Interesting thought by my roommate...
So when I was telling my roommate about the Hopson vs. Daimler Chrysler case, she made an interesting comment. When I mentioned that Daimler Chrysler kept hiring people with less education than Hobson had or even than the job asked for, she said maybe that was a good business decision to hire someone you can train and pay less. While I think clearly there was discrimination going on in this case, her comment made me wonder if perhaps he was overqualified for the positions he applied for. As someone with both a masters and a bachelors degree, he might not be the best candidate for the company to hire because they would have to pay him more than other hires. And I wonder if there actually are discrimination cases that stem from people being overqualified. Just a thought...
posted by mel at
11:17 PM
2 Comments:
Certainly overqualification, if true and the actual motivating factor in a decision, would be a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for a decision not to hire someone. One practical problem of such a justification is that I think most people tend to be suspicious of that reason, unless it is tied to some sort of inflexible pay scale (like in a unionized workforce). So the "overqualification" explanation is really one of "expense." That happens to experienced teachers all the time.
Your roommate's intuition is good; however, DaimlerChrysler never suggested that was its motivation in Hopson's case.
Let's assume over qualification was the motivating factor. Could DiamlerChrysler offered him the position, but with pay similar to the recent graduates? I think this would eliminate discrimination and allow for a logical business decision. Hobson might not have agreed with the pay issue, but DiamlerChrysler would be putting the ball in his court rather than making a discriminatory decision.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home