![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
saint_monkeyanother good reason to eliminate hooters altogether
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/26/hooters.videos.ap/index.html
for a long time, hooters has been allowed to practice discriminatory hiring because of a tiny loophole in the EEOC that says that a "themed" business like a restaurant, can restrict hiring to a certain type of person. the intent: chinese waiters and waitresses in chinese restaurants, etc.
(emphasis added. from the eeoc, article seven of the civil rights act. found here: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html)
hooters has always abused this, and has slipped through on the basis of this loophole. i've always found the idea incredibly disgusting, but i was always willing to understand it, because a certain amount of filth is to be expected, even tolerated, in a free country. a serious challenge, mounted by the ACLU, perhaps, could end the practice, but all we ever get are ridiculous challenges with no teeth. a few years ago a challenge to their hiring practices, (one meant to allow waiters at the restaurant) met a sticky end because congressmen in the house ridiculed it, calling it suplurflous. CNN and other news agencies ran it as a "wacky" story, and even after fact, it is widley ridiculed. I found the link to the action on a "the crazy things that lawyers do" website:
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=18
the point, that sexual discrimination, is wacky.
but more to the point, i think that a place that has this type of "theme" (and what theme is this, "Frat party?" "Sorority Rush Week?" "Girls Gone Wild") encourages the worst kind of behavior among men. I wouldn't be suprised if every single hooters in america had this type of jerk at the helm, secretly videotaping "auditions" and otherwise exploiting the women (let's face it, they are MEAT in this environment) that work there. I mean, this is the definitionof a hostile work environment. But i think the real issue is best summed up by this quote, from the news story above:
"Gigliotti said his restaurant just wouldn't have been the same with men wearing the trademark uniforms. "Women don't look at guys the same way men look at women," he said..."
yeah, through video cameras while they undress.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/03/26/hooters.videos.ap/index.html
for a long time, hooters has been allowed to practice discriminatory hiring because of a tiny loophole in the EEOC that says that a "themed" business like a restaurant, can restrict hiring to a certain type of person. the intent: chinese waiters and waitresses in chinese restaurants, etc.
(e)Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall
not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ
employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment
any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to
classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor
organization, or joint labormanagement committee controlling
apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ
any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or
national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or
national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably
necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or
enterprise...
(emphasis added. from the eeoc, article seven of the civil rights act. found here: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html)
hooters has always abused this, and has slipped through on the basis of this loophole. i've always found the idea incredibly disgusting, but i was always willing to understand it, because a certain amount of filth is to be expected, even tolerated, in a free country. a serious challenge, mounted by the ACLU, perhaps, could end the practice, but all we ever get are ridiculous challenges with no teeth. a few years ago a challenge to their hiring practices, (one meant to allow waiters at the restaurant) met a sticky end because congressmen in the house ridiculed it, calling it suplurflous. CNN and other news agencies ran it as a "wacky" story, and even after fact, it is widley ridiculed. I found the link to the action on a "the crazy things that lawyers do" website:
http://www.power-of-attorneys.com/stupid_lawsuit_detail.asp?stupid_ID=18
the point, that sexual discrimination, is wacky.
but more to the point, i think that a place that has this type of "theme" (and what theme is this, "Frat party?" "Sorority Rush Week?" "Girls Gone Wild") encourages the worst kind of behavior among men. I wouldn't be suprised if every single hooters in america had this type of jerk at the helm, secretly videotaping "auditions" and otherwise exploiting the women (let's face it, they are MEAT in this environment) that work there. I mean, this is the definitionof a hostile work environment. But i think the real issue is best summed up by this quote, from the news story above:
"Gigliotti said his restaurant just wouldn't have been the same with men wearing the trademark uniforms. "Women don't look at guys the same way men look at women," he said..."
yeah, through video cameras while they undress.
