Ethical to screen out Trump supporters applying for a job?

In My Humble Opinion
61

Agreed.

When someone applies for a job, I’m happy to judge them by the persona they are actually bringing to the role*, plus their professional experience. I don’t care about anything else, because most people are able to separate out most aspects of their personal life from how they carry out their duties.

Plus, where does it end? Support for Trump seems breathtakingly irrational to me, but then so does religion. What if the candidate’s favorite movie is Indiana Jones and the crystal skull? Well OK, that would be disqualifying, but apart from that, I don’t care about a candidate’s personal life assuming they can be logical in a work environment as seems to be the case for most people.

  • So yes, wearing a MAGA hat to the interview would be a bad sign, as it would imply they’d be bringing that shit to work
62

Another agreement. Big difference between what they do as their private choices and their choosing to advertise it to me.

Small scale - one my sons that lives in the South had a women he was taking painting classes from on line. He assumed she was a Trump supporter because most people there are. Fine enough. But when she invited him as a Facebook friend where she was posting all sorts of MAGA crap he no longer wanted to take his lessons from her. Not because he thought she’d cheat him or was evil though.

63

This is just as true of left-wing voters as Trump voters.
If somebody rants on Facebook about the classic SJW (Social Justice Warrior) issues, they can be just as bad as someone ranting about MAGA-hat issues. The problem isn’t their beliefs–the problem is their ranting.

You want to hire a person who can work as a team in your company.
A Bernie Sanders voter is fine. A Bernie-bro who screams on social media about cultural appropriation, and finds racism where it doesn’t exist…is going to create stress among her co-workers.
And because her target is sitting in the chair next to her, it will create more strain than a Trump-fanatic.

The Trumpista may be fine with putting children in cages, but he’ll probably work well with his co-workers. He may not like to socialize at lunch with the black guy, but he wont try to sue your company for creating a hostile environment. The Bernie supporter is more likely to do.so, because, say, somebody quoted a joke by Seinfeld or Bill Cosby…

Checking the social media of an interviewee is a logical way to look for potential problems.

64

If someone decided to tell me they support trump in the job interview, no I probably wouldn’t hire them. That shows poor judgement and bad boundaries.

I have sometimes. Usually I don’t. My employer actually has a rule against “friending” prospective employees on Facebook for the purpose of seeing their friends-only posts.

If this job candidate posts maga stuff to the world, i might be uncomfortable hiring them. If they only post about their politics too their friend groups, i wouldn’t know. And that’s okay. So long as they can keep their work seperate from their politics, i can, too.

65

I don’t see that your Bill Clinton tangent addresses any point at all.

66

I was pointing out some bad logic, but it’s not particularly germane to the subject of the thread; don’t worry about it.

67

I am not sure how you would come to that understanding.

I can agree that if you continued to support Bill Clinton after the whole scandal came out, then you would be more likely to cheat on your spouse than someone who stopped supporting him because of that.

But going from more likely to very likely is just a figment of your own poor logic.

There is also a qualitative difference here. Clinton was ashamed of what he did, he apologized not just to his wife, but to the nation.

Trump has never apologized, he has never been ashamed of what he has done.

There is also a temporal difference here. All the stuff about Clinton came out during his second term. People could have voted for him twice who never would have voted for him had they known about the affair. We knew who Trump was before the 2016 election, and he confirmed who he was to anyone who had any doubts by the 2020.

There is also a difference in how these things affected the nation. Clinton’s affair did not affect the nation at all. What he did was really entirely his own business, and the only person who he hurt was his wife. Trump’s actions have hurt millions and killed hundreds of thousands.

And I can see supporting a flawed person, someone who tries to do the right thing, someone who has done good for the country, but who has failed at maintaining personal morality, while still not falling to that moral trap themselves. I cannot see how someone can support someone whose actions are not just personal failings, but are failings in their ability to hold the office. Trump supporters do not support him in spite of his flaws, they support him because of his flaws. They applaud “Grab them by the pussy.” they embrace the label “Deplorable.” They condone racist and xenophobic actions by our border patrol and the actions of a militarized police against peaceful protesters.

The fact that Trump cheated on all of his three wives is not something that I would hold against them. That’s a personal matter. How someone conducts themselves in the office of the President and their campaign to gain that office, and how they execute their duties is.

I could go on as to how your equivalence is just a pathetic attempt at whining “Both sides do it”, but I think I’ve made my point that your attempt here was feckless and unsubstantiated.

68

Like I said, my point is solely that voting for a president who does bad thing X does not imply you would be personally likely to do bad thing X. Normally people vote for politicians in spite of and not because of their perceived moral failings. The fact the same president has also done bad things A - W is not relevant so far as I can can see.

That the scandal came out during Clinton’s second term is a reasonable objection. And the fact that financial probity, or rather the lack thereof, is much more relevant to a President’s ability to do the job than personal immorality is a valid point. But unless they personally stand to benefit, it doesn’t make any more sense for a person who engages in financial fraud to vote for a president who may defraud the country, because they’ll suffer just as much as an honest voter.

It was not my intention to do any sort of ‘both-sidesism’, and I don’t think this issue is particularly relevant to the thread, especially as BigT isn’t interested in defending his statements. It might make a good question in itself though - if you want to continue talking about it, I can start a new thread?

69

Once in a while, I watch Tucker Carlson’s show (actually, “rant” is a better word than “show,” I guess).

