Originally Posted by RazorSharpe

1. This test was run because of proven instances of discrimination in the job market, but let's not let facts get in the way. In a blind test you only have skill to go on, nothing else. In regular tests, when you have things like race, age, religion, etc. to go on many other governing factors come into play. Will the foreign name be cheaper to hire? Will he be more receptive to certain working conditions that a native wouldn't. Would he be prepared to work certain holidays that a native wouldn't.

2. You'd now need to run another test to see what the employee turnover rate is from blind applicant hires and weigh it against normal hires where everything is known about the applicant.

3. You're expecting the system to change after one test that has inherent flaws and you think, "The desire wasn't equality, otherwise they would have adopted this system for years to come."

4. "They rather prefer discrimination against Dutch people instead of getting the person for the job with the best skills for that job"

Who is this "They"? The people that conducted the test? Weren't they native Dutch? Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who DOESN'T hire on skill alone. Depending on the job, I'll have loads of other criteria that affects who I hire.