Diversity (race and gender based) hiring - how is this not racism and sexism? (suspect, insurance)
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.
it has nothing to do with not wanting you or anyone else on the job...what it has to do with, is qualifications. When you make a people, hire people that beat out qualified workers b/c they are minorities, white woman included, you automatically cause the company problems due to them not being qualified.
plus, if you are brown skinned or a woman, and you walk into a business with confidence and know how, you WILL be hired. Yes, there are some still alive that are racist...that will never stop until all of society is educated as such and it has to start within the children.
Also, it is time, that brown skinned people apply themselves...I work with brown skinned people who out and out tell me, that people who sit back and collect welfare, make is so much harder on their reputations...
If you want a job bad enough, you'll do what you need to do to acquire work.
I believe from my heart of hearts that blacks define themselves within their actions...just as whites do. IN other words, if your a good person and a hard worker, and you do a good job, your innovative and productive, then there is no color...
As long as we focus on race and gender like what liberals do, we will never become a better society. Let's focus on qualification rather than race and gender. If the liberals want business to hire women and minorities, they really should work with women and minorities to improve their qualifications.
Discriminating against anyone solely based on race and/or gender is:
A) racist
B) sexist, and
C) a violation of civil rights laws from the 1960s.
But our courts allow the discrimination to go on, and Democrats are in favor of it.
The two groups that are most discriminated against are whites and males.
Interesting factoid:
White male corporate executives and university presidents in favor of discrimination against whites and males never see fit to give up their OWN positions to non-whites and females....
True
However they are now finding out the hard way that when groups focused solely on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. get riled up, they are not safe. Several college presidents were either forced to resign or the pressure became to great for them. This despite having had a record of being friendly/sympathetic toward those groups in the past. Regardless, there was a white male scalp to be had, so it was out with the white guy, and in with a minority.
A similar thing happened with the founder of a tech company who had the nerve to make a political contribution in CA to support the historical definition of marriage. A position I might add that most people in CA voted for, and even Obama/Hillary supported at the time.
However when it was disclosed, those promoting the homosexual agenda decided he was not fit to be head of his own company.
Rest assured many white PC liberals will find out the hard way that race will trump their previous positions supporting those groups. Heck just look at any city where the minorities have become the majority. It is out with the whites (regardless of how qualified or their liberalness) and in with whatever race/ethnic group has become the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks With Lasers
Okay, so let's say for a programming job, the requirements are a bachelor's in computer science, 3+ years experience, and knowledge of 3 programming languages. If a woman or underrepresented minorities has these, are they qualified for the position?
As for the NBA analogy, most people who dream of playing in the NBA do not end up playing in the NBA. A large percentage of people who want to work in the tech industry end up working in the tech industry, so competition between companies means that they can only hire the best and brightest that want to work there.
Sure, anyone qualified can be hired. However most people who run businesses want the best/brightest to help make their company grow, profit, etc.
A company that hires at the bare minimum and above will certainly not be as well run as one that hires those who are the most qualified.
The sports analogy works on several levels. First and foremost it is merit based, so only the best are hired. Second, liberals who support affirmative action type schemes would be totally against it if their team decided to diversify at the expense of having the best players. Are there good white players in the NBA, you bet. However, even if a few are the best in the league, on average blacks dominate the sport. The reverse is true of the NHL.
Yet these same fools that would freak that "their team" (which only provides entertainment) used affirmative action, seemingly have no problem having people in their local cities hired not on merit, rather skin color or gender. This despite some of those jobs can mean the difference in life or death to themselves or their family.
But don't mess with their sports teams.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beliciano
The older I get and the more I see threads like this I realize more and more each day that whites are less welcoming of minorities as they put on. I also have become less interested in integrating into this mainstream society and I hope more blacks see and realize the same things. I am hoping more of us begin to create business opportunities for ourselves as opposed to begging people for jobs who don't want us around in the first place. We constantly hear how we are a burden for society with welfare, but when do go into the world for jobs to make something of ourselves we are regarded as affirmative action hires. It seems like we just can't win no matter what we do!!
I don't know if some of my thoughts are what you are referring to or not. Yet I can say that we agree on at least a few things. Blacks should support their own communities as well as expand into other markets. The worst thing is when blacks completely abandon where they came from for the almighty dollar. Needless to say other kids want to get ahead and would see them as role models if they stayed or at least kept a presence within the community. If they flee, the only role models with money are the bad guys.