He goes on and on, endlessly, about how “the left” wants to punish people for being conservative, for not being politically correct, for not getting their minds right.

And clearly this energizes the Trumpist base.

Do we really want to prove him right?

70

But that is pretty much the whole point.

People do support Trump specifically for what I would perceive as moral failings, not in spite of them.

If someone supports Trump because he locks up asylum seekers, because he pardons people like Arpaio or Gallagher, because he pushed for a “Muslim ban”, because he cheats on his taxes and calls it smart, or because he commits sexual assault because he can get away with it, then I would say that that person would be likely to follow in those footsteps, as much as they have the power to do and are able to get away with, anyway.

If someone was actually supporting Trump solely because the economy did well under his administration, and was willing to let all the other stuff go, then that would be an in spite of situation. I still wouldn’t hire them because clearly they are delusional, but at least that would mean that they are not as actively hateful as someone who supports Trump because of.

There is also the level of things that you are willing to let slide in an in spite of situation. As I said, I would not hold it against Trump that he cheated on all of his three wives, if he was otherwise a competent and fair president. But allowing the damage that he has done to our country and our people because you like the judges that he appoints or the tax breaks that he gives you is not a trade off that I would respect.

71

If someone is a murderer and a conservative, and you lock them up for being a murderer, does that prove them right that they are being persecuted for being a conservative?

72

I think it needs to be said that you want this to be about “if a politician does X then his supporters will probably do X”.

You’re right, it’s absolutely not germane to this thread. I don’t see anyone arguing that strawman.

It’s more to the point to say that “if someone rationalized this bad behavior from politician X, then there’s probably no limit to what bad behavior they’ll rationalize.”

Few if any Clinton supporters ever said it’s OK to cheat on your wife or lie under oath to hide the evidence. Most everybody condemned it, Clinton apologized for it. It’s true he probably only apologized because he got cornered, but at least he managed to meet that bar.

I can’t find a single instance of Trump or his supporters non-sarcastically apologizing for a misdeed, or scarcely even admitting a mistake. I find a lot of instance of his supporters and enablers expressing mild concern for serious misdeeds, and their only action in response is - surprise surprise - to point back at “but Clinton…”

That’s why your observation isn’t germane. You weren’t pointing out bad logic, you introduced a bad-logic strawman of your own.

73

Now that is a crappy false equivalence.

74

I thought this thread was about Trump supporters, not murderers.

Of course you should feel free to screen out murderers when hiring.

75

I don’t know where you get the idea that cheating on one’s spouse can’t affect anybody but those two individuals. Such actions frequently lead to separations, and when the family has children that directly affects them. Not to mention the extended family finding out and the changes in opinion that result. A simple family break-up can involve tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, a permanent disruption in the children’s ties to their parents and stability, and perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of inheritance when the truth of the matter becomes known to the parents of said cheater. It’s not just a matter of 1 or 2 people’s feeling being hurt.

76

It’s not about punishing people for being conservative. It’s about excluding them from employment in my (theoretical) business because they promulgate hateful, ignorant, delusional messages on social media. That behavior ≠ “being conservative.”

(Thanks for the tip, @BigT!)

77

Seems that once you’re on board with the concept, you’re on board with an employer in a red state denying employment to applicants because they had, say, a “Bernie 2020” banner on their Facebook page.

It’s a really dangerous road to go down.

78

AFAIK people do support Trump because of the first three of those, possibly the fourth. It seems more likely they are supporting him in spite of the last one, especially the women who voted for him. And the fact he has much lower support among women surely indicates it did put plenty of people off voting for him.

Did Trump break the law in his financial dealings? It seems highly unlikely to me that anyone would vote for him because of that, or because he swindled the little people. But I don’t know many Trump supporters. My Trump supporting colleague was of the young and unwise type; he got some teasing in the office for his views but it didn’t affect his work. My aunt and uncle-in-law are full on conspiracy-believing Trump supporters, but I wouldn’t employ them because they’re full-on racists, not because they support Trump.

That’s fair enough. You don’t have to respect other people’s views. The important thing IMHO is whether it will affect their ability to do the job and work with colleagues and, if relevant, customers. Otherwise it’s not the employer’s business.

79

You’re not wrong. I happen to think someone who visibly supports Trump would make a much less productive employee than someone who visibly supports Bernie, but another private employer might think just the opposite. Legalities aside, I suppose that’s equally ethical.

In my field, I suspect my team of Bernie-supporters would destroy a team of Trump-supporters. Bring it on, MAGAts!

80

No. I am fully aware of bigots in my life. My “yikes” response was about just how bigoted this man is. It’s not even just that he actually believes the way you describe. It’s that he’s open about it. You aren’t, after all, the target of his bigotry.

You’re creating a false dichotomy here. Sure, I can’t filter out every bigot in my life. I can’t get rid of the ones I don’t know about, and I can’t even really filter out those with some bigoted biases. But I can refuse to do business with people who are openly and overwhelmingly bigoted.

I had thought you were putting this man forth as a reason employers shouldn’t try to filter out Trump supporters. But what I got was the opposite–a very good reason someone like him should be filtered. He’s not only very bigoted, but will let people know about his bigotry.

Your other examples seem pretty good candidates for filtering out, too, at least, in jobs where they might need critical thinking or sound judgement. You admit they believe a lot of stuff that is clearly not true.

Rather than give any reasons that screening out Trump supporters would be unethical, I say you actually explain why it is.