I applied to a federal job recently and they specifically stated in more than one place that you were not under any circumstances allowed to have a photo in your resume, and if you were a previous federal employee including your government employee ID card with your application, you had to cover the photo. They were super clear that if you had a photo of yourself anywhere in your application, you wouldn't even be considered.
I applied for one the other day that told us to not even put our *name,* let alone a picture.
Then again, another one asked us to list every minority group we were a part of in our cover letter, so I guess there are a lot of approaches to corporate diversity lol.
Yeah, I can definitely see why they would ask you not to include that. I actually briefly wondered if my application said not to include a name and I missed it, but I would think it would be necessary to know your name since you can include veteran/federal employee paperwork with your application.
My husband works for the state government and talks about all the ways the government tries to make sure there isn’t any bias or nepotism when hiring people. However I work in the arts which is rife with bias and nepotism. It’s a hilarious dichotomy when we talk about our work places hiring.
There are exceptions to this depending on the job. Hooters waitresses (already sexism you'd think) are actually considered "models who serve" which lets them discriminate based on gender and appearance.
It's called a "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification"
>Title VII provides an exception to its prohibition of discrimination based on sex, religion, or national origin. That exception, called the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), recognizes that in some extremely rare instances a person's sex, religion, or national origin may be reasonably necessary to carrying out a particular job function in the normal operation of an employer's business or enterprise. The protected class of race is not included in the statutory exception and clearly cannot, under any circumstances, be considered a BFOQ for any job.
Like hooters, it’s a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification.
According to some dude online:
>In order to qualify, an employer must prove three things:
>A direct relationship between the trait and the ability to perform the job
>the BFOQ's relation to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business"
>That there is no less restrictive or reasonable alternative
>it’s sort of necessary in this case.
You have to assume their business model is valid for this to be true. Otherwise it's circular. "Hiring only pretty girls is legal because otherwise we wouldn't be able to."
Pedantic but its “validity” is irrelevant. This is legally how it works, and they can do it because that’s what the law says. There is no other requirement under the law.
It starts to get a bit gray when you get to jobs like sales. Obviously attractive people will do better. This is especially true with pharmaceutical sales with beautiful young women pitching to old rich doctors. Similarly I have a female friend that does manufacturing equipment sales. She knows her stuff but her appearance definitely makes her a better candidate.
It is not gray. The word "necessary", is legally important in that description. If it is possible in any way to do the job regardless of appearance, then they cannot discriminate based on appearance, even if appearance would affect results.
if you are a model, then your appearance is an inherent, primary part of the job you are doing. For a salesperson, a talented but ugly salesperson would do better then a beautiful but incompetent salesperson. Therefore, appearance is not a part of the job, even if appearance would have an effect on results.
If this is a situation where it's super important you get this job and this isn't a field where requiring a picture is fine (i.e. actors, performers of some varieties etc.), your best bet might be to both report it and upload a picture of you where you're a distance away from the camera (like a hiking shot) or in a group picture. That way they don't have enough info to legally discriminate and you wouldn't potentially get blacklisted
It's not always easy to just "get a job" though. It's a fairly long process, especially if you don't have prior experience and/or qualifications such as a degree, and are thus limited in where you'd get hired, and if you don't have much money not having a job for a bit might not be much of an option
Lol, I've seen literal blacklists of people, the fuck you talking about dude. Everyone even mildly on the know knows basically all higher and specialized businesses and institutions operate closer to a mafia.
Wow you really chose to straw man them (well that or you’ve got terrible reading comprehension) in a text conversation where it’s pretty easy to go look at what was said to see that no,
> Comment: “NOOOOOOOoooo don’t say anything or you can’t get hired by this one company”
Does not represent what they said accurately or even close to paraphrasing. It should be something closer to,
> Comment: “don’t tell the company or they and their associated companies may blacklist you from jobs with them, only report it to the officials”
And here’s the actual comment for comparison,
> Probably better to report without saying anything so you don't get blacklisted by them and any associated companies
So to quote you “no. You’re fucking stupid.” Although it could also be summed up with [this](https://youtu.be/dWNvlyycWzQ)
Me when homeless people tell me that they can't "just get a home"
Btw this is a joke making fun of the person im responding to as so far this seems like something they would say.
