My recommendation to Tim is to reconsider his recruitment practices and standards as they are the key cause of the two allegations from retired workers. As a true friend of his, I will be honest with Tim by telling him that his work conditions are not effective for the driver to qualify. From my experience of human resource management, I would advise Tim that the credentials and requirements he has developed in his business are very strong, extreme and unfeasible for most people looking for a driving job in his company. I would, therefore, advise him to eliminate the short test in his recruitment and hiring policies and practice, the reason being they are both ineffective for a drivers position and are prone to gender inequality.
I would also advise Tim to establish new hiring and recruitment policies and practices for choosing and hiring drivers in his business. This can be achieved if he eliminates the thirty-three vocabularies and math questions and adopts new questions that are relevant to the driving job position. This is because there are drivers who are exceptionally great at driving but did not get the opportunity of studying due to financial constraints and other related concrete reasons. Finally, I would advise Tim to maintain his last requirement that applicants must have a valid commercial driver’s license. I would advise him that this is a crucial and important requirement thus I would advise him to implement this policy further by carrying out a thorough investigation regarding the applicants’ past driving offenses.
As an EEO investigator, I would want to know if Tim’s irrelevant tests and requirement had an ulterior motive of ensuring that he only hires white male job applicants. I would have two questions for Tim: What was the main agenda behind incorporating the irrelevant requirements for applicants seeking a driver’s position? Do your test and requirements have an ulterior motive for gender and race inequality and guarantee that you only hire white and male employees?