As I said in another post, if the NBA is mostly black and the NHL is mostly white, I see no problem. The same would be true of any profession. Only give the jobs to the best/brightest for that line of work. So if for instance blacks had a special aptitude/ability to be carpenters, only hire blacks if they are the best. That wouldn't mean you would be discriminating against whites, browns, yellows, etc., just hiring the best, which happened to be blacks.
Hence the reason for my sports analogy.
As long as we focus on race and gender like what liberals do, we will never become a better society. Let's focus on qualification rather than race and gender. If the liberals want business to hire women and minorities, they really should work with women and minorities to improve their qualifications.
Exactly, however, the majority of people would rather sit there and blame a race for their failures....
you get out of life what you put into it....
it's got to start with children...and we still in this day and age, have way to many uneducated people, both men, women, white, black brown, or whatever...that live in the chains of immorality with no concern for any one else but themselves. They all want free rides.
Yanno, my mother was in the hospital 3 times in one year. Her bills were adding up terrible. She worked one full time job and two part time jobs to pay them off.
Same thing happened to me, once, and I went out and got a job working construction, and not as a flag girl, but as a leader...worked my way up, and was the first female in our union.
I worked since the age of 13 years old...and worked hard for everything I have...never took anything from anyone....
my point is, I'm not wealthy but I've done good for myself....put myself through college courses at night and did very well.
If I can do it anyone can, but you've got to want it bad enough. And believe you me, I've cleaned houses, did ironing, worked as a waitress and several times held two jobs.
If you want it bad enough, you'll work, regardless of the job.
But parents have to not only teach their kids that, but be good examples of it....and parents who rob welfare, breed welfare. And I'm talking all colors here....
If I owned a company would want employees who take pride in themselves and their work, no matter how small.
there is a special kid who works at a local store collecting baskets...and putting them back where they belong....
no one is above any job....if I had it to do all over again, I'd work on a garbage truck to put food on the table and feed my child.
Anecdote time;
Goldman Sachs ( I don't think anyone would claim they are liberal ) held some diversity events to attract more women to their IT departments. My daughter is now a VP there. Goldman Sachs seem to see the benefit of a diverse hiring approach but what do they know?
It's a goal, not a quota. I don't know where they got those numbers from, but as long as they are hiring qualified people, it's not as big of an issue as you think.
Let's say there are two companies hiring programmers: A and B. They both find a pool of 50 qualified people that they like for 10 positions. Company A has a diversity initiative, whereas Company B does not. Both companies have an equal number of people who are open to all candidates, and people who think that everybody outside of white and Asian males are unqualified. Because of the diversity initiative, Company A hires four white males, two Asian males, two white females, one Asian female, and one black male. Company B, without the initiative, hires six white males, three Asian males, and one very attractive white female who they expect to fetch coffee even though she graduated top in her class and knows three additional programming languages than the other new hires.
Which is better?
"It's a goal, not a quota."
On paper only.
" I don't know where they got those numbers from, but as long as they are hiring qualified people, it's not as big of an issue as you think."
If that was the case we would be for it.
From personal experience that is NOT what goes on.
Most large companies have HR departments.
When they have job openings they use the usual "want ad" approach, either through the local newspaper or today via the internet.
Job applicants COME TO THEM.
Now lets' look at AA.
The same business HAS TO HAVE AN AA PROGRAM AND THEY MUST SPEND TIME AND MONEY AND GO AFTER PEOPLE OF A SPECIFIC RACE AND SEX.
THAT in itself IS discrimination because they do NOT have an exact program to go after whites.
A company I worked for was forced to sign a "Consent Degree" to "make up for past hiring practices."
MANY women were "promoted" from secretarial type jobs into the technical side or hired SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX AND RACE.
MANY of the could NOT pass the physical aspects of the job. Didn't matter. They couldn't be "demoted"
The rest of us had to pick up the slack.
my crew got the last women hire which fulfilled the Consent Decree.
After working with us for about a month she asked, "How come I don't see any of you at the "social EVERY Monday night?"
She told us about the "social held ever month and was wined and dined and asked if everything was going OK. Were they being treated OK. etc.
