Is this job ethical?

3_BOoYA_X

Just came across this job advert, really shocked at the wording stating they're specifically looking for 'good looking females'. I understand there is no discrimation law as such against employing lookers over unattractive people, but surely this can't be legal for a promotional based job?

Can anyone shed light on this?


http://m.jobs.ie/Job/1173338/

drunkmonkey

They mean models or good looking girls or girl confident in their looks, probably going to be doing business promotions, could be appearing online and the papers etc. Need to be presentable. Could be wearing hot pants etc.

3_BOoYA_X

Yes that's the impression I got, but advertising it in such a blunt way of specifically good looking, is this legal?

Corruptedmorals

I don't see why not? It isn't discriminating in terms of gender, race, religion or pregnancy which WOULD be an issue.

Delancey

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

I don't see why not? It isn't discriminating in terms of gender, race, religion or pregnancy which WOULD be an issue.

Incorrect - if the job states '' females '' then it is discriminatory.

Quelle surprise - the ad is on jobs.ie !

drunkmonkey

Delancey wrote: »

Incorrect - if the job states '' females '' then it is discriminatory.

Quelle surprise - the ad is on jobs.ie !

What, how is that discrimination. When ever i've hired models I always ask for girls. Maybe they agency needs girls right now, hence there asking for females to apply.

The whole thing pc things is just out of hand.

cruizer101

I'd say they are grand, there are laws covering things like acting, modelling and that kinda stuff which allows certain kinds of discrimination so they are probably covered by that.

Chucken

I guess they're looking for the "Rosie Webster" type girls?

I personally would not like any girl in college to have to have this kind of job

But then again Im just a mammy

Dont stress about it, look at different jobs. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Delancey

Not sure the Equality Authority would be so generous in their view.

Eoin

Seeing as they specify a photo should be attached to the CV, they probably could have played it safer and not specified it. And then potentially waste both their and the candidate's time by interviewing people who they're never going to hire.

It would be interesting to see if Irish law has a similar concept of "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification", where they could argue that an employee's appearance is integral to the company's success.

Fighting Irish

3_BOoYA_X wrote: »

Just came across this job advert, really shocked at the wording stating they're specifically looking for 'good looking females'. I understand there is no discrimation law as such against employing lookers over unattractive people, but surely this can't be legal for a promotional based job?

Can anyone shed light on this?


http://m.jobs.ie/Job/1173338/

i stopped here

Mr. Loverman

Funny. I know Jobs.ie very well.

In the past they would not have done this. They would tell the advertiser to use specific wording, e.g. if you want to hire a man you say "heavy lifting required". If you want a good looking female you ask the applicant to include a photo and the employer simply ignores all applicants from males.

Maybe this advert just slipped past their radar.

wonderfulname

I've come across these, tasteless sure, but I don't think illegal;

Employment Equality Act 1998 wrote:

25.—(1) Nothing in this Part or Part II applies to discrimination against A in respect of employment in a particular post if the discrimination results from preferring B on the ground that, by reference to one or more of subsections (2) to (4) the sex of B is or amounts to an occupational qualification for the post in question.


(2) For the purposes of this section, the sex of B shall be taken to be an occupational qualification for a post where, on grounds of physiology (excluding physical strength or stamina) or on grounds of authenticity for the purpose of entertainment, the nature of the post—


(a) requires a person of the same sex as B, and


(b) would be materially different if filled by a person of the same sex as A.

EDIT: Mr. Loverman, this might explain your "heavy lifting required" phrase, you can't specify a man on the basis that they are, on average, stronger, that is discriminatory, you can however imply you need a strong person and you will get a higher percentage of men applying.

Mr. Loverman

wonderfulname wrote: »

Mr. Loverman, this might explain your "heavy lifting required" phrase, you can't specify a man on the basis that they are, on average, stronger, that is discriminatory, you can however imply you need a strong person and you will get a higher percentage of men applying.

You just quoted the law so surely you know it isn't discriminatory to request the person be able to lift heavy objects.

Re-read your post...

Doh i totally misread your post, sorry

Delancey

The ad is now gone - wonder if ' the penny dropped ' in jobs.ie ?

seamus

"authenticity for the purposes of entertainment" are probably the clause that these ads would rely on if challenged. Or in other words - "We're targetting men and want attractive women to entertain them and hand out leaflets".

It's a clause specifically included for the performing arts sector where you need to be able to cast someone based on gender (aside from many other physical aspects). "Performing Arts" also including things like lapdancing.

But promotional work is skirting the line a bit.

Oddly enough, although it happens a lot in the performing arts, it's illegal for them to disregard someone on the basis of their race. It's completely unchallenged, but it'd be interesting to see what would happen if (for example) a chinese man took a theatre to court because he wasn't cast as Albert Einstein.

Delancey

I remember a crap made-for-TV movie about Vikings years ago - some of the ' Vikings ' were black

Mrs OBumble

Seems to me the OP was more shocked about "good looking" than the gender aspect.

And it's totally legal: "you're too ugly" is a perfectly acceptable excuse not to hire someone, AFAIK.

wonderfulname

Mr. Loverman wrote: »

Re-read your post...

Yes, yes you should...