It would be easier if they life the "check race" question out of the applications.
It is illegal to require you to check your race, but for some reason it's not illegal to ask.
If these laws continue the racism will get worse. If I have to hire X amount of minorities then I would be even more discriminating because they have gotten through the whole system by simply being a minority. My father was looking for a job a couple of years ago and was told by the interviewer "Sorry, but I can't hire you right now." They talked for a while and it turns out that they had to hire a black guy to stay out of trouble. They continued to talk and the guy said that they have been waiting for awhile but haven't had any qualified black guys apply and that they may just have to hire the next one that applies just so they can go back to hiring qualified people. It's simply hypocritical. Work hard, prove yourself and you WILL be prosperous. Forcing your agenda on me isn't a good way to change my mind.
John Wilken wrote:You've made a bad career decision. If you really believe that the only reason you were hired is to satisfy a minimum minority requirement, what makes you think you'll ever have an opportunity for promotion?
Did I say that I was hired to satisfy a requirement? I'm pointing out that its more difficult for me to be hired in a place like this because of my race.
John Wilken wrote: You don't know that. You don't know where I live, who my friends are, or who I'm married to. You're way off base with this.
I know it for a FACT that you will never be Black and go through the things that are common in America in reference to race. Just because you may have Black friends, maybe married to a Black woman, or came straight out of the hood...it doesn't make you Black. So again, you'll never have an idea. I've said it before, I'll say it again, "you telling me you know what it's like to be a Black Man, is like me telling a woman I know what its like to birth a child."
I've said this even to Black Women.
John Wilken wrote:Why cling on to the last remnant of "separate but equal" laws? Why perpetuate the myth that minorities are inferior and need help? Think of those who protested for equality during the 60's. They were openly treated unfairly, beaten and tear gassed for equality under the law. Are you willing to set aside their accomplishments, and be labeled "a qouta"? By supporting Affirmitave Action, you're chipping away at equality.
Why not look at the obvious? We both know that racism in America runs rampant. We both know that there would be preferential treatment based upon race if there were not systems like AA in place to create a balance. You're still living in la la land with these dreams of what America SHOULD be, and not what it is.
You want to know why AA is still in effect, look not further than your local courthouse. Look no further than your local prison. Look no further than your Municipal Ordinance, State Penal Code, and Federal Penal Codes. Look no further than Government requirements for Federal Aid. Look no further than the poorest neighborhoods and what the focus seems to be in regards to Policing these neighborhoods versus the higher class. Look no further than the blind eye you're turning towards this problem.
As long as there are parents who rise their kids to be racist, as long as there are people who believe in racial stereotyping, as long as there are those who wish to turn a blind eye to a brewing problem, there will always be a need for AA.
I stated before, that there needs to be some revamping of the system, but it should not be taken out of place. I do believe that as generations come along and those older racist pigs cease to exist, we will com to the point that we no longer need AA, and I can say that I can see that happening in the next 30-40 years...but to say that it is not needed is saying you believe that everyone of a minority will be given a chance at a job fairly, which I KNOW you don't believe to be true.
Eric Esler wrote:I'm sorry Chamillionaire, but I think your not telling us everything. You say every black person there needs special training to get promoted, but the white employee's don't, that is a clear case of rasism and if it were even partly true you or someone else would have hired a lawyer and sued them by now.
I didn't say anything about promotions, I said the hiring process.
Eric Esler wrote:I think your upset you don't have the skills required, and you think you are a better choise than the people they hire. Mabye you are, or mabye they know more than you think.
It had nothing to do with skills. It was education that they required that I didn't have, but were allowing Whites who had not a lick of experience or education entry into the program to become Unit Operators. Each of the few Blacks we have out here were not hired on in that manner (without the course). A couple tried, but were denied because they didn't have the course. They got it, came back after, and were hired on. There was even a guy that had 9 years experience in a MUCH larger facility and they would not accept him, but they accepted about a month ago, and guy that had worked 2 years as a Hopper Loader(rail car loader) without the course...he didn't have a relative working here either which was funny.
Eric Esler wrote:Do you know for a fact they hired white emloyees who did not have the required job skills, class/degree?
I stated earlier that this was a fact. I know it because they brag about not having the course and how they still got in at 19 years old and making 80,000+ a year.
Eric Elser wrote:Do all the black emplyee's at the job level have the required skill, class/degree?
They sure do! A couple have even gone as far as Chemical Engineering Degrees and sch.
