Yes, that would be worst. The employer should have the say so on who to hire and what nots, but I highly doubt it is their money they are dealing with, but with the owner of the company money. The hiring manager does the hiring and as far as I know, they don't own the company, at least the bigger ones. But yes, I think you're correct that it should be the employer decision on who to hire and keeping the contract between the two parties and the conditions it brings should be kept to the two parties and weather or not if it is acceptable or not. Problem is most if not nearly all the company discriminates almost all the time and thus very low employment rates for the disabled. It isn't going to be an easy fix and probably isn't fixable at all and they have no choice but to continue taking handout from the government or taxpayers dime. See, it is a catch 22.That sounds like a totalitarian nightmare that makes a bad situation worse. Nobody except the employer should have any say in regards to who they hire and why. You can't fix discrimination with more discrimination, the deciding factor in the hiring process should always be an individual's ability to perform the job. If certain employers choose to be discriminatory and pass up on excellent candidates then that's their loss - their staff will be objectively less qualified than that of the competitor who doesn't discriminate. A contract between an employer and an employee should be entirely between those two parties and its conditions should be based on what they agree is acceptable. The last thing I want is the government dictating what employers can or can't do with their own money by making hiring decisions on their behalf.
Last edited by RandomUser,