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.
Well since, as the article says, nearly half their workforce is minority and 15% Black, greater than the % in the country, are they going to be consciously trying to discriminate against Anglos?
The first thing I thought when I read this article was that Target's frontline employees seem to be majority Black. How do you get 20% more? And its going to be pretty hard to find Black employees in Iowa and New Hampshire.
It's a sort of spin onthe way frightened business owners across the nation are spray painting outside their storefronts: "WE SUPPORT BLACK LIVES MATTER, PLEASE DON'T HURT US"
Well since, as the article says, nearly half their workforce is minority and 15% Black, greater than the % in the country, are they going to be consciously trying to discriminate against Anglos?
The first thing I thought when I read this article was that Target's frontline employees seem to be majority Black. How do you get 20% more? And its going to be pretty hard to find Black employees in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Depends on where you live.
Our Target is not as diversified as the Walmart less than five miles away --- as far as staff is.
What about white people from disadvantaged backgrounds who need jobs at Target, as well? They will be the ones to pay the cost of Target’s racist hiring policy.
Raising it from 15 to 18 percent would match the ethnic makeup in Minneapolis where Target is headquartered. They have a large Somali population.
Since most of their employees are young, blacks may still be underrepresented. Most people in their twenties would've been considered minorities in the 80's.
There will be some grumbling. Realistically though this is not going to be a policy that will have an obvious significant impact.
Retail outlets have constant changes in employment. I suspect folks won't even notice.
Target does seem to hire disadvantaged individuals. My son started working their part time while planning for and seeking out his career path. He needed a car and needed a job to make some money. We live in an area with a high cost of housing/living. People drive from an hour away (no real traffic like a big city), to work there and a number of the staff are folks who struggle with some kind of mental health issues/disadvantages.....financial, health, mental.
I know of other 'woke' companies that have really worked at being more diversified but haven't met their targets. Part of the problem is the demographics of the locations they are in. A software company in a large diverse city, expanded to a less diverse city and they can't find the people to fill the targets. You have to be realistic.
So some Targets around the US may not see any real difference based on the pool of labor in their community. And in communities where there is that diversity, perhaps it would be a good thing to up the diversity a bit.
"Up the diversity a bit" ?
Most people have no problem with person A applying for a job they are qualified for and getting hired based on their individual merit. The same for advancement, and of course the same for deciding to terminate someone not up to the task or lacking honesty or certain skill sets not vetted in the hiring/promotion process.
Therefore if a Target were to hire based on that alone and you get all X color of people, no problem. I wouldn't have a problem going into a business and seeing all black employees, and in cities like Atlanta, that has been the case.
However, I assume they were all hired based on merit, not some affirmative action type of quota system.
Racial, gender, or any other type of quota system are inherently wrong, period!
If Target wants to do such things, that is their prerogative.
Then again, I am not sure it should be, the more I think about it.
Would they be allowed to purposely decide and publicly announce they want to increase the number of white people, therefore they are going to do so at the expense of other people?
Somehow I do not think the EEOC or others would allow it. So if it cannot be done one way, for one group of people, then it shouldn't be allowed for another group of people, based on race.
BTW - This type of discussion seems to break down along white people vs. black people lines. However, when brown, yellow or red people see Target saying they are going to hire more black people, why don't they speak up to say we are under-represented to.
So why hire more blacks when we also need those jobs?
I worked in education for 20 years. I could give you names, dates and places where minority candidates were given positions over more qualified non-minority candidates. Those kind of hires always had a negative effect on the departments where these employees worked.
Sounds like a nice class action lawsuit. So basically what the idiots are saying is they’ve been racist in their hiring and promotion practices until now.
But how? They increased their entry level wage. According to the experts of the Econ Subforum, Target has to lessen their staff, or cut their hours. Are they going to fire their already thinned staff, and replace with more AA? That is wrong.
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.