Eric Esler wrote:Are they happy with your work habits?(don't judge yourself, ask your boss or even other employees)
I've been commended for just about everything you can do right on a job. The required amount of time that you must train with a Senior Operator here is 2 months. I was running the unit alone after about a month and a week.
Eric Esler wrote:Did they hire any whites that were not related to a current employee and did not have the required job skills, class/degree?
Since I've been here, only once did they do that, but it has happened many times before I was here.
Eric Esler wrote:If you can honestly say yes to those few questions, then sue their asses cause you are right , that would be racism. It would also be a clear cut case as you said there are at least 6 black employee's and several if not all the white employee's were hired without the right skills.
I know that its racism. Even some of the White Operators agree that it is and they don't like it. I'm not going to sue the company, all they did was make me get a degree that I can carry to another place if I don't like it here, and they reimbursed me for it. I'm just pointing out the reasons for AA etc...
"Speak the truth, and leave immediately after"
"The urge to save Humanity is almost ALWAYS a false front for the urge to rule"
"He who knoweth things as they are and not as they are said or seem to be, he truly is wise, and is taught of God more than of men."
unfortunatley discrimination is here to stay no matter what is written on any piece of paper anywhere in the world. it will continue to happen and no matter what people "vote" to approve it is still worth @!#$.
as long as people are around and there is someone else to unreasonably fear or not understand there will be discrimination, which means until humans are extinct or when the gene pool has been mixed so much that there is no difference in skin tones anymore (save the occasional albino).
and on topic; all the people that claim to have been "tricked" into signing the petition need to make their voice heard at the voting booth, organize and make their voice heard for what they "believe" to be right. the discrimination in the workplace is going to happen one way or the other, decide whether to make "legal" discrimination or "illegal" discrimination.
Update:
The Clerk(s) assigned to add the question to the ballots refused to do so!!!!
The clerk is obviously a minority, and beleived she can take the law into her own hands.
I am sure she will find out soon enough that it doesnt work that way. - She will be lucky to keep her job....
^ ^ ^ Not true. if shes a minority ( which being a women is considered ) then she can't be touched or the ACLU will sue them.
If your a minority you can do whatever you want and noone can say BOO without fearing a lawsuit.
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Oh I agree! Welcome to our brave wonderful new world where political correctness is the law of the land. Hey does anyone remember that whole freedom of speech thing?
Wasn't it some kind of right we had at one time?
Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.
Where I work (for the county, 911 dispatcher)... if 2 (or more) relatives are working in the same department... one cannot be promoted because of relatives/significant others/etc giving preferential treatment to their relative/etc.
If I had a boyfriend, and he worked here, neither of us could get promoted... one would have to leave the department in order for the other to get promoted.
I think every company should operate that way.
The system does need revamped in many ways. It's not right to hire/promote someone just because of a "race quota" if there's someone else that could do a better job/has more skills....... yet at the same time... there are some places still that if given that freedom would look down upon someone because of their race.
Maybe they should require tests for promotions and hiring processes to test one's knowledge on a position or type of field... aside from entry level positions which require no skill, and go by the test scores. You test good, you're hired/promoted! You don't... then there's written documentation proving you weren't qualified, and that's the reason you weren't hired.
You may or may not believe the barrage of tests we had to go through to get into the 911 center. They started off with 89 applicants for the typing test, and then it was eventually eliminated through a series of tests and interviews down to 10 people who were hired. They started January 30th, we started March 27th.
The bit about 2 people that are related in the same dept is foolish.
Unless there's a pervasive conlfict of interest, the problem can be fixed by not allowing the more senior person (in regards to the company) in the relationship to have the junior one under their supervision.
Either way, if there is no objective promotion process (ie, aptitude testing, interviewing, seniority) in a publicly funded dept. then there is a big problem.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The bit about 2 people that are related in the same dept is foolish.
Unless there's a pervasive conlfict of interest, the problem can be fixed by not allowing the more senior person (in regards to the company) in the relationship to have the junior one under their supervision.
Either way, if there is no objective promotion process (ie, aptitude testing, interviewing, seniority) in a publicly funded dept. then there is a big problem.
I was half asleep when I typed that.
Basically... as long as one wouldn't be supervising their relative, then they can get promoted. But, if one would be in any type of supervision over the other... they won't do it. (My brain isn't working now... bear with me).
We do have testing for everything, promotions, hiring, etc. I was talking about other jobs... not in a publicly funded dept. in my post
