Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Liberals don't really want 'equality', they want preferential treatment for those they've deemed to be victims. It's all just an effort to buy votes and it has largely worked.
Not a liberal, but IMO in regards to workplace hiring, I personally believe that interviews should be blind and those interviewing the person should not be able to know the name of the interviewee. That way the bias of the network is not at play.
Skills assessments and blind interview process would prevent the "preferential treatment."
IMO many of you fail to realize that the lack of representation of many so-called "minority" groups in certain corporate fields is because those minority groups are not friends of the people who work in those areas. People primarily hire their friends/former colleagues so it is hard to break into a field for someone outside that network.
IMO much of this is not racism per-se, but it looks like it is when you view it statistically because most white men for instance, are work friends with other white men.
I still work in a capacity that "sources" vendors and it is always amazing to me that in certain industries where vendors provide proposals in response to needs of organizations I work for, they include pictures and demographics of their companies and over 95% of them don't even have a black person on their staff in any capacity that they highlight. So the idea that so many white people are losing jobs to black folks, is always funny to me.
Even in highway/construction/state positions - as noted, I've applied for those types of positions. They go through the motions of interviewing people but often they already know who they are going to hire and it is a friend of theirs or a friend of a friend. This is very common in public positions. Affirmative Action means they have to interview a diverse field. It doesn't mean they have to hire them. As long as they have it down that they interviewed a black person, then they will satisfy most EEO statutes. Many of you are not aware of the politics of the "good old boy" network and I'll note it doesn't just hurt black people but often hurts whites as well who are trying to move from a lower income class to a higher one. They get a lot of education in order to try to get a better income but because they don't know the CEO or AVP they won't get the opportunity. I'll note that in the past year a black woman got a job where I work because she knew our senior AVP. The AVP was a white man and he'd worked with her in the past. She didn't even live in our area but lost her job and called him asking if he'd be a reference (note she told me about this personally) and after he said yes, he asked her if she'd be willing to come to our organization and serve in a senior position. He had not interviewed anyone yet for that position, but went through he motions of doing so and just hired her because he knew her and knew she could do the job. To me, that is discriminatory (for one, I would have liked to have an opportunity at the job). She only kept the position for less than a year and had to move again, but they went through motions again and hired a white man for the permanent position recently. One of my co-workers, a white woman who had multiple years of experience doing this sort of position, she interviewed (I didn't because I felt they were just going to hire the person they ended up hiring) but was not considered. The white man had never worked in our organization like my co-worker has and now he has to be trained up by some people in my own department, including my co-worker as she works intimately in that area. So it is not racial oftentimes - it is network based.
Any "friend" stories or relatives are usually falsehoods.
Actually, it really does happen just depends upon the occupation.
My relative was in HR for a major US company (and pretty high up) and they did a lot of govt. contract work with certain ratios that needed to be met. There was constant high demand for women engineers and other roles with large numbers of men in them and it was definitely easier (at that company) to progress to higher levels.
My relative fyi wasn't angry or anything about it, they were just describing the reality of the situation.
Any "friend" stories or relatives are usually falsehoods. The project manager who I mentioned in my long post who we hired was a white man and my black female boss wanted a white man for that job. Most of the places I've ever worked, when the hiring manager was black, they often preferred white people because many black people believe that white people are better workers than black people (black Americans have an issue with internalized racism throughout all our classes).
The fact that employment demographics still show that black women are less likely to obtain positions in certain fields goes against the fake stories that white folks like to share. It is interesting to me that you all like to believe the negative statistics of black people "prove" something about us as a group in regards to crime or education, but statistics that show that whites are preferred in the workplace - you don't accept and don't think are true because of your "friend of friend" stories that are more than likely made up. As noted, I worked in an HR capacity. It really showed me how everyone in the private and public sector have a lot of prejudices over new hires and that most people who are hired aren't hired because they are the "most qualified." They are hired because they know someone at the organization. Those who know someone who subsequently aren't hired, they often have this racial excuse for them not being hired and it usually untrue. I personally didn't care about who someone knew when I hired (I still serve on interview committees to this day BTW). I care about if they can pass the assessments I personally create that are based on actual tasks they will have to perform. I also base it on their responses about what they will do in a crisis. Anyone who will ask me/their superior what to do before trying to solve the problem are usually people I will not hire or support being hired regardless of race. There is not skin color basis for problem solvers - you either are that way or you are not and IMO there is no difference really in regards to skin color. Interestingly, however, recently I've noticed that women are more likely to state they'd attempt to solve a problem than men are. It used to be the other way around and for me that is a good sign that women are taking more initiative in the field I work in and not being so apt to doubt themselves and their abilities.