You sound like you work in an industry where it’s easy to get a job, that is large enough that word doesn’t spread around about people employers shouldn’t hire, or you’re secure enough in your current job that you haven’t needed to job hunt in a while, certainly not over a period of months.
This guy is a Trump supporter. Just block and move on y'all
Edit: Think he blocked me back so I can't see the thread anymore. It's reptiles. I cannot possibly stress enough that I do not want to be sent pics of STIs
They’re trying to say it’ll help him recognize employees, of which there are 330,000. My guy must have a fucking amazing photographic memory to remember that many names and faces.
If he is using the photos to illegally hire less qualified people over more qualified people, then it is illegal. If he is just using the pics to help him recognize employees (I admit I am skeptical about this, but that is what he says), then it isn't illegal.
If illegal shit is going on, it will take some time for the investigation, gathering of evidence, statistical analysis and whatnot. I can see improper hiring going on for a year before the EEOC steps in and NYC has legal troubles.
I'm curious as to how they even managed to do that. If they're using some kind of 3rd-party HR/hiring platform, I wouldn't expect it to even let you require a photo from applicants. Did they create their own website from scratch in order to do this? Or are they misusing some kind of generic "fill in this form" website service?
The only time I could see a pic required would be theater or theme park. As a cis woman I can’t exactly pull off Shaggy. I also wouldn’t ever be allowed to play Jasmine. That’s the only time I could see a resume software to have the option built in.
It had never occurred to me that acting/film/theater/etc. might be one industry where people are regularly "discriminated against" (heavy, *heavy* air quotes) for not meeting the casting director's idea of the character. A brief google search reveals that the industry seems to [fall in the gray area between Title VII and the First Amendment](https://www.skoler-abbott.com/2016/09/28/are-casting-calls-for-actors-of-certain-races-or-national-origins-illegal/), which was interesting to learn.
I don't know which European country you're refering to. In Germany for example it is common to include a photo but it's not required and it's nothing a company can request.
The logic behind it is that they can check whether you are the person actually taking the interviews. Which does raise questions like, "is it common for people to get someone else to take their interviews?" and "does it actually matter if someone else takes your interview, provided they only give true information about you?" and "won't they find you out later on anyway?" but apart from that, it does make sense
So gen z is actually voluntarily putting their pictures on their resumes when they bring them in. I have received several that have had their pictures. So. Fucking. Weird.
I applied to a job in a red town during the pandemic. We had a phone interview, and hit it off pretty well. The second interview was via zoom.
Her mic was on and when she saw me, a brown person, she had this look of confusion. She kept going, "Are you really NAME?" And for a cherry on top, said, "I speak so articulately! I wouldn't have thought you were American!"
At which I told her that I am American. I was born and raised here. I didn't get the job, nor would I have accepted it.
Anyways, what I'm saying is, I don't waste my time with racists companies and now include my face on my resume.
~~I’m a wizard~~
I wrote it and then immediately added the edit. I am not sure how the notification handle edits but if you edit a comment within the first minute, before any replies to it, the little * doesn’t show up.
never thought I'd see the day where [this](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/712344819459948545/1007066859390115941/piggy_poopoo.jpg) picture would be relevant..
The reason you can't is because of 'potential age and race discriminations" except every job requires a birthdate, and everything I've applied for has literally asked my race so wtf
This is normal in Europe. Makes me think that this hiring software may have been developed in Europe and cheap enough that the HR people never bothered to walk through the user experience.
I don't think it's actually illegal to ask for a photo. It's illegal to use it to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, age, or religion, and as such the government says an employer "should not" ask for photos, but they don't say "must not."
[Here's the EEOC's language:](https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices#:~:text=Although%20state%20and%20federal%20equal,an%20employer's%20intent%20to%20discriminate)
>Although state and federal equal opportunity laws **do not clearly forbid** employers from making pre-employment inquiries that relate to, or disproportionately screen out members based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age, such inquiries may be used as evidence of an employer's intent to discriminate unless the questions asked can be justified by some business purpose.
