has affirmative action gone too far?

[DeletedUser]

Why can't we all just get along? I was going to post something long and drawn out but have since decided against it. I just know that there will always be discrimination of some sort. Somebody is always going to hate somebody else and deny them. Everybody believes strongly in something and there will always be someone that believes strongly in the opposite direction. I personally do not know how to fix it other than to be the best I can be and hope other people do the same. I do not think that AA has gone too far. The very fact that it exists means there is a problem. I do not think that it is the solution necessarily but it is an effort that is directed in the right spirit of things.

 

[DeletedUser]

Afirmative action is part of the problem in my opinion as it further fuels hate groups . will there be descrimination yes there always has been and always will be and afirmative action wont change that. Its a good intentioned law but in the end makes it so that companies cant hire the best qualified people.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yes, it will further breed contempt but the people that hate that much don't care about the best qualified person for the job they care about the best white guy for the job.

 

[DeletedUser]

everyone else however does care about the best qualified though which is my point. you cant always have the best qualifed people when a law forces you to fill a quota

 

[DeletedUser]

Afirmative action is part of the problem in my opinion as it further fuels hate groups . will there be descrimination yes there always has been and always will be and afirmative action wont change that. Its a good intentioned law but in the end makes it so that companies cant hire the best qualified people.

Yes, we certainly wouldn't want to piss off the hate groups...

 

[DeletedUser]

Does anyone know someone personally who has been denied a job because they were white?

 

[nashy19]

Does anyone know someone personally who has been denied a job because they were white?

Possibly because the company felt required to higher a mix of backgrounds, taking the position of the white person?

The employer isn't racist himself, but it is an example of racism.

 

[DeletedUser]

My brother is a department head at a large international company. Several months ago he was asked to supply to Human Resources the names of 2 of his staff for lay offs. He has 10 people in his department. One white woman in her 50s, two white men in their early 40s, 2 black men, 1 black woman, 1 latino and 3 from India. He supplied HR with the name of the white woman and one of the black men. He was told those names would not do. He would have to supply them with 2 different names. When he asked why he was told that the woman could sue them for age discrimination and the black man could sue for race discrimination.

My brother is a fair and just person. He made his decisions based on the performance of the individuals in his department. My brother informed HR that he would not supply them with any further names. If they had a quota or some agenda other than productivity issues he would not be taking part in the decision process. HR harassed my brother for 2 weeks over this matter and he refused to budge on his recommendations. To this date no one has been layed off in his department and he hasn't heard another word about it.

In this case no one was denied a job due to race but it shows a company is very aware of who they hire and fire. This example shows that people that are not as productive (at least in this company) are shown greater leeway regarding their performance because the company fears lawsuits.

 

[DeletedUser]

ok here is another example of who my mother works for at the moment.

my mother's boss (also a family friend of ours) had to fire this black lady that would not do her Job. well she is one of these people that would have gone after them for discrimination if they knew that my mother was was the one replaceing her.

and Denisero if a mod sees you with that sig you will get an infraction.


I got one from saying something about John Rose about a month ago.

 

[DeletedUser]

Yeah well Giz the difference was yours was very insulting. Mine is not insulting. It is an opinion based on facts expressed by yourself. I did modify it a bit though since you obviously take the time to read peoples sigs but not their posts.

Anyone that is fired from a job for poor performance has the right to sue if they believe it was based on discrimination. It is up to the company to show proof of why that person was fired. That shouldn't be too hard if the employee wasn't doing their job.

 

[DeletedUser]

Shame on you, you responded!

 

[DeletedUser]

it was something like

saving the world from John Rose's posts one post at a time.

 

[DeletedUser]

Shame on you, you responded!

I know! But I felt that was necessary as he was talking specifically to me. So yeah, I edited my sig but the movement is not dead!

Shun Gizmo501 today! Show your support and put Shun Gizmo501 in your sig.

 

[DeletedUser]

Anyone that is fired from a job for poor performance has the right to sue if they believe it was based on discrimination. It is up to the company to show proof of why that person was fired. That shouldn't be too hard if the employee wasn't doing their job.

