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.
The boys in the image are referred to as breaker boys, in this image they are picking rock out of coal inside a coal processing plant. They had many jobs including ones in the mines where they might work 10 or 12 hours a day every day. They would be the sons of poor immigrants put to work in the mines and you can find images like this for nearly any industry in the US. Commonly the mine owner owned everything including the store they purchased goods at and the house they lived in. The wages were kept at a point they were perpetually in debt to the mine. If for example your husband was killed in the mine the wife would find him on the door step of the house in a body bag with a bill for any outstanding balances and a eviction notice.
So to answer your question I would have to say no because I don’t have any evidence that what happened with these children workers had an effect on their descendant’s current situations. If there were policies put in place after the abolishment of these workshops to discriminate against their descendants I would have to change my mind.
I don’t disagree with you. There is more to diversity than racial diversity. I was primarily speaking of racial diversity in this thread not because it is the only thing that is important but because the conversation tended to gravitate towards that direction. When I discuss qualified applicants I’m talking about seeking diversity from a pool of similarly qualified people. Not a pool of candidates with people who are twice as qualified as the others...
I understand that. I also know from experience that is not how it actually done in the real world. I have been on the tagging committee. We are told to over look disqualifiers because we need more diversity.
For example we work 12.5 hour shifts on concrete. 3 15 minute breaks and a 1/2 hour lunch.
Don't disqualify #6 she is only 300 pounds over weight and 59 years old. She walks on the sides of her shoes because her anckles are shot. We need to hire 12 women and we only have 12 female applicants. I swear to god this has happened.
Don't disqualify #21 we need minorities. Only 3 applied and 2 have felonies. #21 has been fired or quit and hasn't held a job longer than a month. Minimum score on the tests is a 70% he nailed a solid 34% so we hire him and force a team to deal with it.
All in the name of diversity.
Diversity to me is diverse backgrounds such as education, previous employment, geographical locations etc. It all brings something to the table. Race and gender bring the least to the diversity table.
I understand that. I also know from experience that is not how it actually done in the real world. I have been on the tagging committee. We are told to over look disqualifiers because we need more diversity.
For example we work 12.5 hour shifts on concrete. 3 15 minute breaks and a 1/2 hour lunch.
Don't disqualify #6 she is only 300 pounds over weight and 59 years old. She walks on the sides of her shoes because her anckles are shot. We need to hire 12 women and we only have 12 female applicants. I swear to god this has happened.
Don't disqualify #21 we need minorities. Only 3 applied and 2 have felonies. #21 has been fired or quit and hasn't held a job longer than a month. Minimum score on the tests is a 70% he nailed a solid 34% so we hire him and force a team to deal with it.
All in the name of diversity.
Diversity to me is diverse backgrounds such as education, previous employment, geographical locations etc. It all brings something to the table. Race and gender bring the least to the diversity table.
Well you support discrimination. You said as long as say they are in the top 100 then its okay to select based on diversity. Selecting #68 over number 2 because we want a pink and red person instead of a green so that we can claim diversity is discrimination.
Does number 2 deserve the job less simply because they are not a minority?
If I own a company I will always go with most qualified niether race nor gender is a factor in the choice. I need for an example an electrician.
I want the guy who knows the job best, not the guy that well he knows it but is less experienced and makes more mistakes. I am hiring and need a qualified electrician. I don't want to invest any more money in his training than I have to. That training includes OJT and mistakes made on the job. All of which are big money.
To overlook most qualified most skilled and to hire based on gender or race to satisfy a diversity need? Yeah that is discrimination. No different than Billy Bob hireing bubba because bubba is his fishing buddy. Bubba aint such a bad electrician either he just needs a little more supervision is all.
Your analogy would be correct if I were supporting diversity at the expense of qualification mismatches. I am advocating for diversity to be sot if you have candidates similarly qualified. So for example if you have Jerome (black) and Gregory (white) who are both qualified as equal as possible and there isn’t one other black employee on staff I would give Jerome the position.
I understand that. I also know from experience that is not how it actually done in the real world. I have been on the tagging committee. We are told to over look disqualifiers because we need more diversity.
For example we work 12.5 hour shifts on concrete. 3 15 minute breaks and a 1/2 hour lunch.
Don't disqualify #6 she is only 300 pounds over weight and 59 years old. She walks on the sides of her shoes because her anckles are shot. We need to hire 12 women and we only have 12 female applicants. I swear to god this has happened.
Don't disqualify #21 we need minorities. Only 3 applied and 2 have felonies. #21 has been fired or quit and hasn't held a job longer than a month. Minimum score on the tests is a 70% he nailed a solid 34% so we hire him and force a team to deal with it.
All in the name of diversity.
Diversity to me is diverse backgrounds such as education, previous employment, geographical locations etc. It all brings something to the table. Race and gender bring the least to the diversity table.