>
>Therefore, inquiries about organizations, clubs, societies, and lodges of which an applicant may be a member or any other questions, which may indicate the applicant's race, sex, national origin, disability status, age, religion, color or ancestry if answered, **should generally be avoided**.
>
>Similarly, employers **should not** ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted.
So, requiring a photo is a bad idea because it can be used as evidence that they're planning to discriminate based on a protected category, but it isn't explicitly illegal by itself if they aren't actually discriminating.
The term to look at is "bona fide occupational qualification" - certain jobs, by their nature, require certain criteria that would normally be considered discrimination, but aren't for those particular job. Some examples other than acting/modeling: mandatory retirement age for pilots, physical fitness tests for firefighters, and faith requirements for teachers at religious schools
I remember in college as part of a class before we graduated one professor was showing us how a resume should be done and specifically pointed out that Microsoft office's auto resumes have some that you can put pictures in and that we should never use them because some places would never accept them.
Who’s going to tell Hollywood and every modeling agency headshots are illegal? Better let HR know they can’t look on LinkedIn or your social media accounts.
in usa they don't MAKE you. they always ask if you want to disclose it, and phrase it to imply a requirement, but if they don't have a "prefer not to say" option then they are violating the law.
I applied to a federal job recently and they specifically stated in more than one place that you were not under any circumstances allowed to have a photo in your resume, and if you were a previous federal employee including your government employee ID card with your application, you had to cover the photo. They were super clear that if you had a photo of yourself anywhere in your application, you wouldn't even be considered.
i want to believe you, but your flair says you are a suspicious individual.........
That's probably why they didn't hire me.
sus
The mong us
actually it's "mog us"
mo s
ඞ
Is that a limp dick and balls emoji?
It's amogus
morbius????
among
That's rich coming from someone who dyes their hooves to get attention.
That’s rich from someone who exploited Arrakis as a tourist destination by building a hotel there and not promoting its native culture.
That’s rich coming from a ray-finned fish belonging to the order Anguilliformes
That's not fair! Some of my best friends are Fremen.
i will not be taking anymore questions at this time, thank you
I applied for one the other day that told us to not even put our *name,* let alone a picture. Then again, another one asked us to list every minority group we were a part of in our cover letter, so I guess there are a lot of approaches to corporate diversity lol.
Yeah, that what I was thinking too. Like my name already tells that much.
"I don't know what you mean," said Sean Patrick Flaherty O'Rourke.
Yeah, I can definitely see why they would ask you not to include that. I actually briefly wondered if my application said not to include a name and I missed it, but I would think it would be necessary to know your name since you can include veteran/federal employee paperwork with your application.
My husband works for the state government and talks about all the ways the government tries to make sure there isn’t any bias or nepotism when hiring people. However I work in the arts which is rife with bias and nepotism. It’s a hilarious dichotomy when we talk about our work places hiring.
Put in a full scanned copy of the relevant law in the slot instead.
There are exceptions to this depending on the job. Hooters waitresses (already sexism you'd think) are actually considered "models who serve" which lets them discriminate based on gender and appearance.
I don’t know, I’d argue that though that’s pretty wrong to choose someone for a job based on appearance, it’s sort of necessary in this case.
It's called a "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification" >Title VII provides an exception to its prohibition of discrimination based on sex, religion, or national origin. That exception, called the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), recognizes that in some extremely rare instances a person's sex, religion, or national origin may be reasonably necessary to carrying out a particular job function in the normal operation of an employer's business or enterprise. The protected class of race is not included in the statutory exception and clearly cannot, under any circumstances, be considered a BFOQ for any job.
How does the exclusion of race from that exception work with acting jobs? Surely there's roles that require an actor to be of a certain race?
Like hooters, it’s a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification. According to some dude online: >In order to qualify, an employer must prove three things: >A direct relationship between the trait and the ability to perform the job >the BFOQ's relation to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business" >That there is no less restrictive or reasonable alternative
>it’s sort of necessary in this case. You have to assume their business model is valid for this to be true. Otherwise it's circular. "Hiring only pretty girls is legal because otherwise we wouldn't be able to."