I don't know what your workplace relations laws there are, but here if you want to fire someone, you are required to give the employee a warning detailing the issue and to give them a reasonable time to improve before firing them. (Unless they have done something really serious like steal etc.)

Most larger companies have a 3 strikes rule: one verbal warning and 2 written warnings and you are out. In my experience (haven given them before), many employees will resign of their own accord after two. The paper trail is extremely easy to maintain in order to protect your company from bogus claims.

It is also probably very easy to make a trumped up paper trail and it is also easy to squeeze people out, but as you say, if you suspect you have been unfairly dismissed, you have recourse in legal action. The problem with that, however, is that it is an expense both unfairly dismissed people and companies would prefer to avoid. And the cost could certainly prohibit small businesses from firing substandard workers.

 

[DeletedUser]

I know! But I felt that was necessary as he was talking specifically to me. So yeah, I edited my sig but the movement is not dead!

Shun Gizmo501 today! Show your support and put Shun Gizmo501 in your sig.

Are you permanently ignoring gizmo now? If so, I'm down. Anything to make him go away.

 

[DeletedUser]

Indeed I am Divest. Shun Gizmo!

Vi - Most companies of any size have employee manuals that outline discplinary procedures. Verbal warnings, written warnings, probationary periods, and anything else that will lead up to termination to inclue acts that will cause immediate termination. If an employee is failing to be productive at their job then the company has documentation to back up their reasons for firing that individual. The problem arises when the fired employee then claims the disciplinary actions taken against them were based on other facts such as race, sex, age, etc. Everytime a terminated employee sues a company it costs the company money in legal fees. In my experience companies are hesitant to fire anyone that could fall into a category of people that have been historically discriminated against in the past. With the exception of a young white male, just about everyone else can fall into one of those categories.

I was a legal secretary for years and my employer specialized in Employment Law and was hired by employees, not companies. I have seen all sorts of complaints filed by terminated employees against their former employers. I have seen complaints filed before the employee was terminated in a preemptive move to keep their jobs. Everyone thought they were being fired based on discrimination and not because they did a poor job, hardly showed up for work or were late often, failed random drug tests, or had an extremely poor attitude at work. While I did see enough cases where these things were possibly true, I saw far more cases where our client was just looking for someone else to blame for their failures. This in no way is race related as the bulk of our clientele were Caucasian. Maybe if the bulk of our clientele were other than Caucasian I would have seen a preponderance of cases based on actual discrimination. I can only go by my experience.

 

[DeletedUser]

These policies are voluntary on the part of businesses, a means to collect evidence to support whatever decisions they make for, or against, an employee. People are sue-happy and will grab any excuse to make a buck. This isn't really about race discrimination, as it is about avoidance of civil suits that will cost the company regardless of the end result. As to the white woman and black man, we have insufficient information to judge this situation. It may very well be that their supervisor(s) utterly failed to report any performance issues, or that there are performance issues presented, or that HR is in possession of favorable reports and/or customer responses.

It's easy to jump to a conclusion, but without all the evidence, it's just that, jumping.

Firstly - I don't think I said all schools but see this

Hehe, so you're up in arms because one religion 'requires' the person to wear a bracelet, and another religion does not? The school policy was very clear, and if that parent wishes for her child to go to that particular school, then the child should follow the rules, as they pertain to her.

It is not preferential treatment, it is recognition of religious 'requirements.' Do you think Buddhists care that we don't work on Sundays? Christians have "requirements" so heavily embedded into the framework of their society, they don't even realize they are there. Another religion steps in, and the reaction is a jumping and screaming, "PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT!"

Thirdly - all civil cases. Source

Lol, another laughable example. All they did was get licensed as arbitrators. Anyone can do it. All parties must accept to the arbitration, otherwise the civil case will need to go to court. Even then, although an arbitration is binding, it is still reversible by a court, as is a court decision.

How about THIS for discrimination for you?

lol, that's another good one. Did you even research this? It's a private Catholic school. And seriously, braided hair? Omg! We're being oppressed, we're being oppressed! Furry, you're getting ridiculous now.