Now if that was NOT preferential treatment, I don't know what is.
I can tell MANY more stories that shows that people were hired that were NOT as qualified as others who were NOT hired.
Sure, anyone qualified can be hired. However most people who run businesses want the best/brightest to help make their company grow, profit, etc.
A company that hires at the bare minimum and above will certainly not be as well run as one that hires those who are the most qualified.
The sports analogy works on several levels. First and foremost it is merit based, so only the best are hired. Second, liberals who support affirmative action type schemes would be totally against it if their team decided to diversify at the expense of having the best players. Are there good white players in the NBA, you bet. However, even if a few are the best in the league, on average blacks dominate the sport. The reverse is true of the NHL.
Yet these same fools that would freak that "their team" (which only provides entertainment) used affirmative action, seemingly have no problem having people in their local cities hired not on merit, rather skin color or gender. This despite some of those jobs can mean the difference in life or death to themselves or their family.
But don't mess with their sports teams.
Of course businesses want the best and brightest. But there is also supply and demand. If there are 50,000 programmers, 20,000 positions, and businesses only will hire the top 10% of programmers, there will be a lot of unfilled jobs that will cost the companies money. Now Intel (and Apple, Google, Facebook, etc.) are probably going to hire higher quality than most, but there need to be some good programmers at smaller firms too, or else their products won't work.
The sports analogy has a few other problems, mainly scale. If you dream of playing in the NBA, you're probably going to be disappointed. If you dream of becoming a programmer - well, there's a good chance you're going to become a programmer. Likewise, there are millions of tech jobs. I'm sure that if there were millions of professional sports jobs, you would not see them being 75% black. They would probably mirror the population a bit better. If there were 350 ultra-competitive programming jobs in the country, and 340 of them went to white and Asian males, some people might still be having the diversity discussion, but a practical person like myself would recognize that there is too much danger with quality suffering in changing this for diversity's sake.
All I have been saying is that there is nothing wrong with hiring well-qualified women and underrepresented minorities in technical positions. Apparently, this is a liberal position, and a cause for disagreement.
Affirmitave action and quotas are discriminatory and actually damaging for minorities. It says " you can't compete on a level playing field based on skills and competency so we are going to give you an edge". Any minorities that are hired are then viewed as less capable than non minorities.
I've also seen where black people with ethnic names have a harder time even getting in to interview. Here's an idea...stop naming your kids Shaniqua, and Taniqua, and you won't have an issue. When I see those type of names, I have a feeling that they will be someone who values their blackness more than doing a good job. I feel like they will probably be the first to file EEOC suits based on discrimination if they are fired for work related misbehavior/incompetence. I know that may not be PC to admit, but that has been my experience.
Affirmitave action and quotas are discriminatory and actually damaging for minorities. It says " you can't compete on a level playing field based on skills and competency so we are going to give you an edge". Any minorities that are hired are then viewed as less capable than non minorities.
I've also seen where black people with ethnic names have a harder time even getting in to interview. Here's an idea...stop naming your kids Shaniqua, and Taniqua, and you won't have an issue. When I see those type of names, I have a feeling that they will be someone who values their blackness more than doing a good job. I feel like they will probably be the first to file EEOC suits based on discrimination if they are fired for work related misbehavior/incompetence. I know that may not be PC to admit, but that has been my experience.
Lol...nonsense.
If AA really hurts minorities like you claim, then non minorities wouldn't care about it so much.
I'm black, so if it hurts me so badly, then let me worry about it. I don't need your faux concern about how you need to protect me from being considered as inferior by my colleagues. I'll worry about that myself....or not.
In this country, most good jobs are obtained through connections anyway...not qualifications. I have my present position because I was on the inside. In fact, I know that I wasn't the best qualified at all. One guy I know was definitely better qualified, but I had a long history with the regional manager, which tipped it in my favor. The other guy never had a shot.
Guess what? I feel nothing. Not the least bit guilty. The colleague that I beat out got transferred to Hawaii to a better position the next year. He got it because HE knew someone that recommended him for the position...a position that had dozens of candidates who never realized that they had no shot.
That's life. All this crap about "best qualified" is subjective. The best qualified is whomever the hell they wanna hire.
The end.
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.