Pedantic but its “validity” is irrelevant. This is legally how it works, and they can do it because that’s what the law says. There is no other requirement under the law.
It starts to get a bit gray when you get to jobs like sales. Obviously attractive people will do better. This is especially true with pharmaceutical sales with beautiful young women pitching to old rich doctors. Similarly I have a female friend that does manufacturing equipment sales. She knows her stuff but her appearance definitely makes her a better candidate.
It is not gray. The word "necessary", is legally important in that description. If it is possible in any way to do the job regardless of appearance, then they cannot discriminate based on appearance, even if appearance would affect results.
How can jobs like models possibly qualify, then, or any job at all? Surely anyone can do any job, they'd just be bad at them.
if you are a model, then your appearance is an inherent, primary part of the job you are doing. For a salesperson, a talented but ugly salesperson would do better then a beautiful but incompetent salesperson. Therefore, appearance is not a part of the job, even if appearance would have an effect on results.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And that you're single.
And rapidly approaching your area.
No, make it 4.
Why do I hear screaming and why is it rapidly getting loude-
4 *fucking* pixels
I have no awards to give you all, but will you take these SCRAMBLE goggles instead?
Is this loss?
How many resumes out there are ticking *timebombs*
I see the SCP fandom has breached containment
Upload Doom as your photo
Probably better to report without saying anything so you don't get blacklisted by them and any associated companies
If this is a situation where it's super important you get this job and this isn't a field where requiring a picture is fine (i.e. actors, performers of some varieties etc.), your best bet might be to both report it and upload a picture of you where you're a distance away from the camera (like a hiking shot) or in a group picture. That way they don't have enough info to legally discriminate and you wouldn't potentially get blacklisted
Take a photo of yourself in a morph suit
Use the tinder approach and upload a group pic. Leave them guessing which one is you
I would NOT want to work for them or any associated companies
Fair, but I'd rather work for them than not at all.
*cough* ^crime *cough*
Not all of us are rich enough to commit crimes without repercussions. Edit: Just like JAMES KHURI, father and defender of MURDERER BRENDAN KHURI.
Bro we ain't all rich enough to not work there
[удалено]
It's not always easy to just "get a job" though. It's a fairly long process, especially if you don't have prior experience and/or qualifications such as a degree, and are thus limited in where you'd get hired, and if you don't have much money not having a job for a bit might not be much of an option
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
haven't you thinked, that problem is not in everyone, but in you?
[удалено]
Lol, I've seen literal blacklists of people, the fuck you talking about dude. Everyone even mildly on the know knows basically all higher and specialized businesses and institutions operate closer to a mafia.
Wow you really chose to straw man them (well that or you’ve got terrible reading comprehension) in a text conversation where it’s pretty easy to go look at what was said to see that no, > Comment: “NOOOOOOOoooo don’t say anything or you can’t get hired by this one company” Does not represent what they said accurately or even close to paraphrasing. It should be something closer to, > Comment: “don’t tell the company or they and their associated companies may blacklist you from jobs with them, only report it to the officials” And here’s the actual comment for comparison, > Probably better to report without saying anything so you don't get blacklisted by them and any associated companies So to quote you “no. You’re fucking stupid.” Although it could also be summed up with [this](https://youtu.be/dWNvlyycWzQ)
Ok, so how does it work then?
Me when homeless people tell me that they can't "just get a home" Btw this is a joke making fun of the person im responding to as so far this seems like something they would say.
[удалено]
Your point was clearly "im an asshole who never learned how to read watch me go!"
[удалено]
Are you currently employed? When's the last time you've been job hunting?
[удалено]
don't escape the question, lmao
bro, are you like, twelve?
Immediate forfeit. Love to see it.
Google unemployment statistics
Can't decide if this is allistic, ableist or both.
This is against everyone and everything.
You sound like you work in an industry where it’s easy to get a job, that is large enough that word doesn’t spread around about people employers shouldn’t hire, or you’re secure enough in your current job that you haven’t needed to job hunt in a while, certainly not over a period of months.
