Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

We need laws to address nepotism

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 11:18 PM
Original message
We need laws to address nepotism
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 11:20 PM by franzia99
Nepotism is rampant in hiring; perhaps moreso these days because people are trying to help out friends and relatives because jobs are more scarce. I'm seeing poorly qualified people getting hired via nepotism allover the place.

Our laws need to recognize that this is a form of employment discrimination not to be tolerated. The nepotism hires I've seen were always substantially worse than the ordinary employees. It's also very depressing to think of the impact on the better person who was passed over for the nepotism baby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. I didn't mind nepotism as long as the hires started at the bottom...
...and prove themselves; it's when they get immediate perks that it really bothers me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Sometimes the entry level jobs pay in the six figures. These are the ones I'm talking about in
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 11:35 PM by franzia99
particular. Though I don't think nepotism for lower paying jobs is okay either. You still have someone better who lost out on the opportunity to take that entry level job and work his or her way up. Besides, the same people who got that person hired for the entry level position may make sure that he or she also advances without earning it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. In a smaller business, it's a given. But in government it was once regulated against, pre-Tea Party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. A mom and pop or a start up could be exempted. Small companies are exempted under current employmen
t laws. The ones I'm seeing though are big companies and in particular I'm talking about jobs with six figure salaries. Getting your foot in the door at a place like that will have a huge impact on someone's career. It shouldn't be decided by birth roulette.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Their reasoning is they've kept their family member off the dole. As far as regulating that in...
Private businesses, that would be a good idea if employment discrimination was being considered at all. Most concerns about it went out with the Reagan era and his dismantling the EEOC. Which was not purely about race or gender or sexual orientation, but age, and the basis was that the person complaining had to prove that they were more qualified.

The business climate doesn't care what those disadvantaged think, their bosses think only about their own small group. And now it's even moved into government work, which is much more unfair because the people that pay taxes don't even get the benefit of working for the entity that is doing this.

The presumption is that a person working for a company practicing nepotism or some other unfair practice can leave. You know, right to work, right to leave. Their way or the highway.

I've been in work in large corporations where the only way to stop a less qualified person from taking the job was if the company had an open bidding process. If a more qualified person was denied a chance to advance because of favoritism, they still had to go outside the company to the EEOC to get that done. There was no other venue.

I don't believe the human resources office of a corporation wants to hear about it, either. Because they are being paid by the same people who are doing it. During these economic times, civil rights have not only been put on the back burner, they are being eroded. Do you know of another agency that will do it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
brewens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
4. I got burned when I was about 28 by a big shot.
There were 80 applicants for a job at an industrial part distributor. The entry level job was the shipping and receiving/deliver guy. It was really pretty good pay and benefits, and you could count on moving up pretty quick.

There were six of us scheduled for interviews. I worked for the beer distributor right across the street, and had been doing about the same job there for about five years. I could tie my shoes with a forklift and handling that job was gonna be a joke! I admit I had some politics on my side, a couple guys I went to school with worked there and were pulling for me.

At the last minute another interview was added. The son of the big boss at the local paper mill where they did a lot of business. This guy had been a notorious asshole before he crashed his motorcycle and suffered a serious head injury. Being partially brain damaged, his dad wanted to get him a job while he figured out somewhere to hide him out at the mill.

This guy got the job, and they had to babysit him for several months until he got hired at the mill. It really sucks to get beat out by someone that not only is under qualified, but can't do the job and doesn't even really want the job.

The next time the job was open I tried again. This time a woman had been promoted to assistant manager, and hired a girl she was related to who's only experience was working at a convenience store. It was no time at all before this girl had claimed to have a drug dependency and took advantage of the company rehab program. She never went back to work there.

I never got another shot at working there because I had a run in with the managers kid at a party. I found out that was his kid, tore into him about what a piece of crap his dad was, and booted him and a couple of his friends out. It was worth it. Even if I had went to work there, I would never have gotten over being basically a year behind where I should have been. I would never have had any respect for the bosses either, and that wouldn't have worked out well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
franzia99 Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I'm sorry to hear that. I hate how things like this happen.
Edited on Sun Apr-24-11 11:55 PM by franzia99
I know a guy who is straight up dumb and lazy who just got hired by a prestigious local firm through family connections. I worked with this guy at another job that he got through nepotism and am very familiar with his abilities. I feel bad for whoever got passed over for this guy and also feel sorry for the firm's clients who are going to pay good money for his work. The position pays 6 figures by the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. The only check I've seen in this are union jobs. But I don't think that's what you're talking about.
I've been in situations such as you and the post above describe. I ended up leaving and getting a job elsewhere. Now there are not as many jobs or positions to move to, so it's a matter of endurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
brewens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Our local mill is notorious for that kind of hiring and they wonder
why they have problems. The bosses son at the beer distributor eventually took over and was a disaster. They were forced to sell but the new owner kept him on as manager. It took them a year to figure out what he was worth and show him the door.