Observing a majority white classroom and a majority black classroom for about 30 seconds will tell you why whites end up obtaining better jobs than blacks
I posted a link to a statistically solid study that was performed for a woman's group and it found statistical reasons explain all but about 5 cents (approximately) of the pay gap. They normalized for all of the stuff like types of jobs, taking years off work for kids, overtime and so forth.
It was a very sound study and then scientifically correctly concluded that the 5 cents that could not be explained were not automatically due to gender unfairness but likely some of it was, which is logical.
Heck, even on NPR they had a guy explaining that the 83 cent figure that gets thrown around is garbage and that the statistically adjusted difference is quite small and really mostly anchored in a few industries while not prevalent at all in others.
That is correct. There is a small difference that I suppose could be attributed to men being more likely to ask for a raise or not accept a lower offer, but the whole 80 cents on the dollar nonsense is just that and you should immediately not trust any spin doctor trying to push that one whoever it is. They are trying to sell you something that is just plain false, and probably worse than that, agenda driven.
Any "friend" stories or relatives are usually falsehoods. The project manager who I mentioned in my long post who we hired was a white man and my black female boss wanted a white man for that job. Most of the places I've ever worked, when the hiring manager was black, they often preferred white people because many black people believe that white people are better workers than black people (black Americans have an issue with internalized racism throughout all our classes).
y
I posted a link to a statistically solid study that was performed for a woman's group and it found statistical reasons explain all but about 5 cents (approximately) of the pay gap. They normalized for all of the stuff like types of jobs, taking years off work for kids, overtime and so forth.
It was a very sound study and then scientifically correctly concluded that the 5 cents that could not be explained were not automatically due to gender unfairness but likely some of it was, which is logical.
Heck, even on NPR they had a guy explaining that the 83 cent figure that gets thrown around is garbage and that the statistically adjusted difference is quite small and really mostly anchored in a few industries while not prevalent at all in others.
i agree but then that would be a socialism system
my company pretty much all white males. those in the same dept, same job, same task dont make the same pay
its depends on time, skill, responsibility. someone that there everyday for thirty years going make more than someone been there three years and lay out every week
Originally Posted by Ralph_N_1962 -These studies are literally an acknowledgement that you work crappier jobs on average, not that there is any discrimination going on.
Actually, that's not true.
I posted a link to a statistically solid study that was performed for a woman's group and it found statistical reasons explain all but about 5 cents (approximately) of the pay gap. They normalized for all of the stuff like types of jobs, taking years off work for kids, overtime and so forth.
It was a very sound study and then scientifically correctly concluded that the 5 cents that could not be explained were not automatically due to gender unfairness but likely some of it was, which is logical.
Heck, even on NPR they had a guy explaining that the 83 cent figure that gets thrown around is garbage and that the statistically adjusted difference is quite small and really mostly anchored in a few industries while not prevalent at all in others.
Aren't you 2 saying the same thing? There is no wage gender gap when you apply apples to apples?
That is correct. There is a small difference that I suppose could be attributed to men being more likely to ask for a raise or not accept a lower offer, but the whole 80 cents on the dollar nonsense is just that and you should immediately not trust any spin doctor trying to push that one whoever it is. They are trying to sell you something that is just plain false, and probably worse than that, agenda driven.
Plus if woman do the same work as men but for 80% of the pay their UE rate would be minuscule.
Men are more aggressive and are more likely to ask for promotions and raises.
What boggles my mind is a 10 year old study done in 150 major cities that almost everyone ignores.
Comparing 30 year old and under single men and woman, the study found that in 147 cities woman made similar pay or made more than men. That is attributable to the slightly higher percentage of degrees that women have over men.
Hardly anyone mentions that study. Granted that isn't about black women, but all women.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
