Facebook is letting job advertisers target only men
Source: Ars Technica
Hundreds of thousands of Americans drive for Uber. And the company is looking for many more. It runs ads on Facebook that say, for example, Driving toward something? Make extra money when it works for you and get there faster. Another touts, Earn $1,100 in Nashville for your first 200 Trips. Limited time guarantee! Terms apply.
Theres just one catch: Many of those ads are not visible to women.
A ProPublica review of Facebook ads found that many purchased by Drive with Uber, the companys recruiting arm, targeted only men in more than a dozen cities across the US. Our survey of 91 Uber ads found just one targeting only women; three did not target a specific sex.
<cut>
The review found Uber to be among 15 employers in the past year who have advertised jobs on Facebook exclusively to one sex. Many of the ads seem to target in accordance with stereotypes. The Pennsylvania State Police, for example, boosted a post targeted to men with text saying Pennsylvania State Troopers earn a starting salary of $59,567 per year. Apply now. A Michigan-based truck company took out ads targeting not just men, but men interested in college football. And a community health center in Idaho sought nurses and certified medical assistantsand limited its audience to women.
Read more: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/09/facebook-is-letting-job-advertisers-target-only-men/?comments=1
irisblue
(32,982 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Advertising to a specific demographic? Not illegal.
If Uber discriminates in hiring, then yes, they would be in trouble. Nothing in this article indicates that.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)An employer has no obligation to make sure that any particular demographic applies for a job, only that it does not discriminate in hiring based on a membership in a protected class.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)your advertising so that it effectively discriminates against that class and you end up in the end hiring
members of the protected class in numbers significantly below what you should (based on percentage of
the population) you may have an EEOC problem. So sure you can place job ads target towards men,
but you are also responsible to make an effort to find and hire qualified women for your job openings too.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Or vice-versa? How about advertising in People?
Of course not, that'd be stupid.
Employers are under no legal obligation to maintain a diverse set of candidates, or even employees. The limitations are on hiring.
Think about the implications of what you're suggesting. Super bowl ad? Well fuck, the audience is majority men. Call the law office, immediately Helen, you're getting PAID!
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)I think the policy of allowing only men to see an ad is more akin to saying men come work for Uber! Which would be violation even if you followed up with an eeoc disclaimer and didnt discriminate.
See if the case in the op runs afoul of any restricted (by law) practices designated on the eeoc website.
I mean, if you cant rely on a word of mouth recruitment practice that only generates candidates of certain ethnic backgrounds, how the hell would specifically barring women from reading your ads be legal? And this is way beyond choosing an advertising media based on demographics (which may even be a violation if its intent is, or results in, discriminatory practices)
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/
Job Advertisements
It is illegal for an employer to publish a job advertisement that shows a preference for or discourages someone from applying for a job because of his or her race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
For example, a help-wanted ad that seeks "females" or "recent college graduates" may discourage men and people over 40 from applying and may violate the law.
Recruitment
It is also illegal for an employer to recruit new employees in a way that discriminates against them because of their race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
For example, an employer's reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic work force may violate the law if the result is that almost all new hires are Hispanic.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)C'mon, I want you on the record
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)Did you read the link I provided? I suspect you didnt. Or you maybe think eeoc laws are a bunch of liberal nanny state laws? How bout you go on the record. I mean it was right there in black and white.
If it was done to only hire white males? Yes. The trick is to prove it. Sometimes it takes an insider to blow the whistle.
Or in this case, a paper trail that makes it painfully obvious the intent was to exclude female candidates.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Nice equivocation though. Maybe, possibly, under the full moon.. with the stars in alignment...
If it was done to only hire white males? Yes.
You mean, it's about who's hired, not who the ads are targeted to? Nice backpedal.
And thanks for making my point.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)A violation can take place well before anyone is hired.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)What about the ad discourages anyone not targeted from applying? Does the ad say, 'no men'? Does the ad say that you have to sign with your penis?
Funny, that.
