Here’s a story about how Leprino Foods (which sounds like some kind of food distribution company that hires a lot of low-prole type of workers to move stuff aound the warehouse, load trucks, and that sort of thing) paid a $500,000 fine and had other sanctions for using an ability test to hire workers (thanks to Gucci Little Piggy for finding this link).
First of all, let’s point out that the reason why companies can’t do this is not because of the Constitution, but because of statutes passed by Congress, statutes that Republicans themselves collaborated on, unfortunately.
The next important point is that when companies get in trouble for discriminatory hiring based on objective tests, it’s nearly always about giving tests to blue-collar workers. I’ve never heard of a company losing a lawsuit like this because they used a computer-programming test to hire computer programmers, or something like that. (In fact, quizzing job applicants on computer-programming trivia is the norm when hiring those types of workers.) The belief of the liberals who control the Department of Labor is that ability to do well on written tests has nothing to do with being a blue-collar worker, but there is more leeway granted to hiring white-collar workers.
The DoL of course, is 100% wrong. There is a pretty good correlation between ability tests and any type of job. Anti-test people will argue that work ethic is more important than score on a test, but the reality is that there is a very powerful correlation between higher IQ and other good behaviors such as showing up to work on time, and doing what the boss tells you to do.
Any hiring practice that gets you better workers than just random choice is going to discriminate against NAMs, and especially against blacks, but there are many types of hiring practices that no one ever gets sued for, most notably:
Criminal background checks
There are also a lot of companies that look at grades in school as an important evaluative factor, and I never heard of any company getting in trouble for doing that.
I know that there are a lot of people reading my blog who have this false belief that most companies know that they want to hire high IQ people and wish to give IQ tests, and settle for college degrees knowing that it’s the best they are allowed. But the real truth is that most companies are pretty clueless about all of these things, and the HR people at these companies are a bunch of liberals who have the exact same beliefs as the people who work at the DoL. At a major company I am involved with, the hiring managers are very strongly encouraged to hire “diverse” employees and get dinged when they don’t meet these goals. But HR is completely unconcerned if any of the new hires are actually smart. But this company is also a monopoly, so they don’t need to be especially good at what they do to make profit.
I believe that any company which uses scientific hiring practices based on real research and HBD principles has a huge advantage over the other 95% of clueless companies. I think that the early success of companies like Microsoft and Google had a lot to do with this. (But today, I think that Microsoft has gone away from that and now just loads up on a lot of mediocrities from India. Perhaps a reader who works at Microsoft would have some insight on that?)
* * *
Also, very importantly, there’s a very high correlation between IQ and future-time orientation. Which means that even if the higher-IQ person is not inherently conscientious, he is more likely to do what is necessary to not get fired because he’s more likely to care about the negative consequences of getting fired.