Put affirmative action to a vote? 5 states may put it on the ballot (1 Viewer)

[LSSpam]

I believe civil rights in the workplace is as much a responsibility of the government as it is protecting equal rights in the justice system, etc. Minorities pay taxes, contribute, and sacrifice our lives for this nation, so we demand government intervention when called upon to guarantee equal opportunities in all facets of life.

Sure, but you're referring to (I assumed) a "glass ceiling effect" at companies like Nike, which is particularly unjust considering the demographic they target. I agree, that would not only be "unfair", it strikes me as fundamentally stupid (why wouldn't Nike want to be more heavily represented by the very demographic they're trying to sell too?).

Asking the Government to step into an extremely specific instance like that I consider to be inefficient and not a "best use" practice. The obvious answer, if that's a real problem, is to simply draw attention to the issue and buy less Nike goods. It's not like that sort of public campaign wouldn't be (and hasn't been in the past) very effective. The Free Market is powerful.

I guess what I'm saying is you're not helpless in this instance. It's not similar to Jim Crow laws in the South. The black community has leverage in this instance and can create change far more easily then the Federal Government could. If it cared.

Of course if the "trend" is "The shift today seems to be more focused on minorities forging our own paths by creating businesses, not demanding equal rights from most entrenched companies." then perhaps it's not a priority.

I'm not sure what you mean by affirmative action addressing the core problems in the black community.

The quality of education and level of crime/violence in impoverished areas.

 

[Bishop]

No, I'm not referring to the glass ceiling effect, but simple hiring practices.

Yes, many minorities prefer attempting their own business to dealing with the corporate climate of some. I've read in the TP before Katrina that blacks started more businesses per capita than any other faction. I've seen the Asian community lauded many times here for their resolve, though. You've ignored my statement of many efforts by minority consumers forcing change along with the Feds.

 

[LSSpam]

You've ignored my statement of many efforts by minority consumers forcing change along with the Feds.

What was I supposed to say? "Good job"? I'm not sure what you're looking for/expecting out of me.

 

[primadox]

When I worked for a manufacturing plant for awhile as an HR manager (early 1990's), I was in charge of the hiring as well as the company AA and EEO reporting. The target numbers were based on the demographics of the area we lived in...fair enough. There were many times where I had two equally qualified candidates and one was a minority...we'd hire the minority. There were times where after several searches, the short list was made up of a white male who was most qualified for the job and a minority male who was qualified but not as much so. Sometimes, if we were okay with the numbers, we'd hire the more qualified person. If we were "in need" of a minority to fill that slot, we'd hire the minority, despite the presence of a more qualified person. What was funny is that at least 2-3 times, the minority candidate came from a better situation and had a better education, etc., than the white candidate. But that factor was not considered. There were a couple of other instances where I hired minority candidates despite the fact that there were white male candidates more qualified, and these candidates had received this type of help for awhile. There were some in this group who were thankful for these opportunities and used them to work their way up and continually proved that we made the right choice in hiring them. But, unfortunately there were some who took the attitude that "you can't fire me now or I'll scream discrimination" (despite the fact that they got the job BECAUSE of their race!) after being given the opportunity. Frankly, for the small number of people who need the help AND take proper advantage of it, I think it's past its time. The fact that there were white men who had the same disadvantages in their lives that AA was supposed to make up for with minorities, and yet because they were white it was assumed that they did not have those disadvantages, that bothered me a lot. I think that there still needs to be help at the educational level -- college scholarships, educational opportunities, etc. -- and of course there should still be some sort of system in place to prevent discrimination that truly does still exist (I saw a lot of that, too), but AA as it stands now is past its time, IMO.

 

[Bishop]

What was I supposed to say? "Good job"? I'm not sure what you're looking for/expecting out of me.

Well, you implied that blacks weren't concerned with forcing change on our own, without government intervention. I merely stated that the trend seems to be more self employment, and you ran with it.

 

[LSSpam]

Well, you implied that blacks weren't concerned with forcing change on our own, without government intervention. I merely stated that the trend seems to be more self employment, and you ran with it.

No. I was afraid you were making some assumptions.

Let's recap

You mentioned a specific instance

I especially believe that companies targeting minority consumers (Nike, GM, etc) should make a conscious effort to recruit and offer the same opportunities of advancement to qualified minority employees.

I replied to that specific instance

That's the responsibility of the consumer, not the government. Since companies like Nike target minority consumers they have precisely the sort of leverage needed to force them to address that demographics concerns. If you want more out of a company like that, demand it. I think it's unfair to expect the government to step in a specific instance like that.

