Profiling in the Workplace Suitability or Discrimination?

Profiling in the Workplace - Suitability or Discrimination?
by Raine Marcus

Much has been discussed recently about passenger profiling relating to aviation safety, where passengers are scrutinized in an attempt to identify security threats. Since September 11th, most airlines are implementing training to facilitate profiling - something El Al has done for years. The 'shoe bomber', fitted the stereotype of a threat and failed passenger profiling techniques, but somehow was still allowed on the plane.

Now, profiling is alive and rearing its polemic head in the workplace, despite laws and policies to protect against all aspects of discrimination. Profiling has its subtleties, with most intelligence work done behind the scenes. Potential employees may never know why they didn't get a job.

Questions asked are designed to find out if you comply with set criteria or stereotypes, which can detect whether you suit the corporate culture. Yes, you have to fit company criteria to get the job - skills, experience, qualifications etc. But, that's not all. Despite stringent laws, race, age and religion may still bar an employee from getting a position.

The real, secret agenda beyond the skills required may never be apparent, and they certainly won't be written in company policy regarding new employees. On the contrary, recruitment advertisements in newspapers proudly declare that positions comply with Equal Opportunities regulations. It is illegal to refuse someone a job because of discrimination. But it happens frequently and is very difficult to prove.

Companies are supposed to hire a proportion of people from ethnic groups and employees are asked to state their ethnic backgrounds, ostensibly to allow government to ensure that all sectors are represented in the workplace. A sceptical employment lawyer noted: "If you believe that these forms are really monitored to ensure a fair chance is given to all, you'll believe anything."

So although one is not allowed to ask a female employee at an interview if she's married with children who may "interfere" with her performance, application forms require candidates to submit personal details. Ageism is also a hidden problem in our society. Profiling in aviation security pinpoints younger men as potential suicide bombers, but profiling in the workplace sends older people out to pasture. Chances are that if a candidate is competing with someone five years junior with similar credentials, the younger counterpart will get the job. Over 40 may be tantamount to being over the hill.

Naturally, recruitment agencies and employers will rarely give the reason for turning a candidate down if it's related to age, sex or religion. Companies are not usually sued for telling candidates that they don't stand a chance because they are too old/too fat/too short. Methods are usually much more sophisticated and the burden of proof lies with the rejected candidate.

Discrimination comes in many shapes and guises. The Managing Director of a PR agency I once worked with observed "I hired people for your account because they're tall. Tall people make an impression; they exude authority." He was deadly serious.

At a recent interview the section of my CV detailing my journalistic experiences on security, business and terror issues in Israel was scrutinized. This evoked suspicious reactions. The interviewer, an 'educated' man with a public school accent, said: "Tell me, did the Israeli army tell you what to write?" I was flabbergasted. "I'm sorry, I don't understand." "Well, you know. Not that we're recruiting for MI5, but maybe the Mossad told you what to write in the newspaper."

I knew that from that moment on I could say goodbye to the prestigious position. Could I prove I had been discriminated against? No. Recruiters or employers can always claim that candidates do not possess the right skills or experience.

I was asked recently to give an expert opinion on whether passenger profiling was in fact racially orientated. The real answer is yes, it is. This is also the reason why in 1997, US Congress turned down a proposal written by the then Vice President, Al Gore, to explore profiling and its intended use for passenger screening.

And in the competitive and very busy workplace, dozens of horror stories reveal that a hidden agenda of employment profiling seems to be very much the order of the day.

At least no prospective job candidate has been asked if s/he packed his own briefcase.

JEWISH PERSPECTIVE

Jews, who have traditionally been victims of discrimination, are well aware of the potential evils of this practice. This awareness finds expression in Jewish law and in statements of our Sages. For example, while Jewish tradition obliges us to be loyal to the laws of legitimate governments, laws that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity are considered inequitable and illegitimate. (Rambam Gezeila veAveida 5:14 from Ri Migash BB 54b.) And the Mishna urges us, "Don't look at the vessel but rather on what is inside". (Avot 4:20.)

However, we must also be careful of the opposite extreme. Even the current equal-opportunity legislation involves very intrusive monitoring, which can be as much of a threat to a free society as the discrimination it is meant to remedy. Beyond this, we have to ask ourselves if radical elimination of all kinds of discrimination is really desirable. Is it really so terrible if someone believes that tall people are on the whole more effective account managers? Perhaps they are - they certainly have an advantage as basketball players.

While equitable treatment is certainly a value in Jewish tradition, preserving autonomy and freedom on how to mould an effective workplace are also important. Ensuring that all citizens have the opportunity for respectable and rewarding employment should certainly be a public priority. But this shouldn't be allowed to impose untested and intrusive norms that are likely to be ineffective, counterproductive, and a threat to freedom.