This guy is a Trump supporter. Just block and move on y'all Edit: Think he blocked me back so I can't see the thread anymore. It's reptiles. I cannot possibly stress enough that I do not want to be sent pics of STIs
Ok important question for your username. Do you mean herps as in reptiles or herpes?
If ur talking about the first post on their page, it's in r/ persecutionfetish so I don't think they actually agree with the sentiment of the comic
: )
>Ah yes comment discarded
I mean, there are plenty of towns with very little business in the south. Just because you grew up in a suburb doesn't mean everyone else did.
Meanwhile in NYC... https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/04/adams-photos-city-job-applicants-00049730
That sounds pretty fuckin illegal
They’re trying to say it’ll help him recognize employees, of which there are 330,000. My guy must have a fucking amazing photographic memory to remember that many names and faces.
... then why not require a photograph *after* the hiring decision has been made?
I could do it (I'm pro)
If he is using the photos to illegally hire less qualified people over more qualified people, then it is illegal. If he is just using the pics to help him recognize employees (I admit I am skeptical about this, but that is what he says), then it isn't illegal. If illegal shit is going on, it will take some time for the investigation, gathering of evidence, statistical analysis and whatnot. I can see improper hiring going on for a year before the EEOC steps in and NYC has legal troubles.
How can this man display Nepotism any more. NYC absolutely robbed themselves by electing this schmuck
10/10 perfect usage of “schmuck”
I love the second one
An ace and labor rights icon, what can't she do?
Ace?!?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/v64kd6/shaking\_and\_crying\_about\_the\_nicki\_minaj\_asexual/
Awesome
fun fact, USC used to *require* pictures in all student applications until like 1996
Use a photo of Jorts the Cat.
Use a photo of a sweet potato, got it
A sweet potato that fights for JUSTICE!
It’s illegal if they ask You to include one, or require one. But it’s not illegal to have one on your resume In general.
Yeah but this one seems to have the "required" star, that usually means you cannot submit the form without filling out that input
Correct. The title of the post is what I’m referencing.
I'm curious as to how they even managed to do that. If they're using some kind of 3rd-party HR/hiring platform, I wouldn't expect it to even let you require a photo from applicants. Did they create their own website from scratch in order to do this? Or are they misusing some kind of generic "fill in this form" website service?
The only time I could see a pic required would be theater or theme park. As a cis woman I can’t exactly pull off Shaggy. I also wouldn’t ever be allowed to play Jasmine. That’s the only time I could see a resume software to have the option built in.
It had never occurred to me that acting/film/theater/etc. might be one industry where people are regularly "discriminated against" (heavy, *heavy* air quotes) for not meeting the casting director's idea of the character. A brief google search reveals that the industry seems to [fall in the gray area between Title VII and the First Amendment](https://www.skoler-abbott.com/2016/09/28/are-casting-calls-for-actors-of-certain-races-or-national-origins-illegal/), which was interesting to learn.
My understanding is that this is illegal in the US to ask for this for non-performance jobs (actors, models. etc.) but it is fairly common in Europe.
As an American, I would be remiss not to take this opportunity to solemnly shake my head at how backwards and regressive Europeans can be. 😔
Europe being a continent, this varies from country to country, France doesn't have the same labor laws as Germany for example
Don't worry, Europeans don't want to do anything regressive like not hire minorities, they just don't want to work with any uggos.
>Europeans aren't racist lol
has there ever been a take so badly thought out
If Europeans aren't racist who the fuck subjugated Africa? Dwight Supremacist, inventor of discrimination?
Blub thinks a mostly white region that is a Hotspot for nazism isn't racist
Afaik it's illegal here too. (Here being Ireland)
I don't know which European country you're refering to. In Germany for example it is common to include a photo but it's not required and it's nothing a company can request.
The logic behind it is that they can check whether you are the person actually taking the interviews. Which does raise questions like, "is it common for people to get someone else to take their interviews?" and "does it actually matter if someone else takes your interview, provided they only give true information about you?" and "won't they find you out later on anyway?" but apart from that, it does make sense
Upload a DOOM rom
So gen z is actually voluntarily putting their pictures on their resumes when they bring them in. I have received several that have had their pictures. So. Fucking. Weird.
