frankthedm
First Post
It's not a great source, but it makes some sense.
http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/are-recruiters-growing-wary-of-gamers-/1275342
http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/are-recruiters-growing-wary-of-gamers-/1275342
Some employers won't hire WOW players... Supposedly
Angel Tarragon
Dawn Dragon
Regardless, it's discrimination; and discrimination is illegal (at least in the USA).
Last edited:
MonkeyDragon
Explorer
Discrimination is only illegal if you're discriminating on the basis of race, gender, religion, etc. A protected group. Many states in the US are at will states, which means an employer (or employee) can end employment (or not start it in the first place) for pretty much any reason that's NOT discrimination based on a protected group.
These people are basing their hiring decisions on factors that they believe will impact the candidates' ability to do the job. All employers do that. Is it really stupid to make a blanket decision on people based on thier hobbies? Darn tootin. It's stupid, it's ignorant, and it's, for the lack of a better term, rude. Is it ILLEGAL? Nope.
These people are basing their hiring decisions on factors that they believe will impact the candidates' ability to do the job. All employers do that. Is it really stupid to make a blanket decision on people based on thier hobbies? Darn tootin. It's stupid, it's ignorant, and it's, for the lack of a better term, rude. Is it ILLEGAL? Nope.
Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination include:
* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
* the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
* the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
* Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
* Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
* the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
You'll note that "hobbies" does not appear there. The fact of the matter is that employers must "discriminate" based on something when they hire an employee - otherwise, they might as well just have a job lottery. If the candidate has an aspect of their life that is not protected by law, but which the employer feels is apt to lead to poor performance on the job, you should expect them to choose to not hire the candidate.
* Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
* the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
* the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
* Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
* Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
* the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
You'll note that "hobbies" does not appear there. The fact of the matter is that employers must "discriminate" based on something when they hire an employee - otherwise, they might as well just have a job lottery. If the candidate has an aspect of their life that is not protected by law, but which the employer feels is apt to lead to poor performance on the job, you should expect them to choose to not hire the candidate.
LightPhoenix
First Post
It's actually not illegal in the US. There's a very specific delineated list of reasons you can not discriminate in hiring (Wikipedia), most of which are conditions outside of your control (age, genetics, etc). Anything else is fair game, if sometimes sleazy.
Hiring is an inherently discriminatory process. The whole purpose of an interview is to find the best candidate for a job - the most dedicated, the smartest, the best personality, and so forth. That's why at an interview you have to play yourself up: you have to appear to be the best. Appearance does matter. Unfortunately, people with overly addictive personalities have cast a bad light on people who play MMORPGs and WoW in general.
What surprises me is that, at an interview, someone would answer that question. It's like being asked if you drink - why would you answer that at all, since it has (in theory) no bearing on your ability to perform your job. Answer it with a response that indicates you put work first (on the weekends, in my free time, when I have time, etc.) and move on. Or, simply state personal life and professional don't mix.
Pbartender
First Post
That's a poor example, LightPhoenix, since how much and how often a person indulges in alcoholic behavior can have a serious impact on job performace.
It's more akin to asking an employee if they build model airplanes.
However, it's interesting to note that the FCC states in a recent study that, "one of the top reasons for college drop-outs in the U.S. is online gaming addiction— such as World of Warcraft—which is played by 11 million individuals worldwide."
Relique du Madde
Adventurer
It should be noted that many companies have a "moral decency" clause in their employment contract. That being if you are involved in activities that are deemed to be indecent by the employer outside of work you can be fired.
This being said, I knew someone who regularly attended/worked at a goth/fetish club in Hollywood who claimed she was told by higher-ups at Disneyland that she must stop in her activities or she will be fired.
In California you can not ask certain questions of a applicant since the answers could be used to prevent someone from being hired based on discrimination. This said, if some lawyer (most likely in the 9th Circuit) can successfully argue that playing video games qualifies as being an basis of an addiction, then sooner or later you will be unable to ask an applicant if they play WoW because "addictions are considered diseases" and you are unable to fire/discriminate against hiring someone based on a disease (disability).
Last edited:
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
I have yet to hold a job where answering that question in the affirmative wouldn't be a qualification. If I refused to answer that or a similar question, I would expect not to be hired.
Just to put in perspective, I asked all prospective hires into my department to name five droids from the Star Wars saga.
Well, you're lucky. I think many of us can't be so picky about who employs us.
LightPhoenix
First Post
So what you're saying is that it's actually a perfect example.
Relique du Madde said:
Well in theory you can be addicted to anything, so asking a prospective hire anything is not allowed. There's a difference between playing video games and being addicted to video games... in the same way there's a difference between drinking alcohol and being addicted to alcohol. Of course, the disease is addiction itself, and not the thing to which a person is addicted. Which then only precludes asking leading questions about addiction. Asking someone if they drink alcohol, play video games, have sex, etc. isn't inquiring about addiction; it's inquiring about hobbies.
I will say, I've been trying to type some sort of rebuttal to this for a while. However, this seems to be a highly contentious area, and requires way more reading than I have time for on my lunch break. The biggest issue seems to me to be the lack of a definition of addiction... or perhaps too many working definitions... maybe it's just that no one can agree.
Similar Threads