This guys mill buddies hooked him up with a job out there. Faced with actually having to work for a living, all he did was bitch and moan about it. He quit after a year. I always think of how many good guys would have loved to have had that job. I can think of quite a few guys hired that way out at the mill, that I would absolutely raise hell about being hired by the company I work for now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Chris_Texas Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
9. The worst culprits in my experiences have been union jobs
We are all familiar with the owner's kids of course, but that's expected really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. We filed grievances demanding equal jobs if they violated bidding practices, part of our contract.
If they got in under the wire and worked alongside us, we found they were less competent. But they were eager to learn, could be trained and soon joined the union to become part of the team.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 04:24 AM
Response to Original message
10. If you'd check, we have laws prohibiting nepotism but they
are ducked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
freshwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Must be a state by state thing. Is discrimination the basis for those laws? Please cite one so...
I can use the language in discussion. How do they work in the 'right to work' states as opposed to those states where all join unions?

It seems an unofficial meme of the corporate class is now the right to fire at will with no regard to job performance. So their right to hire at will without regard to job performance would fit right in with their business model.

That is not what the unions I associated with believe in. In my experience, after a person has undergone months or years of what in effect is a period of probation, they are considered to be capable of doing quality work meeting production standards. If they can't perform up to company standards within that period, they were let go without grievances filed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. No, nepotism isn't typically illegal in the U.S.
I think there are a few states that may lump it into their general anti-discrimination statutes, but almost all federal and state laws covering nepotism are limited to banning the practice in government work. In virtually all of the country, it's perfectly legal to preferentially hire relatives in private companies...whether they have five employees or five thousand. Federal laws have been used to successfully combat nepotism in the past, but only in instances where it was so widespread that it was infringing on other federal laws, or where it was contributing to discrimination against women or minorities.

Nearly all large companies have policies that ban it, but those are in place within the companies themselves. The because the companies set their own rules, they are free to set them aside or ignore them at will.

It IS a terrible practice. A good friend of my wifes was the head accountant at a big industrial plumbing company (they do sewer pipes, plumb office towers, that sort of thing) that is family owned, and she kept their books for about 11 years. This company has about 40 employees, and nearly half of them...including EVERY management and supervisory position, belonged to a relative. They weren't even shy about admitting it...if you weren't family, you weren't ever getting promoted.

After 11 years, her boss walked in and announced that she had a new "assistant". She was the 20-something year old niece of one of the owners cousins, and had a newly minted associates degree in accounting from the local community college, and no experience whatsoever. They worked side by side for about two months as the new "assistant" learned the ropes, but after those two months the owner took her aside and told her that they were having "money problems" and couldn't afford to keep her anymore (a REALLY bullshit excuse to give to the person who keeps the books and writes the paychecks every month, and who KNEW they were fine money-wise).

She contacted a lawyer, who looked into it but told her that she'd really be wasting her time. While she could have theoretically filed suit on her own, the odds of her actually winning were too small to bother with.

Yep, nepotism sucks. But in our system, where private companies are allowed to set their own hiring rules, there is little you can do about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
12. as a business owner I look at hiring people a little bit different than non-business owners
1st off: when I hire people I take a longer term view of a person.

a couple of examples:

I have 2 candidates for an IT technician position.

Candidate A is the best IT technician of the group
Candidate B is a middle of pack from a technician skill set but brings another set of skills I want to have in my company but in a different position.

I will pass on candidate A (as they will, more than likely, remain an IT technician through their stay with me) for candidate B as I will work to retain B and move him/her into the position that their skill set is best suited and will benefit my company more.

2nd example:

In business relationships are a big thing (networking and all that jazz). If a customer calls me up and says "my kid is looking for a job can you take a look at him?", sure as hell I am going to interview them and if they are close in the running and barring some sort of major defect, I would probably hire him/her.


If I don't give the kid a shot, I'd be jeopardizing a significant customer relationship, one that could significantly impact my business and, by extension, my employees.

Let's do a cost benefit analysis:

customer generates $1MM in revenue (or $200K in gross profit)
I employee 5 people based upon that customer's business.
- if I show some consideration my customer and, at the very least, interview the kid, I retain the $1MM in business (and it might increase) so I can continue to employee these 5 people.
- if I don't show some consideration and I lose this customer because of it, I risk those 5 people's jobs.

hmmmmm....which one am I going to do? Which one would you do?

finally, as a business owner, I have plenty of HR type government regulations and record keeping that I adhere to (most with which I agree), please don't hit me with another one. It just sucks up time and money that could be used for growing my business and hiring more people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan 19th 2018, 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC