com/projects/DSOX/

Regards,
Roberto

[Berni]

Yeah some of the old gear with color screens i find you can set any color of the rainbow for pretty much any screen element, even menus.

Tho how yellow/green ended up there is likely a mistake. For 2 channel scopes and other gear it used to be that they chosen two opposing colors such as for example yellow and blue and variations on that. Makes complete sense, but then 4 color channel scopes came around and almost all of them used interleaving for channels 1/2 and 3/4 as that was cheaper than having 2 extra ADCs. On these scopes you are supposed to use the opposite pairs when you need 2 channels so that you make use of both ADCs.

For example Agilent/Keysight (And some others) use:
1) Yellow
2) Green
3) Blue
4) Magenta

So if you use the scope as it was meant means you use channel 1 and 3 or if you like 2 and 4. In that case you get complementary colors of Yellow/Blue or Green/Magenta and are as such very easy to tell apart. They thought this out nicely.

Then also scope manufacturers wanted to make cheaper versions of the scopes so that they could cover a wider market, especially when it got so price competitive. Naturally the thing to do is chop away one of the expensive ADCs and associated circuitry to make a 2 channel scope with just 1 ADC. So to make things sensible they keep channel 1 and 2 and throw away 3 and 4. But they also kept the colors, the colors that ware not designed to be easily distinguishable. I don't know weather this was just a "Whops we forgot about that" or it was deliberate because "We need to keep our product line consistent" or "It takes less software changes to keep the colors"

Even tho im not color blind i think that the two colors are not that easy to tell apart at a glance if the waveforms are overlapping. But all the scopes around me are 4 channel anyway so i just stick with my usual channel 1/3 pair.

[T3sl4co1l]

Hmm incidentally, a lot of scopes have lower performance if you use channels 1 and 2 simultaneously, or 3 and 4. So 1&3 or 2&4 would be preferred for high speed two channel operation.

It's still a dumb accident that yellow and green ended up the scheme. Pretty basic if anyone along the way had just asked about color blindness, but alas, it's often overlooked.

Tim

[Cerebus]

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.

At least you're honest about your intent to ignore the law wholesale. Just hope that the other side in the first court case that you find yourself in don't find this or it will be 'exhibit A' in their case against you.

And appealing to Darwin would, were he still alive, have probably brought you a short, sharp, Victorian lecture in morality. I suspect, if asked, that Darwin would have considered the evolution of social rules and law just as much a part of evolution. The ability, by codifying what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour, to coexist without tearing each other apart is an evolutionary adaptation that has permitted the human race to become this planet's most successful species.

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.

Thankfully, no. Any lawyer advertising his services this way would find himself disbarred in fairly short order. However, a wise man I know once taught me that it's important how you phrase "Can I do this legally?" to a lawyer. Say "Can I do this legally?" and they will most likely offer you a roundabout way to skirt the law; ask "Is it illegal for me to do this?" and they will give you an opinion on the legality of your proposed action.

[Cerebus]

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.

You seem to be conflating law and lawyers, they are not one and the same thing. If the law is, in evolutionary terms, a host organism, lawyers are its parasites. If evolution jumped to perfection in one single leap we would not have psychopaths and sociopaths - we do. Evolution evolves, one must expect many imperfect intermediate steps and a 'just good enough' end result.

[T3sl4co1l]

If evolution jumped to perfection

we would not have psychopaths and sociopaths

While you're on the right track -- a reminder to make this explicit:

Evolution is not a path to some arbitrary concept of perfection.

Evolution just is.

The human race, for example, is no more a pinnacle of achievement than the humble banana slug, or the amoeba.

Indeed, by another metric, one might well say the protists are doing better -- they've been around longer, and have more individuals in more environments.

Likewise, an arbitrary classification (psychological conditions) need not apply to evolution; it just is.  Indeed, psychopathy and sociopathy have well known evolutionary functions; which is exactly why the rest of us hate them so much (reference the survival-of-society versus survivial-of-individual game-theory square).

Regarding lawyers, in principle, they swear to uphold ethics as well as the law.  Law, in turn, is typically constructed from an ethical basis; but in practice, it is more realist than that.  The laws that lawyers themselves must adhere to, are there for this reason: as a balance, if not a strict yes-and-no.  Which is fitting, as law itself is a hazy yes-and-no argument when heard in court.

I assume blueskull is referring specifically to those lawyers in China, where the law bends much more heavily towards the realist side than the ethical side.

Tim

[coppice]

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.

[Cerebus]

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.

[coppice]

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.

The point, in case you missed it, is that the complexity of interactions make it very hard to tell what evolution has been doing, apart from keeping species sufficiently well adapted to have survived this far.

[james_s]

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 also not how evolution works. Evolution is driven by individuals who are successful at breeding, that has little to do with their overall benefit to society or qualities as an individual. Sociopaths in particular tend to be capable of being very charming and can be quite successful at breeding. They may not make great parents but that doesn't matter from an evolutionary standpoint.

[james_s]

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.

Merely posting something like this could be very dangerous to your future employment opportunities should anyone at a prospective employer ever link this post to you. It may not be an issue in China but in the US and many other Western nations these things are taken very seriously. If an individual you interviewed were to find out about this, even if you rejected them for a perfectly valid reason like being completely incompetent they can still file a discrimination lawsuit where that post is certain to be used as evidence. Even baseless lawsuits are very expensive for companies, before I was allowed to interview anyone I had to go through some training which emphasized certain things we were under no circumstances allowed to ask or even discuss with a candidate. Things like age, marital status, religion, political affiliations, health conditions, all strictly forbidden. If they chose to bring it up unsolicited we were directed to gracefully change the subject. 

[cdev]

Sociopaths (i.e. people with NPD) tend to be delusional (they are the definition of delusions of grandeur) and for that reason they make horrible leaders. However that doesn't stop 99% of politicians from having it (NPD) anyway.

Because nobody else in their right minds wants the job.

Stressful childhoods and distant unavailable parents when somebody is under 6 yrs old create people with NPD, so NPD is much more common in the very rich and the very poor.

[james_s]

I'm not sure if one can conclusively say that these things create the disorder when it's entirely possible that it works the other way around and is genetic. Sociopaths tend to be the ones who make it into positions of power and influence which often leads to wealth. If it's genetic then their kids are more likely to have the condition as well. There are plenty of people neglected as children who did not become sociopaths.

[cdev]

James, I'm sorry but blueskull is right. In the final analysis, nothing in the world is going to keep somebody employed if their employer doesn't want them there.

Everybody has to stand on their own merits. Sure, jobs are going away, so that means that millions of people are not going to have jobs in a few years and the sooner we face that reality the better.

They wont have health insurance either.  They may not have anywhere to live, either because their homes will be snapped up by investors who wont even live in them.

This is why education is so important.

[Pinkus]

First: I am R-G color blind too and I hate my scope for not allowing me selecting the colors I want.

I read, that taking a Viagra pill should remove temporarily the color blindness (never tried).
I am wondering if a company would provide this anti-color-blindness pill for helping their employees. Though there are some secondary effects then  which might make the then (temporarily) healed person quite non-productive (at least regarding their regular work load).