|
(shrug) Par for the political course. The Bush administration has been doing this from the time they entered office. The next administration will do it, too, just on different topics. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Lesson learned: Don’t tell them what you’re going to say until your sitting in the spotlight.
I hope this gets lots of MSM coverage. I’d love to hear the logic of these actions.
Not particularly surprised, but then Dominguez was supposed to be a correction for Berry. Now it appears that they are more worried about the career bureacrats getting upset if someone actually tells them their a waste of time and money.
|
| |
Written By:
Nylarthotep
URL:
http://chaosinmotion.blogspot.com
|
He’s right....
And while it’s particularly annoying in a Republican Administration of any stripe (we’re supposed to be the color-blind folks, darnit!), it’s been going on for oh... at least the last few decades. Bureaucrats and grievance-lords don’t want to hear it, and will do their best to avoid ever hearing it. |
| |
Written By:
Dave
URL:
http://
|
The EEOC requires companies to file an affirmative action plan. That plan can say what ever the company wants. If the company is a computer firm in Oregon and says its goal is to hire 0% blacks and 50% woman, thats fine since there are no black computer programmers in Oregon and half the programmers there are women. If ther are in Detroit and intend never to hire a black programmer, there is a problem. If the goal is to "never hire a specific gender or race ever" or have a serious statitical discrepency between their applicant population and their workforce they need to present a good business reason for this. Hooters is allowed to hire only chesty girls, the Pistons are allowed to hire only large black males, but the Detroit Walmarts must have some black managers.
If the company doesn’t live up to its plan it puts itself at legal risk. If it never hires a woman programmer even though half of programmer programmers in its applicant pool are women it is viewed as evedence of discrimination.
If they say they are going to hire 50% whites and then hire 100% asian that is evidence of discrimination as well. Reverse discrimination cases are not rare.
|
| |
Written By:
cindy bravo
URL:
http://
|
|
What are they doing about age discrimination? That would be useful! |
| |
Written By:
Whitehall
URL:
http://
|
I was told that it would lead to a "mutiny" among the career people at the commission if I was given a "platform" to say such things. This could just as easily be about the Pentagon (Rumsfeld) the UN (Bolton) or CIA or State (Bush)
The careerists think they’re in charge... |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
First, to Cindy Bravo, the EEOC doesn’t require all companies to file affirmative action plans. I don’t doubt that some are, for reasons I can’t say, but I know that not every company in America has or needs to file one.
Second, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the EEOC staff is in favor of quotas and the like (the types of things that Clegg would argue against). They’re government workers and, as such, tend to be on the liberal quota-favoring side. They specifically chose to work in a department that battles discrimination, a career path not generally chosen by anti-quota conservatives. They think that an unbalanced workforce can only be the result of discrimination. Thus, they’ll either be critical of arguments that a perfectly balanced workforce is in itself discriminatory or they’ll view such efforts to be a wrong that rights a wrong.
Third, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the political appointees backed down in the face of pressure from the staff.
Aside from that, I am shocked, shocked, shocked that the EEOC would do what they did. |
| |
Written By:
steve
URL:
http://
|
The careerists think they’re in charge... Think?
They are in charge, as this story points out.
|
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://qando.net
|
That is exactly what happened to me. My case was found to be true & The EEOC found the Company guitly as charged. The company, ATT, said they would "train" the offending manager. He disclosed & in a very derogatory manner, personal medical & financial information while I was off ill. He told very many people. His evaluations are signed 4 times every year, by his boss, that he understands & follows the guidelines of
EEOC. The giant companies, like ATT, know that the injured party can not afford attorneys fees to pursue further. EEOC found this "training" of a documented, already trained manager, to be a satisfactory solution. I wonder, would I break the law, can I just be trained? |
| |
Written By:
55
URL:
http://
|
