I fail to see why the ability to get a job easily should be taken into account whether you get to have a legal remedy or not. And quite frankly, I have no faith whatsoever that a boycott would work, or gain any traction at all. We have had numerous stories of companies acting shitty all over, and yet they don't seem to have problems hiring.
I don't actually particularly care about whether the boycott would work or not, in a sense of preventing the affected company from hiring more people. What I care about is remedying the material harm that is caused to people discriminated against.
If you are looking for a job, and they tell you that you needn't apply because of your race/gender/..., but there are thousands more equivalent jobs in your market that don't have such restrictions, there's no substantial harm to you - you can just pick any of those other jobs. If this particular business can hire enough bigots (or just people who don't care) to keep them running - so what? It still doesn't harm you. So it becomes a matter of principle, and from that perspective, I think freedom of speech and association is a more important principle than private non-discrimination, and so for the lack of measurable harm, the former should be preferred.
It's not just about jobs, too - same principle applies to services. if you have 100 bakers around you that aren't bigoted, and one who is, they cannot cause any meaningful amount of harm to anyone but themselves, by driving customers away.
Of course, if other businesses take note and start discriminating too, at some point, there are enough of them that your ability to get a job or service is hampered - you can't just go elsewhere (not easily, at least). Where and when that happens, discrimination should become illegal - but localized to the affected area and/or industry.
Think of it as anti-monopoly legislation. There are many shady practices that we don't punish businesses for until they are in a market dominant position (either by themselves, or through collusion with other businesses, which sometimes can be implicit). Same principle - shady or not, it shouldn't be prohibited unless it clearly harms someone.
"If you are looking for a job, and they tell you that you needn't apply because of your race/gender/..., but there are thousands more equivalent jobs in your market that don't have such restrictions, there's no substantial harm to you"
You have lost all credibility with that statement.
If it's not meant as a rhetorical comment, I'm afraid you'll need to explain it in a bit more detail, pointing out where exactly my reasoning is wrong. In particular, if you object to the statement that there's no substantial harm in being rejected from a job for discriminatory reasons, when the job market has thousands more equivalent (i.e. same pay, same career opportunities etc) jobs that are yours for the taking instead, you'll have to explain what constitutes said harm.
The action is either harm or it's not. If I have a fence, and you run your car through it, the harm is not judged on whether I can replace the fence quickly.
Further, your statement goes a step further and seeks to normalize and legitimize discrimination. You're saying that it's perfectly ok for this to happen, borderline encouraging it by removing any and all penalties for the action.
The onus is not on me to show harm. The onus is on you to demonstrate why your statement should be taken seriously, and why there is no harm. And simply being able to find another job before you starve to death is NOT evidence that there is no harm.
Sure, but refusing to hire you is not an action, it's the lack of one. Hiring you would be an action. That's exactly the problem with such laws - you are not prohibiting people from doing something, you're forcing them to do something. That needs to meet a much higher and/or nuanced bar of social need to override the inherent infringement of individual liberty.
Discrimination is already legal in many contexts - private individuals can discriminate in most countries, private membershib clubs can discriminate in many places etc. Furthermore, even in areas where discrimination is illegal (e.g. public accommodation), there's generally a very limited list of traits on which it is illegal - race, religion, gender etc. Anything not on that list is not illegal to discriminate on - for example, it is perfectly legal to refuse to serve someone on the basis of their political view in US.
Do you believe that all forms of discrimination should be illegal, including private and personal? Do you realize the implications of that?
And yes, the onus is, in fact, on you to show harm. That's how legal system works in most cases. I don't see why it should work any differently here. Do you really want to people to be able to just claim discrimination on the basis of any random thing, and demand that the other party prove the lack of discrimination?
Also, you still haven't explained what, exactly, the harm is in being refused a job when other equivalent jobs are available. Is it material? If so, what exactly is the nature of the loss? Or are you claiming some sort of psychological harm?
It gets a bit tricky. The problem is that a lot of this kind of stuff is really pervasive, but there's no conscious collusion. Things like "women are just not as good at tech" become pervasive cultural stereotypes, and employers apply them subconsciously, with the result being widespread discrimination that is obvious in aggregated data, but not necessarily in any individual case.
So the kind of analysis that's necessary to determine whether legal anti-discrimination measures are needed or not is rather different from what anti-monopoly watchdogs usually do.
But yes, something like that in principle. A government institution that keeps track of various metrics and accepts individual reports, aggregates them, and determines which fields, industries, locations etc need anti-discrimination enforcement with teeth. Presumably with some sort of due process where this can be challenged etc, but ultimately, the decision should be made on the basis of whether there is discrimination or not, and not on whether it's intentional or not.
It is often the case that the discrimination is pervasive, but not that it is difficult for women for example to find jobs. If deliberate collusion makes it difficult for women to find jobs, that would be when I would suggest anti-trust regulators to be involved. This may include for example anti-discrimination restrictions in consent decrees.
It's not just about being able to find a job. It's about being able to find a job that pays the same money for the same skill & experience, and offers the same career opportunities in the future.
Based on the statistics that we have, it's definitely a problem, at least in the tech sector.