My sole point being in an instance like that, like that specific problem you mentioned, consumer action is more effective, immediate, and efficient then government action and should be strongly preferred.

That's all. No social commentary, except perhaps a little "smaller government" bias involved. I never implied (or at least didn't try to imply) blacks weren't concerned for their own change.

You mentioned that they are less concerned with the actions of larger companies

The shift today seems to be more focused on minorities forging our own paths by creating businesses, not demanding equal rights from most entrenched companies.

Which is fine. If most blacks don't care what Nike is doing, neat. That's their business. I know I don't care so I don't blame them. If most blacks do, well they have the tools to change Nike's business practices. Again, no social commentary. Do what you like and that's fine. It's also quite possible most blacks care what Nike is doing and think it's just fine. Which is also fine. Whatever. Neat.

 

[Bishop]

OK It's time for a beer.

 

[Legion of Dome]

Our beefs should be with the entities causing these laws to be necessary in the first place.

I think this is a very valid point. Affirmative Action-type laws are destined to not work. These quota systems seem to be more like patchwork attempts to please some people at the last level of the hiring process. These laws probably upset and divide more people than they actually help. There is so much more that could be done to "level the playing field," which is what the creators of these laws say that they're trying to do. How about welfare reform, better public elementary schools, better public college prep., more affordable college education, a better healthcare system, the list goes on.

 

[primadox]

I think this is a very valid point. Affirmative Action-type laws are destined to not work. These quota systems seem to be more like patchwork attempts to please some people at the last level of the hiring process. These laws probably upset and divide more people than they actually help. There is so much more that could be done to "level the playing field," which is what the creators of these laws say that they're trying to do. How about welfare reform, better public elementary schools, better public college prep., more affordable college education, a better healthcare system, the list goes on.

Yep. "Leveling the playing field" should start long before the point where someone is looking for a job. I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist, and IMO it definitely should still be dealt with, but providing opportunities "after the fact" is not the answer...providing opportunities much earlier in life so that AA isn't even necessary IS the answer, or at least a big part of it. Again, this is based on my experience and perspective as an HR person who had to adhere to those AA laws.

 

[Shawn]

Yep. "Leveling the playing field" should start long before the point where someone is looking for a job. I'm not saying that discrimination doesn't exist, and IMO it definitely should still be dealt with, but providing opportunities "after the fact" is not the answer...providing opportunities much earlier in life so that AA isn't even necessary IS the answer, or at least a big part of it. Again, this is based on my experience and perspective as an HR person who had to adhere to those AA laws.

I agree, but that's still a form of affirmative action...and it's one that I'm completely in favor of.

To speak in the worst kind of generalizations--if you take ghetto kids, and put them in ghetto schools, you'll likely end up with ghetto adults. You can substitute the word ghetto with the word trailer park or scientologist and the result is the same. By the time you get to high school, it's arguably too late.

I'd like to see affirmative action in the form of using a disproportionate amount of resources to improve the plight of the least fortunate children. But children don't vote, so it's not likely to be a priority, while mandating job hiring policie directly benefits people who do vote.

I think affirmative action is a good thing. But not necessarily in it's present incarnation.

 

[Comus]

He legally changed his name to Tyler.

He was hired as a certified accountant six days later at a reputable downtown firm.

I had the same experience looking for work. Until I change my name to Cinnamon, I couldn't get a stripping job to save my life.

 

[primadox]

I agree, but that's still a form of affirmative action...and it's one that I'm completely in favor of.

To speak in the worst kind of generalizations--if you take ghetto kids, and put them in ghetto schools, you'll likely end up with ghetto adults. You can substitute the word ghetto with the word trailer park or scientologist and the result is the same. By the time you get to high school, it's arguably too late.

I'd like to see affirmative action in the form of using a disproportionate amount of resources to improve the plight of the least fortunate children. But children don't vote, so it's not likely to be a priority, while mandating job hiring policie directly benefits people who do vote.

I think affirmative action is a good thing. But not necessarily in it's present incarnation.

lus-un2: That's why I said in my first post that "AA as it stands now is past its time". It's still needed, but it needs changes, and starting while the kids are in school, and preparing them for college/trade school and encouraging them to go is what will really help, IMO.