Auggie
(31,174 posts)dlk
(11,569 posts)The free market will take care of it is a joke!
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)rogue emissary
(3,148 posts)jgmiller
(395 posts)This is nothing new, it's an ad. The employer placing the ad is not saying they only want to hire men, they may be indicating it through their targeting preference but that's their problem and they should have to answer for that.
This is not Facebook's problem. If for some reason an employer wanted to send a postcard out advertising a job and they chose to only send it to households with single men nobody would be screaming about USPS doing something bad. It's called targeted advertising for a reason and it's nothing new in the digital age.
SharonAnn
(13,776 posts)LakeSuperiorView
(1,533 posts)Advertisers don't want to target men with with ads for women's health care products, or advertise jock itch powder to women. So the option to target gender does exist. Incontinence product ads would be wasted on 20 year olds. As would jet ski ads on 80 year olds. As long as we allow hyper specific advertising, these issues will be out there.
Should these options be allowed for other things? Who gets to decide what can and can not be targeted to a gender, age range, education, etc.? Can anyone seeing the right agreeing to more regulations on anything?
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,330 posts)....Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity via HUD,when it comes to targeted advertising for housing.
You cant intentionally target advertising to steer away from a protected class or familial status. You can also be in violation if you do it unintentionally.
BumRushDaShow
(129,133 posts)I was watching Ari yesterday and actually saw an Uber commercial on TV for the first time (don't watch TV much if at all except a few times a month if there is big news story going on).
dembotoz
(16,808 posts)what about the pizza chain that sends a coupon to the 10,000 homes closest to the location...is that fair to the family outside the selected area?
if a pet store sends a mailer to all the dog owners in town but excludes cat owners....is that fair?
understand we are talking employment here.
would assume that as long as you treat everyone who fills out an app the same does it matter how someone found out about the job?
SharonAnn
(13,776 posts)dembotoz
(16,808 posts)Marketing
dembotoz
(16,808 posts)They did advertising for inside Catholic church service programs ...
There were also Catholic and Jewish newspapers.. all target a specific audience based solely on religion
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)is that gender discrimination? The overwhelming majority of those seeing the ads will be women, just as the overwhelming majority of those seeing the above-mentioned ads on Facebook would be men.
Please note - I am not defending Facebook, just a little confused by the implication that this is either illegal on the part of Facebook or even on the companies placing the ads. I have used Facebook ads a handful of times for my business and I can see how/why this is happening, and I am pretty sure there are rarely humans doing thorough reviews of ads before they go live.
I guess my questions are:
--Isn't legality more a question of the actual hiring practices among those who apply rather than the job-posting blast?
--If this type of ad placement is illegal, is it the responsibility of Facebook, or of the companies placing the ads? And how far do we go - if people advertise in magazines, what if the demographics are incredibly skewed to one gender or another, as in my earlier example of Woman's Day, or if it were GQ or Maxim (is that still in print? LOL)... And is the magazine at fault? Should they keep employment lawyers on retainer to review the ads? Or just the companies who place the ads?
AFAIC Facebook can fuck right off, so let me reiterate that I am not defending them. I will say that for a tiny local bricks and mortar business, the ads on FB are cheap and effective, but I mostly only pay to boost a post when I have a message I want our existing followers to see rather than to try to find new people or to sell something or whatever. I've never placed ads on Facebook for hiring (or anywhere else - we are a mom-and-pop almost literally).
But this does have me thinking, in part because some day I might be able to afford to hire somebody and I've thought about this stuff in terms of age discrimination and how to make sure the word gets out to a wide swath of the community if/when we post a job listing somewhere....
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)on your final hiring results. If you are targeting your job ads to men and ultimately are hiring 75% men and 25% women
for your job openings you may have an EEOC problem.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Employers may not discriminate in hiring based on membership in a protected class.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)(including how and where you advertise for applicants) is to discriminate against a protected class
you can be found in violation of the law. The EEOC website discusses this and gives examples.