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.
In the end of online application there is EEO and Diversity questionaire.. i can decline to identify my ethnicity but i state it ... i rather get rejected than hide my ethnicity then go to intrerview and they find out i am not their kind..they can also facebook search the name..and find a pic
So, don't answer. That is a voluntary stat, I don't think it usually becomes part of an application.
But, simply do not answer.
Maybe have someone look over your resume, maybe it needs tweaking. Also, it is always a good idea to look at any company's website. Look for key words, and if those are your skills, use those specific words...it might help your resume stand out.
[ QUOTE=mochamajesty;45900446]
Why would the average job applicant know the specifics of affirmative action?[/quote]
then why are they talking it off like they know?
remember the saying that people cant call you a fool if you keep mouth shut?
I believe that I read somewhere that demographics have to match (or come close) to demographics in the company's geographical area.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Close, but it actually needs to reflect the demographics of the qualified applicants in the area. So if you have 30% black electricians in the area, 30% asian and 30% white, but you have 90% white electricians, you need to look at your recruiting to make sure you are reaching all of the qualified electricians who could apply.
Now if your entire area is 90% asian and they only make up 5% of the qualified electricians in the area, you don't need to hire unqualified electricians just to get a workforce that is 90% asian.
First, there simply is no quota. BurgerFan gave a great description a few posts back. Affirmative action is about making an effort to advertise jobs fairly, interview fairly, and hire fairly.
No, it's not. It is about quotas. The statutes say it isn't, but the case law and regulations say otherwise.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57744
In our state, initiative 200 passed in 1998 prevents discrimination against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, or public contracting. Later court cases upheld the legality, and interpreted the law as banning someone less qualified from being selected based on one of those factors. When an employer, public or otherwise wants to achieve balance, they must still hire the best qualified person, so their "affirmative action" program would involve outreach, things like targeted recruitment, internships and mentoring to the groups they are hoping to hire. This is far different from what was happening in the 1970s when the place where I worked (in CA) had an Affirmative Action Office, with full staff, and managers were told they couldn't hire anyone that wasn't fulfilling a minority hiring goal. That office had to approve every selection before we could make an offer.
Its a City/State Agency in a big US City.. not a Private company.. They dont want to hire caucasians? I have applied never get response. They have like new 15 openings every 3 months..I am qualified meeting degree requirements.. and specified expierence
This is just a variation on people hiring people like themselves. White, male, upper class people do this all the time.
I did see an example of reverse discrimination in an organization once. There was a woman head who would only hire other women. I asked a male friend of mine if he was going to apply for a vacancy in her office, and he said, "No, I am not part of the PPP." When I asked him to explain what that was, he said, "the P_ckerl_ss Promotion Program, of course." I had to laugh, even though it was not very funny to him.
This woman was very competent, but had to fight her way for every promotion that she received, and she was ensuring that other women would have a chance in her organization. This is also wrong, but understandable.
I did a few aff. action statistical analyses once for a couple of companies. Aff. action is to make sure the co. doesn't discriminate against the minorities...not whites. Furthermore, the "minorities" are broken down into the specific minorities (Native American, hispanic, Af Americans, Asian, etc.). Who they hire is compared with who applied. If 20 whites applied and 80 minorities, and the co. hired 8 whites and 2 minorities, the co. would have to show why their hiring percentage didn't jive with the applicant percentage...which the co. may be able to do. Just because someone applies doesn't mean they're qualified. The point of the analysis is to make sure there's not discrimination against minorities, as there used to be.
Furthermore, WHICH minorities applied matters. If 80 hispanics applied and 20 blacks, the co. might have to explain why all 10 they hired are Af. American.
In a city agency in a big city, I'm guessing that a lot of the applicants are minorities. That means they have to hire mainly minorities, unless a white applicant has either the same or better qualifications than a minority (I don't recall if the white can have the same qualifications or has to have better).
OTOH, if 90 whites apply and 10 minorities, the co. will likely end up hiring mainly whites, since so many more applied.
It's not a quota, and the companies have the right to hire who they want, as long as they can demonstrate that they are not refusing to hire a minority for that reason.
So that's what I think....that probably a lot or most of the applicants are minorities, so who they hire has to reflect that. It'd be a hard sell to the feds that they hired a white applicant, when they had 99 minority applicants and one white applicant.
That's how I remember the aff. action plans. I don't know if those plans are still done, but I think so. It's only for companies of a certain size, or who have contracts with the fed govt, and such. I didn't think it applied to state govt offices, though.
You forgot to mention white women and white gay men are also considered minority
You forgot to mention white women and white gay men are also considered minority
This is somewhat true, but misleading in the way you state it.
Race and gender are protected classes. You cannot discriminate against white peiple, or men, or women. If a company does this systemically, they can be sued under EEOC laws.
However, sexual orientation is not a federally protected class. Some states and cities augment federal law and include this as a protected class, but certainly not all. So you are frequently able to legally discriminate against someone because they are gay. This is abhorrent of course, but legal.
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.