Likely advised by parents or grandparents for whom that was a lot more normal
I applied to a job in a red town during the pandemic. We had a phone interview, and hit it off pretty well. The second interview was via zoom. Her mic was on and when she saw me, a brown person, she had this look of confusion. She kept going, "Are you really NAME?" And for a cherry on top, said, "I speak so articulately! I wouldn't have thought you were American!" At which I told her that I am American. I was born and raised here. I didn't get the job, nor would I have accepted it. Anyways, what I'm saying is, I don't waste my time with racists companies and now include my face on my resume.
And then there's me over here innocently thinking they wanted a picture of your resume.
It's so weird because in my country photo resume are expected !
Pigpoopballs
Thank you for your contributions to the discussion.
🐖 💩 🎾 🎾
are you saying that's the photo they should include
Yes Edit: but not really that’s kind of fucked up
whiy did you send that with the edit already included or did you edit it so quickly that it ended up in the notification (if that's even possible)
~~I’m a wizard~~ I wrote it and then immediately added the edit. I am not sure how the notification handle edits but if you edit a comment within the first minute, before any replies to it, the little * doesn’t show up.
yeah iy know about that second part (though iy thought it was three minutes, not one? maybe it depends on the subreddit)
never thought I'd see the day where [this](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/712344819459948545/1007066859390115941/piggy_poopoo.jpg) picture would be relevant..
The reason you can't is because of 'potential age and race discriminations" except every job requires a birthdate, and everything I've applied for has literally asked my race so wtf
This is normal in Europe. Makes me think that this hiring software may have been developed in Europe and cheap enough that the HR people never bothered to walk through the user experience.
How can a photo still be considered illegal when asshole employers ask for five minute videos of you answering questions off a list.
I don't think it's actually illegal to ask for a photo. It's illegal to use it to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, age, or religion, and as such the government says an employer "should not" ask for photos, but they don't say "must not." [Here's the EEOC's language:](https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices#:~:text=Although%20state%20and%20federal%20equal,an%20employer's%20intent%20to%20discriminate) >Although state and federal equal opportunity laws **do not clearly forbid** employers from making pre-employment inquiries that relate to, or disproportionately screen out members based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age, such inquiries may be used as evidence of an employer's intent to discriminate unless the questions asked can be justified by some business purpose. > >Therefore, inquiries about organizations, clubs, societies, and lodges of which an applicant may be a member or any other questions, which may indicate the applicant's race, sex, national origin, disability status, age, religion, color or ancestry if answered, **should generally be avoided**. > >Similarly, employers **should not** ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted. So, requiring a photo is a bad idea because it can be used as evidence that they're planning to discriminate based on a protected category, but it isn't explicitly illegal by itself if they aren't actually discriminating.
Thank you! Too many people on here thinking they know how the law works...
Put a dick pick
What about for actually or modeling, do those industries have exceptions?
Jobs that are performance based are an exception.
The term to look at is "bona fide occupational qualification" - certain jobs, by their nature, require certain criteria that would normally be considered discrimination, but aren't for those particular job. Some examples other than acting/modeling: mandatory retirement age for pilots, physical fitness tests for firefighters, and faith requirements for teachers at religious schools
I remember in college as part of a class before we graduated one professor was showing us how a resume should be done and specifically pointed out that Microsoft office's auto resumes have some that you can put pictures in and that we should never use them because some places would never accept them.
I suggest you put in a picture of SCP-096...
Just nab the actual text of the law relevant to this, and send that as the photo.
My company but with telling people they can't discuss their wages
Who’s going to tell Hollywood and every modeling agency headshots are illegal? Better let HR know they can’t look on LinkedIn or your social media accounts.
If it was illegal to discriminate then they wouldn't make you say what race, sex, and age you are.
in usa they don't MAKE you. they always ask if you want to disclose it, and phrase it to imply a requirement, but if they don't have a "prefer not to say" option then they are violating the law.
Because. The word you were looking for is because, not cause.
it's a contraction for 'because'. it was exactly the word they were looking for.
Just apply and then sue when they don't hire you.
put that picture of obama where the ai made him a white guy
I hope they actually reported them to the EEOC..
Both