Job seekers who are considered too old, too chunky or too dark are screened out by companies that sometimes specify the ideal candidate's marital status, height, weight, tone of voice, even the part of town in which the person should reside.
If one isn't too familiar with the social politics of Mexico, the article may be an eye-opener. If you think about it for a moment, it really shouldn't be too surprising considering how many blond and fair-skinned people populate the typical telenovela and how many of them are distinctly more European looking versus indigenous. According to the article, it's not a very strange practice in Mexico, to see those within a certain profile gainfully employed. One could also say that it's not that uncommon in our own country as well. Personally, if I've been a victim of discrimination on this level, or maybe I've never recognized it. Maybe it's because I appear to be of a different origin than most people would assume, but maybe that highlights the issue itself?
Take, for instance the job requirements and justification from this particular law firm:
Baker & McKenzie, a Chicago-based law firm, recently advertised for a real estate attorney — a male one — for its Monterrey office in northern Mexico. Celene Caballero, a company recruiter in Mexico, said Mexican clients feel more comfortable being represented by men.
While I don't find this statement particularly stunning (machismo drives the country towards a decidedly patriarchal bent), it doesn't make it any less detestable. Seriously, is it truly a demographic requirement driven by some vague idea of a focus group and would anyone be surprised if there was the same equivalent requirements for the same company in the United States where surveys lead to a great majority of the decisions large corporations make every day? Unfortunately, this is a truth in the Mexican landscape, where very wealthy men are given carte blanche and it compounds the many problems the country already has.
Most telling, however, is the type of attitude the citizens have come to develop over such practices:
...legal experts say Mexicans rarely complain to authorities or file employment discrimination lawsuits, partly because seeking redress is a lengthy and expensive process.
While there are some activists out there looking to change such positions, there isn't enough funding or community support to enact swift social reform (yet). There may be some changes on the way, especially with the latest electoral controversy, but something like this doesn't change overnight. What I'd like to think about it in terms of our own social situations is, how does something like this effect us or if these unspoken policies are things we see in our normal lives. Of course, I'm sure there are those American employers who would sooner hire a very attractive candidate over one they consider to be less aesthetically pleasing, but that's never as strictly outlined as it might be in the job description.
So, in the end, is it the parent company's responsibility to police these practices, the government's responsibility, or the community's responsibility to resist such policies?
Maybe its a little "all of the above" if you ask me.
2 comments:
Eliminating the biases that go into the hiring process is nearly impossible. Looking and speaking a certain way are generally fixable... living circumstances and gender aren't as easy. It's interesting to see how this pans out even in American society where everyone thinks they're "equal opportunity".
My first reaction to this article was to think about places like Hooters or Abercrombie & Fitch. These companies seek to create a certain image about themselves, so it really isn't surprising to see "equal opportunity" get swept under the rug.
Even so, some people still tend to hire superficially, no matter where you are. Does it make it more auspicious when it's out in the open like in Mexico or when it's an unspoken practice, like the previous examples.
Post a Comment