If there were not federal and state laws against discrimination (race, sex, disability, and so on), would most companies discriminate against one group or another?

A lot of them still do, despite it being illegal.

One way of looking at this is to state that it is no longer politically correct to discriminate, which is in effect the reason for the laws to begin with. So the answer is both that it is bad for business as well as illegal. You can see the variants of this issue playing out in our Southern states in the present day where the laws lag behind national sentiments on gay issues. Every time some regressive legislation takes wing, the economic consequences from threatened boycotts drag the Confederacy kicking and screaming toward modernity.

I think there would be a lot fewer women working in a lot of businesses. I work in the investment/securities business, and women are still under represented despite years of hiring efforts.

People would be at the mercy of the hiring agent, and their personal prejudices. I think affirmative action had it’s place, but I’m glad it’s over. It caused a lot of well qualified people to be overlooked.

They do sometimes discriminate without realizing it, without wanting to.

When companies analyze hiring and compensation for race and/or gender sometimes they find inequalities they never expect, because the owners or senior managers know they are not racist in their hearts and minds.

I would think the more diverse the senior management is, the less likely that happens. I think discrepancies like this are happening less and less, but back in time quotas and requirements to report were necessary and helped.

Many large corporations self police themselves on the matter. My husband used to do this work for the companies he worked for.

I once saw a good report on this on 60 Minutes or some similar program, I’ll see if I can find it. It was years ago.

Yes, that is why these laws were created in the first place, to deal with discrimination, that was commonplace, before the laws were made.

Today, discrimination is more subtle, and is often financial in nature. Women still make less money than men, on average, for doing the same job.

Some companies even advertise now that they prefer Caucasians.

Here’s the transcript from that 60 Minute interview. A company made a $3m pay correction to bring women in line with male counterparts.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/work/1253580/salesforce-ceo-marc-benioff-tells-60-minutes-about-his-reckoning-with-the-gender-pay-gap/amp/

If you find a link for the video of The interview please share.

It was just one company and they got in trouble for that @zenvelo.

@Dutchess_III It was one company that got caught. Discrimination is not at all over despite laws against it.

Will you please provide a link to another company besides the one that was all over Facebook yesterday (and the one you linked to) that blatantly says, “Caucasians preferred,” like that one did?

While it is indeed difficult to find an add these days that literally reads “no Negroes Jews or Irish need apply,” the disappearance of those signs by no means parallels the retention of such sentiments. If you want a list of outfits that discriminate, find a woman, an African American, Chinese or Jewish professional in their 40s and prepare to be surprised.

I agree @stanleybmanly.

I think women would be discriminated against, especially young women because it may be likely they’ll be taking a break of several months if they’re going to have a baby. Plus once the baby is born, it seems like women are more likely to be the ones having to pick the kid up from the nurse’s office and stuff like that. A single mom, very likely to be discriminated against for the same reason.

Older workers are another group. I work for the government and they hire older workers all the time. With private employers, I think young workers have a way better shot at a job than an older worker.