The situation you described is a terrible way to manage hiring and the company. I would have defiantly spoken up if I were on that committee. I can tell you from years of experience as a hiring manager this isn’t how it usually works. As a manager if your recruiter isn’t screening or attracting high quality candidates they should be fired. Diversity at the expense of quality hurts everyone.
Your analogy would be correct if I were supporting diversity at the expense of qualification mismatches. I am advocating for diversity to be sot if you have candidates similarly qualified. So for example if you have Jerome (black) and Gregory (white) who are both qualified as equal as possible and there isn’t one other black employee on staff I would give Jerome the position.
Actually you said if in the top 100. You would select based on diversity. I would agree if Gregory were number 6 and jerome number 7 on the list.
Not number 6 and number 58. They are in fact not comparable.
I don't disagree with the majority of what you say. I simply disagree that race or gender should ever be a deciding factor unless a job is gender specific which very very few jobs are. Or race specific which once again very few jobs are.
Does it matter that Jerome grew up in chicago? Will that make him better able to be an electrician than gregory who grew up in Norfolk Va.? No it wouldnt. What matters is job experience/performance technical skills and how the above apply to what you need for your business.
The situation you described is a terrible way to manage hiring and the company. I would have defiantly spoken up if I were on that committee. I can tell you from years of experience as a hiring manager this isn’t how it usually works. As a manager if your recruiter isn’t screening or attracting high quality candidates they should be fired. Diversity at the expense of quality hurts everyone.
The only reason I can think of why you came to the conclusion you did and only pulled bullet points made using rhetorical questions (by conservatives) instead of the answers to questions posted is racial bias in observation. Once you get past preconceived notions and prejudices things will become clearer. It’s always good to be objective and critical but coming into a discussion with an unmovable opinion will prevent any learning.
But there is nothing preconceived about it....this country is built off of racial constructs. And it goes against everybody. Understanding what this country was built upon is one thing. But being bludgeoned by it is another.
Just as you would be skeptical of anybody who wants "the race card to go away"... I am skeptical of anybody who denies that "white guilt" is a totally and overwhelmingly abused tool. It is a MAJOR dynamic in this country.
And the "poor white trash" of this country is a total afterthought.
So yea, if you want to talk against the "powers that be" do it all inclusively or anything you say is mud IMO.
Quote:
So to start the analogy used to compare professional work force diversity and professional sports diversity is inherently flawed. Professional competitive and precision sports use athletic ability developed through training and practice. The best way to tackle diversity in sports is by investing time and effort into underserved young athletes in said field.
Now that logic is a very slippery slope...I see where you're going with it. One doesn't say "Well, we need more diversity in professional sports...let's cultivate these white kids more"
No...it doesn't work like that.
There is simply a hiearchy an individual operates within...on their own merit. So where one invests their time is where one will have the best chances to excel at.
Not to say we are all equal.. We are not. To say humans are all drawn on the same blank slate, with the same exact paint in the same ratios is not only ignorant but it is insanely illogical. That way of thinking needs to join up with the tooth fairy ASAP. It's intellecutally dishonest.
But that being said...the kid who spends the lion share of his development playing ball will have a significant advantage over the kid who spends more of his times doing....other things.
Quote:
On the other hand the professional work force is full of qualified candidates who compete for a limited amount of available positions. Once a person is qualified either by education, work experience and aptitude someone makes the decision of witch qualified candidate is most desirable. This desirability is subjective in nature and influenced by biased opinions. When it comes to hiring most hiring manages feel more conferrable hiring people who look like them, act like them and enjoy the same things as them. The side affect of this process creates homogeneous workforce.
This is really nothing more than pure conjecture. It isn't a cut and dry process like in professional sports, granted. But there are way too many variables to just say "Hey, he hired him because he looks like him"...
What do the white people who are equally or more qualified and were excluded from consideration have to whine about? lol
I would suggest the single vote probably came from himself and keep in mind it was a write in vote, he wasn't listed on the ballot. The party split in this area is 60/30. It's heavy Democrat so there is lot of apathy in the Republican party, this is one of those situations where the same thing has happened year after year until now and it was just taken for granted. You can guarantee there will be someone on the ballot next time. Having said that it's not your standard brand of Democrat here. A Democrat in this area is very likely to be religious and own a gun.
Which meant nobody cared enough to vote. Again, it's a NON ISSUE. 30% of the people are repubs and nobody cared enough to vote but 1 person? And a write in at that?
People need to quit kvetching about this, it happened because nobody cared. MAYBE, now they will.
I'm awake and aware. What needs to happen is those who are aware need to become more active. We need to ensure our family and friends vote every time. We need to ensure those people we know who don't vote get off their butts. And one of the most important things is we need to vote in every election (PTA, school boards, local, state, etc.) and not just in the presidential elections.
You are right, but most people are unaware that they are most affected by LOCAL elections. The President is important, but lets face it, with all the bickering between congress and president, the elections that MOST affect us are the ones that are local to us.
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.
Yes, the real world.
