The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

It"s time to repeal equal employment laws

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/25/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,846 times Debate No: 26563
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




There are all sorts of groups who claim they are under-represented, under-valued or discriminated against in the workplace. Women are the most high-profile complainers, of course, but they are not the only ones demanding special favours: the old; the physically-handicapped; religious fanatics; gays; the obese; the mentally-retarded; even tamed savages from darkest Borneo and other ethnic minorities are seeking to benefit from affirmative action legislation aimed at advancing their careers ahead of those of other candidates.

At the same time, some disappointed applicants who fail to land jobs or promotions, and who are unwilling to accept that they simply were not the best candidate, resort to making accusations of discrimination against employers, often along the lines of: "You didn't give me that job simply because I'm a cross-dressing, left-handed, half-witted, vegetarian with AIDS from Balikpapan, and I'm going to tell my mum on you, and I'm going to sue you as well, and you"ll be sorry, so there!"

However, employers should be able to recruit staff that they alone consider are right for their organisations, and if they were not burdened with employment regulations they could be honest in their recruitment advertisements and not waste any unsuitable candidates' time, as the following examples illustrate.



Local supermarket has vacancies for Shelf-Stackers.

No experience necessary as training will be given. Sorry, no dwarfs.


Leading firm of tax accountants requires a senior Wealth Preservation Consultant.

Must be familiar with the latest aggressive tax avoidance instruments and have extensive experience in dealing in a financially disingenuous manner with tax collection agencies. We are an equal opportunities employer but we particularly welcome applications from Jews.


Local Peep Show requires Semen-Moppers to wipe cubicles clean after use.

Must have own mop and bucket. This is a physically-demanding job so cripples need not apply.


Catholic Church seeks Priest (fixed-term contract).

A vacancy has arisen for an ordained priest in the local diocese. Fixed 5 year contract pending the incumbent's release from penal incarceration. Applicants must be willing to remain strictly celibate and must not have any prior criminal convictions for queering up choirboys. Applications not accepted from women, divorcées, Protestants and former condom salesmen.


Retail bank has a vacancy for a Trainee Teller.

Excellent career prospects and a competitive salary await the successful candidate. This position includes cash-handling duties and is, therefore, not suitable for Hispanics or blacks.


Public swimming pool requires Attendant for male changing room.

Duties include keeping the facilities clean, dealing with customer enquiries and supervising unaccompanied minors. This position involves interacting with men and boys in states of undress so applications from females and homosexual males will be automatically rejected.


Gentleman's club has vacancies for Exotic Dancers.

Applications are sought from slim, attractive women aged 18-25 with medium- to massive-sized breasts who are willing to strip naked and gyrate erotically on our customers' laps. We are an equal opportunities employer but are particularly keen to recruit bi-sexual females willing to lez it up in girl-on-girl performances as they are currently under-represented in our workforce.


I think you would agree that these ads appear quite different to the carefully-worded, legally-constrained ones we are used to seeing, and this is a good thing because prospective employees know where they stand - and if members of the public object to what they may consider discriminatory employment practices, as they well might in the case of the above example of the bank, they can always boycott that organisation.

In the final analysis, employers must be allowed to recruit on the basis of suitability and merit without having to worry about meeting staff quotas or being prosecuted under employment legislation and, for these reasons, equal employment laws should be repealed.

Thank you.


Thanks to Brain for making this fun debate.

What is Equal Employment Opportunity or (EEO) Laws?

It is the stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by prejudices or preferences. The aim is that important jobs should go to those "most qualified" -persons most likely to perform ably in a given task – and not go to persons for arbitrary or irrelevant reasons, such as circumstances of birth, upbringing, friendship ties to whoever is in power, religion, sex, ethnicity, race, caste, or "involuntary personal attributes" such as disability, age, or sexual preferences. Such that they have "an equal chance to compete within the framework of goals and the structure of rules established." The idea is to remove arbitrariness from the selection process and base it on some "pre-agreed basis of fairness. Individuals should succeed or fail based on their own efforts and not "extraneous circumstances" such as having well-connected parents.

Rebuttal to Pro

Indeed my opponent has made correct claims here in his first round. People do indeed make outlandish claims on why they fail to gain employment. There is alot of people who are under-represented in the work force, there are alot who are under-valued and most certainly(even though employers will not admit) there are some that are discriminated against. There to many regulations for quotas and being prosecuted if they are not met. Some of his claims how ever seem a little far-fetched. He claims that it is women who are the biggest complainers. In fact the truth is, it is women by the percentage that are more content on what they have then men. It is women who usually accept the cards they are dealt and handle it with more dignity then men. This has been the case throughout history. It even seems that it is women who are the less emotional on numerous instances.

