The position would make sense if there was genuine exclusion during the time period that the current workforce was working.
Basically say
Group A has 80% good workers and 20% bad ones.
Group B has 40% good workers and 60% bad ones.
If every company decided to exclude Group B entirely from interviews, eventually they would winnow through the bad workers in Group A so that the situation was.
Group A not looking for work: 95 percent good workers and 5 percent
Group A looking for work: 24% good workers and 76% bad.
Group B looking for work: 40% good workers and 60% bad.
(I actually did the back of napkin math based on ~ 83% satisfied employment in group A with 1000 workers, some round off error expected)
So it would actually make sense if one employer bucked it and preferentially hired from group B because when you only consider the available workers, they have a better percentage.
But there hasn't been true exclusion during the last 30 years, so it doesn't work that way.
The position would make sense if there was genuine exclusion during the time period that the current workforce was working.
Basically say
Group A has 80% good workers and 20% bad ones.
Group B has 40% good workers and 60% bad ones.
If every company decided to exclude Group B entirely from interviews, eventually they would winnow through the bad workers in Group A so that the situation was.
Group A not looking for work: 95 percent good workers and 5 percent
Group A looking for work: 24% good workers and 76% bad.
Group B looking for work: 40% good workers and 60% bad.
(I actually did the back of napkin math based on ~ 83% satisfied employment in group A with 1000 workers, some round off error expected)
So it would actually make sense if one employer bucked it and preferentially hired from group B because when you only consider the available workers, they have a better percentage.
But there hasn't been true exclusion during the last 30 years, so it doesn't work that way.