Now, that brings up another point...in the Houston ISD (independent school district) the state is enacting the "robin hood" plan...they're planning to take money from that district and giving it to poorer districts (link below). On one hand, it's a great idea to give help to those poorer districts. But, on the other hand, I'm scrimping and saving in order to live in a particular highly-rated district that is good for my kids, namely my autistic son. My property taxes are NOT cheap by a long shot, but we pay it for the schools. I feel a bit angry that I'm struggling to make these tax payments, and if my district falls into the "wealthy" category, some of that money is taken away. And sad to say, special ed is one of the areas cut first. Now I'm not in HISD (I'm in Cy-Fair ISD), but what bothers me re: HISD is that they're taking money away from a district that could use it, with all the inner-city kids in Houston. It seems to me that this plan is a bit backwards in some ways...IMO they should first identify schools of need within that district and let them benefit from any "extra money" (yea, like that exists in education...) before shipping the funds out of district. The poorer districts should get more help at the state level, and not from other districts. This is JMO...and something that worries me with funds being taken away from the HISD, which contains many inner-city schools that could benefit from some "early AA" intervention that we all seem to agree is the most beneficial...

link: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/moms/5600024.html

Just more food for the conversation...

 

[RABDOG]

1st off afirmative action is not a quota system, as i recall it only requires employers to consider minorities and women that are qualified on the same level they consider white men...also i see all this talk about the black community needing or not needing/ being hurt or not hurt if affirmative action goes away , when in reality the people that affirmative action helps the most are white women....and to primadox i know what you mean about high taxes because i pay very high taxes here where i live in balch springs( a suburb of dallas) here's the kicker i pay taxes for mesqute i.s.d.,( which is the school district my kids go to ) and i pay dallas i.s.d. taxes....but my point about this is, i don't think property taxes should determine the school funding...if you live in a poor area with low taxes then the school is funded poorly, and the just makes the problems worse....i think all the schools should be funded equally and funded well enough to make a difference

 

[RABDOG]

When I worked for a manufacturing plant for awhile as an HR manager (early 1990's), I was in charge of the hiring as well as the company AA and EEO reporting. The target numbers were based on the demographics of the area we lived in...fair enough. There were many times where I had two equally qualified candidates and one was a minority...we'd hire the minority. There were times where after several searches, the short list was made up of a white male who was most qualified for the job and a minority male who was qualified but not as much so. Sometimes, if we were okay with the numbers, we'd hire the more qualified person. If we were "in need" of a minority to fill that slot, we'd hire the minority, despite the presence of a more qualified person. What was funny is that at least 2-3 times, the minority candidate came from a better situation and had a better education, etc., than the white candidate. But that factor was not considered. There were a couple of other instances where I hired minority candidates despite the fact that there were white male candidates more qualified, and these candidates had received this type of help for awhile. There were some in this group who were thankful for these opportunities and used them to work their way up and continually proved that we made the right choice in hiring them. But, unfortunately there were some who took the attitude that "you can't fire me now or I'll scream discrimination" (despite the fact that they got the job BECAUSE of their race!) after being given the opportunity. Frankly, for the small number of people who need the help AND take proper advantage of it, I think it's past its time. The fact that there were white men who had the same disadvantages in their lives that AA was supposed to make up for with minorities, and yet because they were white it was assumed that they did not have those disadvantages, that bothered me a lot. I think that there still needs to be help at the educational level -- college scholarships, educational opportunities, etc. -- and of course there should still be some sort of system in place to prevent discrimination that truly does still exist (I saw a lot of that, too), but AA as it stands now is past its time, IMO.

soooo....those black guys that you hired "BECAUSE" of their race..where they qualifed for the job? where they bad employees saying "you can't fire me or i will scream discrimination" in their heads and somehow through pure magic you read there thoughts....or where they just bad employees most likely at the same percentage that you have bad white employees....also when you where doing all this hiring i see where you say you have not hired a "more" qualified white guy to hire a black guy because you where "in need " of a minority....how about when your minority "numbers" were in good shape and you had a "more" qualified minority and a white guy "that was qualified, but not as much so" who do you hire?, taking into account your concern for the plight of the passed over more qualified white male......i see you use many examples..equally qualified white and minority,...more qualified white guy and qualifed but not as much so minority....but was there ever a time where you had more qualified minority and not as qualifed white guy, and you hire the white guy because you are good on your minority numbers and heven forbid the white guy ended up not being a good employee?...naw that couldn't possibly happen

 

[DadsDream]

I had a co-worker who used to call herself a "triple-threat."

During the force reductions of the Clinton years, when everybody else was sweating out whether they'd get RIF'd, she'd chuckle a bit and say that they'd never let her go, even if she tried to quit.

Black
Female
Single-mom

Yes, she knew very well that she was hired because she filled three Affirmative Action requirements all-in-one.

In this case, though, I can't think of anybody who did their job better. She was my working partner for many years.