My opponent then attacks the old; the physically-handicapped; religious fanatics; gays; the obese; the mentally-retarded and ethnic minorities. I think my opponent hurts is whole case by these examples. If it was not for equal employment laws, how would these people find employment? Unless by some special consideration by a specific employer these people would have a hard time ever finding a chance of equal employment. These are perfect examples why we need equal employment laws in place. If there was not then only healthy, athletic, highly educated and experienced people would ever find jobs. It is almost that case today even with these laws in place. How worse would it be if these laws were not there?

My opponent pushes forward with disappointed applicants who accuse employers of being discriminating against them. These cases are the very reason why equal employment was made law in the first place. If equal laws were not in place then these accusations would more than triple how many they are now. There would most certainly be more and more cases of discrimination applied. If employers were able to just hire employees they wanted then millions would be out of work. These laws are in place so that employers are given less chance of favoritism in the work-place. Matter of fact the tables can be turned on my opponent and we can say that many applicants that are more suitable and experienced for jobs could be denied for jobs if equal employment was not in place. Think of how many stero-types or racisms or biased judgements that would be applied if equal oppurtunity was not a law.

My opponent then(I assume because no links were given) gives us examples of situational adds for employment. He then continues to prove my point by being biased against or for dwarfs, Jews, cripples, the poor, criminals, women, divorcées, Protestants, hispanics, blacks, homosexuals, bi-sexuals and even condom salesmen. These examples show the reason equal employment is needed in society still to this day because people(as probably my opponent) will be biased against certain people.

Con's full argument

Like I said previously, if we did not have equal opportunities for all in the workforce then many discriminations would become more rampant. We would have discrimination by race, sex, color, disabilities, preferences and origin. Under equalism these groups are protected and any unequal treatment is illegal by law. This is rightly a law because no one should be discriminated against because of their certain group or pairing.

A example of discrimination is when a company needs to hire entry-level employees. This job requires lifting and physical exertion but no technical skill. The employer requires a high school diploma but many of the applicants are Hispanic and do not have a high school diploma. This also eliminates many American born employees that do not have a high school diploma. This company does not have justification to require a high school diploma for this specific job. Thus, this engages in discrimination against people who either chose not to finish high school or had no choice in not having a high school diploma.

Also included in the law is equal pay. Under this act all genders, race, origin and preferences are protected and ensured equal pay as any other. This is also considering the experience and education of the employee. Any different pay amounts based on the above groups are a violation of the law. This is fairly so because if it was not law then many would make more than others regardless if they earned it or not. Then many who did earn it or has the education for the pay would not recieve it by unfairness.

There was a employee at Goodyear Tire company that sued to her employer based on allegations that she was paid less than her male counterparts and that she recieved a pension unequal to her male counterparts with the same job. This became a act called the 'Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.' This act further made it unfair and illegal for employers to engage in unfair compensation practices.

There are workers that are discriminated against because of their disability. It is unlawful for employers to deny employment based on a precieved disability. There are many accommodations that can be provided for such workers.

There is no doubt of the importance of equal employment oppurtunity in society.


Back to Pro

Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Double_Helix46 for accepting this debate (were there really already 45 other Double_Helix's on this site before he joined?)

First of all, I should like to make it clear that I am no bigot, and I am certainly no sexist or racist - indeed, I actually married a Slovakian girl. (I have since divorced her, but that wasn't anything to do with her gender-specific traits or her ethnicity, it was more to do with her never having my dinner ready on time and for not keeping the house clean and tidy, but in fairness to her, that wasn't really her fault - all Slovak women are lazy by nature).*

Moving on to the debate, my opponent outlined the law, as it stands, and how it is used to defend the employment rights of various individuals who feel they are discriminated against, but he also acknowledged that, in practice, many employers hire the people they feel are most suitable for the given vacancy in spite of the regulations (and are sometimes punished for doing so).

I agree that some people are at a disadvantage in the workplace through no fault of their own, but it is not the job of legislators to produce an equality of employment outcomes, rather it is to ensure there is an equality of opportunity. The way they do this is to fund high-quality education so students from private schools do not have a significant intellectual advantages over those who attended publicly-funded schools, and also to ensure youngsters from poorer backgrounds can access the best health care so that they are not unduly disadvantaged physically either.

Nevertheless, certain governments still feel the need to interfere directly with the labour market. For example, next month the EU will debate a new law which will force all employers to ensure that at least 40% of the members of their supervisory boards (executive directors) are women. (1)

Let's take a real life scenario to see how that would work in practice:

I used to work for one of America's largest travel companies where I had responsibility for running the Groups and Incentive division in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA). As one of the three senior managers based in the EMEA headquarters in London, all our duties included meeting clients and suppliers, running the office in the absence of any executive directors and travelling abroad to represent the Company.

