Equality or Illusion? The Contradictions in Modern Hiring Practices

I have always believed that equality means treating every individual the same, regardless of background, identity, or personal characteristics. Yet, the very system that preaches equality seems to contradict itself at every turn. If we are truly committed to fairness, why do job applications still ask for gender, sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation? If hiring is meant to be based on merit, why does the process begin by categorising people?  

This is not just a flaw in policy—it is a deliberate contradiction that serves corporate interests while pretending to uphold fairness. Worse, the hiring process has been further dehumanised by automation, with Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS)acting as gatekeepers, deciding who even gets the chance to be considered. The result? A workforce selected not by skill, effort, or dedication, but by pre-set filters and arbitrary metrics.  

We live in a world where corporations and institutions constantly talk about diversity and inclusion. They claim to be progressive, to care about fair representation, and to be committed to giving everyone an equal chance. Yet, they start by asking the most divisive questions—what gender are you? What race do you belong to? What is your sexual orientation?  

These questions are defended as necessary for ensuring fairness and preventing discrimination, but how does labeling people by their identities create equality? In reality, it does the exact opposite. Instead of erasing bias, it institutionalises it. Instead of focusing on who is the most capable for the job, it forces people into categories that companies use for their own diversity quotas and public relations strategies.  

Equality should mean not caring about these things at all—hiring based on skills, experience, and merit. But the system today is built not on genuine fairness, but on maintaining the illusion of fairness while ensuring control over who gets access to opportunities.  

As if the flawed logic of demographic-based hiring wasn’t enough, we now have Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) filtering out candidates before a human even looks at their applications. These cold, mechanical algorithms decide who is "fit" for a job based on keywords, pre-set filters, and rigid scoring systems—not actual ability.  

I have seen countless skilled, hardworking individuals rejected not because they lacked talent, but because an ATS deemed their resume unfit. Maybe they didn’t use the "right" keyword. Maybe their formatting wasn’t optimised (no idea optimisation on resume brings productivity optimisation) for the algorithm. Maybe they had gaps in employment, which the system reads as a sign of weakness rather than a reflection of real-life struggles. Many candidates have vision behind any anomaly present in their resume. Those remain masked because they never get a chance to share a perspective on. The irony is that those who build, feed, and sustain our society—the working class—are the ones most affected by this automation. Skilled tradespeople, factory workers, retail employees, and others who have real experience are discarded by a system that prioritises buzzwords over hard work.  

Who benefits from this? Not the working class. Corporations, recruitment agencies, and those selling ATS optimisation services profit from this exploitation.The very people who talk about equality are the ones ensuring that the system remains a game rigged against those who do not conform to its arbitrary rules.  

I have no problem with a workplace that reflects society in its diversity. But forced diversity quotas are nothing more than a corporate tool to avoid addressing real economic inequality. They allow companies to claim they are "inclusive" while ignoring the bigger issue of class oppression.  

Instead of focusing on whether workers are paid fairly, have stable jobs, or are given real opportunities for advancement, companies pat themselves on the back for meeting diversity targets while still exploiting workers across all backgrounds. A company that boasts about hiring more women, LGBTQ+ individuals, or racial minorities still underpays them, overworks them, and treats them as disposable. 

This is the reality of modern capitalism—equality as a marketing strategy, not a principle. If companies truly cared about fairness, they would focus on creating better working conditions, fair wages, and accessible job opportunities for all, instead of using identity politics as a cover for economic exploitation.  

Of course, where there is a broken system, there are always those who find a way to profit from the struggle of others. A whole industry has emerged around "beating the ATS," "optimizing for diversity hiring," and "cracking the hiring algorithm."  

For a fee, job seekers can pay for resume rewrites, keyword optimisation, and coaching to help them "game" the system. But what does this really mean? It means that access to jobs is no longer just about skill or effort—it’s about who can afford to manipulate the system.  

This is nothing short of exploitation of the working class. Those who are struggling to find jobs, already disadvantaged by automation and bias, are now being sold the promise of a solution that shouldn’t need to exist in the first place. These services are not solving the problem—they are profiting off it.  

If we truly care about equality, the solution is simple:  

1. Eliminate demographic questions from job applications – No more asking about gender, race, or sexuality. Let candidates be judged purely on their skills, experience, and potential.  

2. Abolish ATS-based hiring– Bring back human judgment in recruitment. Let real people assess real talent, not algorithms designed to serve corporate efficiency.  

3. Prioritise fair wages, job security, and workers' rights over diversity quotas – True equality comes from economic justice, not token representation.  

4. End the exploitation of job seekers – Stop allowing third-party agencies to profit off broken hiring practices by selling expensive "hacks" for a system that should not exist.  

We need to ask ourselves—is this the kind of system we are willing to accept? A world where workers are selected not for their talent, but for how well they fit a pre-set algorithm? Where corporations hide behind "diversity" while continuing to exploit labor? Where access to jobs is determined by tricking a machine rather than proving one’s ability?  

Who Truly Benefits from This System?

I refuse to accept the idea that equality is something handed down by corporations, dictated by bureaucratic forms and algorithms. True equality comes from breaking down the systems that divide us, not reinforcing them under the guise of fairness.  

If we are serious about justice for workers, we must stop letting hiring be controlled by automation, corporate PR campaigns, and middlemen selling fake solutions.  

The real question is—are we ready to dismantle this system, or will we continue pretending that checkboxes and algorithms will ever bring us true equality?