 

[DeletedUser]

In my experience companies are hesitant to fire anyone that could fall into a category of people that have been historically discriminated against in the past. With the exception of a young white male, just about everyone else can fall into one of those categories.

People are sue-happy and will grab any excuse to make a buck.

My perception is that in the US people are far more sue-happy than over here so what is imperfect (ie; has the possibility of both trumped up charges, and trumped up dismissals) possibly presents a greater risk in the US than it does here.

Also, do you guys use an intermediary process like we have here, with claims being lodged and then going through conciliation to be either resolved (without needing the legal proceedings) or then approved for the courts?

(see here for a brief rundown of our process in unlawful termination cases.)

Also, Hellstromm, you said the warning policies there were voluntary. Here, we have the category "unfair dismissal" and a claim can be made of that (going through the same process as unlawful termination) when an employee is dismissed without being given fair warning of their poor performance and a chance to improve their work.

(I know I'm digressing a little from the subject - but there is a lot I don't undertsand about US workplace law. And a lot that seems to be missing from your minimum requirements that we take for granted here, like our 4 weeks of paid holidays for every 12mths worked.)

 

[DeletedUser]

Hehe, so you're up in arms because one religion 'requires' the person to wear a bracelet, and another religion does not? The school policy was very clear, and if that parent wishes for her child to go to that particular school, then the child should follow the rules, as they pertain to her.

It is not preferential treatment, it is recognition of religious 'requirements.' Do you think Buddhists care that we don't work on Sundays? Christians have "requirements" so heavily embedded into the framework of their society, they don't even realize they are there. Another religion steps in, and the reaction is a jumping and screaming, "PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT!"

Actually I am using it as an example of PC going to far. Why should a christian not be allowed to wear a cross in a Christian country? That is the issue that I take with it. It is being worn for religous reasons the same as the Kara, yes christians do not have to wear it, but many do as a symbol of their faith so I fail to see why an allowance cannot be made. That is why I find it discriminatory.

Lol, another laughable example. All they did was get licensed as arbitrators. Anyone can do it. All parties must accept to the arbitration, otherwise the civil case will need to go to court. Even then, although an arbitration is binding, it is still reversible by a court, as is a court decision.

As I stated, it must be accepted by all parties. Of course a court decision is overturnable, otherwise how the hell can we have appeals? Did you actually think that through?

lol, that's another good one. Did you even research this? It's a private Catholic school. And seriously, braided hair? Omg! We're being oppressed, we're being oppressed! Furry, you're getting ridiculous now.

OMG! Where have I said that these are examples of oppression? OMG! I didn't. I used them along with others that I posted as examples of political correctness gone to far, which if you actually read my post and understood it you would have realised.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually I am using it as an example of PC going to far. Why should a christian not be allowed to wear a cross in a Christian country? That is the issue that I take with it. It is being worn for religous reasons the same as the Kara, yes christians do not have to wear it, but many do as a symbol of their faith so I fail to see why an allowance cannot be made. That is why I find it discriminatory.

A "Christian country"? Unless you are talking about a dictatorship somewhere which I haven't heard of, no such thing exists. For a nation to be described as an [insert whichever religion here] country, it can only be a totalitarian state. Something I assume you aren't in favour of, right?

Just from a quick check at NationMaster the figures from the 2001 census...

Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%
Muslim 2.7%
Hindu 1%
other 1.6%
unspecified or none 23.1%

And like most other developed nations, those census statistics are huge overestimates of who is actually a practicing Christian because UK church attendence is only 27% (and that covers all religions, not just Christianity.

Obviously there is a huge difference between someone choosing to wear a an item which symbolises something about their religion and someone whose religion dictates that the item must be worn. If a school says no jewellery, then no jewellery, whether it has religious significance to the wearer or not. It is no different from me not being allowed to wear a hat while Jewish guys in my class wore their kippah. No one is being discriminated against by the rule, but refusing to allow a Kara or a Kippah or a headscarf would essentially amount to the denial of an education on the basis of religion.