I had no problem with that, of course, but the other two senior managers were women with childcare issues. When problems occurred that required someone senior to come into the office early or leave late, it would always be me: they had to take their kids to school at a certain time in the morning and pick them up at a certain time in the afternoon.

And if one of us had to attend some tedious trade fair or conference overseas, it would always be me that had to go because I didn't have any kids to look after.

And when it came to having dinner with suppliers after work, again, it would have to be me that represented the company (a free meal is not worth spending your evening having your ears chewed off by some pushy salesmen, by the way).

One year I even had to cancel my summer vacation at the last moment because one of my fellow manager's children was taken ill and she had to stay off work to look after it.

None of this I minded too much, of course - I understood their circumstances - and the company duly recognised that I worked longer hours, took far fewer days off work, had a broader and deeper experience and a wider network of international contacts that my fellow managers - and this was reflected in my higher salary and annual bonus, so I would have have expected to be in pole position should a vacancy have become available on the Board of Directors.

I wouldn't be best pleased, therefore, if my application was rejected simply because the Company had a quota to fill and had no legal option but to appoint one of my female colleagues instead. Now that really would have been sexual discrimination.

To conclude, although I am a socialist, I live and work in a capitalist environment. I don't always like they way capitalism sometimes punishes the innocent and rewards the undeserving, but I have to accept it. What is not acceptable, however, is for government legislation to add to the injustices of capitalism by punishing diligent, hard-working people simply because they do not fit into a minority pigeon-hole, thus denying them legitmate job opportunities, or for employers to be forced to recruit second-rate candidates which will make their companies less competitive in the global marketplace, simply to comply with employment legislation.

Thank you.


* If you are reading this, Tatiana, I am only joking!


I would like to thank Brian_Eggleston for his last round and this debate. I have no idea if there are any other Double_Helix's on this site but my name is another term for human DNA and the 46 strands in it. I can appreciate my opponents humor and enjoy it.

I never claimed my opponent personally was a bigot but only that some of his terms in his opening round could lead one to think his was. I kinda feel that this debate has lead us into his ex-marriage more than.

My opponent then negates his own resolution of equal opportunity employment by agreeing that people are treated unfairly, hence needing the law. Then he goes about saying that it is the legislators job and it is not their job to produce outcomes, I agree. He then precedes into telling us how they pull of the task of ensuring their laws are followed and successful. I really think this helps my position.

He gives us a example of the EU propose of declaring that employers make their supervisor boards 40% women. I agree, this is harsh and demanding. Though it has no effect overall on the overwhelming help that equal employment opportunities bring.

Let's take a long look at his scenario:

I see that this declaration is not even passed yet and therefore is not even a problem at this point. It seems that the proposals will now not be debated until November. At the moment, less than 15% of board positions in EU member states are currently held by women.

I can see there concern my opponent has but is his main reason for wanting to take equal opportunity off the board is because it could lead to a woman being appointed before him. I can see that time and effort he has put into the job and someone who has done less maybe should not be promoted before him. Though is the woman promoted less qualified or capable of doing the job given?

The idea of equal opportunity is that everyone, regardless of race, gender, or creed, should get the opportunity to have the same level of jobs. That they can have the same opportunity of high school or college. If you look at it from an economic perspective, this can be good for competition and growth. This lessens affirmative actually having much of an affect today because there are qualified minorities. This can benefit both employees and employers. For the workers, it means they are never without a recourse if they experience job discrimination. For employers, it creates opportunities for a workplace free of bias.

Not all capitalist environments work up to standards that are desired but this doesn't mean that they fail. It is true that sometimes the just do not always get what is deserved and sometimes the less deserving are rewarded. But, we can not just look at a few examples but the overall picture. The whole picture gives us the outlook that many are treated with fairness. That alot of people who otherwise would be overlooked are put in the picture for the future. If the our leaders and government was not there to help the less desired or fortunate then we would live in a world were only the favorite excel. The world leans that way by nature and this tilts the side back to those are not the up most desired.

In the end, this system works for the good. It allows people to get jobs that otherwise they mite not have had the chance to obtain. It allows everyone the chance for education so they can earn the jobs that even the most highly educated can obtain. This law can not be took away because if it were then there would a rapid increase in biased behavior.

I thank my opponent for this opportunity.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Muted 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct because Pro uses racist remarks like how Hispanics and Blacks should be excluded from handling money. Con uses slightly better source and more. Pro makes slightly better arguments on the whole.
Vote Placed by Billdekel 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both were good. Pro was able to defend his arguments better.