Wow, I've seen it all!

[Sandra T]

So what if the job posting had said something like "Only contractors from Europe" or "Only contractors from North America"?

[Setu M]

It would still be illegal.

***Edit***

Bear in mind that Upwork provides a built in method to select various criteria for a job, like hours worked, feedback rating and also freelancer location. Therefore when a client states in bold caps NO ***** should apply, it is beyond offensive and also illegal.

[Aleksandra K]

See I find this NO bla bla very helpful. It saves me the trouble of having to read the description for a job that requires people to be from a certain country. I fully support that, as sometimes it is really difficult to work with a client that is 12 hours ahead of you.   

[Natasa M]

Well, to get this topic off nation/race /whatever , just sixty years ago , you could see ads that were stating "no women need apply."

If I had seen that ad,  I wouldn't think that the poster/employer /client was  "saving my time."

If people were given the" liberty" to get away with that crap in the past, we wouldn't have society that we have today in which every person is free to pursue whatever career and life s/he chooses.

Why it is so wrong on so many levels would take ages to explain and I don't have ambition to get into the task of explaining it here.

In one thing though I agree-sometimes , for example, in case when job is to test the app/product that is available in Japan only, freelancer would need to be physically located in Japan.

But even then there is a difference between "freelancers located in Japan" and "no XYZ people!"

[Aleksandra K]

Natasa,

I can still see job posts that say “we need a man” or “we need a woman” and I really don’t find them offensive.

What if the job post was about women who gave birth? Would a man be able to create good article? Maybe yes, maybe no, but I doubt he would be able to provide his personal experience (although in these days you never know)

It’s not that I am supporting discriminatory statements, but here those sentences really save a lot of time and connects  I’d rather read NO bla bla and don’t apply, than to apply for a position that I have no chance of getting.

Reading this forum in the past month or so I can see that even the freelancers are starting to “discriminate’ new clients. Is it fair just because we don’t mention in our application that we apply to this certain job because the client has a long history of successful employments? No. Is it still wrong? Probably! Basically we all have our own filter; it’s just that some are more vocal than others.

[Natasa M]

I think we agree to disagree here and that is great.

My argument was not based  on Odesk(Upwork or whatever)but on that concept of "No X "in general . If people in past were thinking about it purely in terms of pragmatism and accepted it, well... I guess there would still be many schools that girls cannot attend because they are girls.I always wondered myself what is the purpose of imposing the form if it has no real meaning.  But often times the form shapes the meaning and collective norms of what is acceptable and what not. It plays the role of a frame that gives the context (both case-specific and more global) to the things placed in it.

We had a similar discussion, where the OP was worried about "native English speakers only" thing. In those cases though since it refers to the (presumed) level of skill, not ethnicity, gender, etc. (with native being equivalent to experienced) I would see it as acceptable way to state the preference; as well as in cases where the selling point of business is that it is , for example, X owned and operated-so the customer base buys the products of that company to support the cause they believe in (veterans, ethical farming, domestic workforce etc..) And in case you mentioned as well, but if  applied blindly it is somewhat dangerous concept. Lol but I agree- somewhat off- topic, and I will leave other people to discuss it if they want to.

[Douglas Michael M]

---

@Natasa M wrote:

I guess there would still be many schools that girls cannot attend because they are girls....[O]ften times the form shapes the meaning and collective norms of what is acceptable and what not.

---

Natasa,

So I understood from your original post. It's a useful way to broaden the persepective of this discussion.

It's perhaps worth noting that there is significant overlap between some regions of the world where:

• girls are denied education to the point that both their schools and students themselves are at risk of being attached by fanatics
• rich-country clients specify: NO applicants from... (based on presumption of incompetence)
• rich-country clients specify: ONLY applicants from... (based on desire to pay unconscionable rates)

Clents' geographical preferences may well be based on non-exploitive business criteria. Why, however, would any conscious and feeling human being want to even rhetorically associate with the exploiters of the world?

Best to all,

Michael

[Natasa M]

“Why, however, would any conscious and feeling human being want to even rhetorically associate with the exploiters of the world?”

Absolutely!

If anything in my post left any doubt about the way I feel about this question (and I see it might have been interpreted that way) I apologize and will reaffirm here that I find „No XYZ” absolutely unacceptable.

The case specific exemptions that I mentioned don’t serve to sort of relativize this and leave some convenient vagueness about the issue (although I agree it might be perceived that way.) I however did mention them just to sort of recognize that a certain rigidity in application of the rule can present the problem as well. For example, if I want to support the idea of ex-offenders (lol, hope no one gets offended) getting the second chance and I believe that the best way of doing it is by buying t-shirts that were made by the company that employs people who were in jail, for that company would make sense not to employ people who didn’t have this experience of being convicted. Why? Because if they would employ someone else they would deceive me as a customer who is buying their t-shirts not just to buy their t-shirts, but to support the idea behind it-the idea of people getting the second chance and rehabilitating into the society.

However, certain statements (depending again on the context) such as “No X people!” do require rigidity and a zero level of tolerance (in my view.)On the second thought as well, I actually don’t see why woman would be more qualified to write an article about childbirth (again, in my view.) I mean, Stephen King didn’t kill anybody to write about killing.

What I meant with this “Often times the form shapes the meaning and collective norms of what is acceptable and what not,”(apparently not very well written) is that often the legal regulation comes before the social consensus and acceptance of a certain norm. It was a contra argument to ‘it is just a make-up change; people will still do what they want..” Not really. If you have a narrow-minded bar owner who is forced by the law to remove “No XY in my bar,” this removed sign will not make the bar owner less narrow-minded, but it will affect the perception of society in the long run (not immediately I agree.)But if s/he is not forced to remove this, things will never change because that sign will signify (to the local community or society) that this type of attitude is ok.

But one has to choose the battles-I am not sure that my very long post on this forum was a very good choice   Best

[Ramon B]

I wonder why some countries have more of a scam presence here than others though? The country with the worst reputation for scamming in the world (Greetings, my father was the former...) is barely visible on here, while workers countries where the dating scams originate enjoy a deserved reputation for probity.

For me, one clear way of spotting a scammer (besides the terrible English, Yahoo, outside payment and the self-righteous attitude) is the presence of God. As soon as God, the Almighty etc. appears (figuratively speaking) I disengage myself. It seems bizarre that the most religious countries are frequently the most scam-prone ones, but there you go.

[Sandra T]

Setu,

please don't get me wrong, I'm with you, and am trying not to discriminate here. And I appreciate you making a strong point in this matter in contrast to most of our blurry "yeah, but"s.

I just wanted to add that the location filter is also tricky in this context. Let's say I was looking for a German translator, there might very well be somebody living in Thailand or Costa Rica or wherever who is very good, but has more competitive rates due to that fact that they have lower living expenses. So the filter might keep them from showing up.

I guess, in this case an addition such as "Natives only" could be applied. Or would that be discriminating as well? (Not trying to challenge you here, I am just curious what people think, and would like to find best possible solutions for my own practise).

On the original posting:

It's a tough one for me, one the hand I am against discrimination. On the other hand, I can see why a job poster doesn't want to be flooded with useless (for a lack of a better word) applications. I'm not saying there aren't any good writers from Asia, of course there are.

Having thought about it, I don't agree with labels like that either. There are other and better ways to specify job postings in order to find suitable candidates. And the reality of a platform like this is that you are probably going to get a bunch of applicants from all over the place with very varying skill sets. So you either post here and deal with it, or you find what would be a more suitable platform for your needs and preferences instead.