We also live in a ‘Lawsuit Happy’ environment here in the USA. Even private companies have to look over their shoulders lest they be charged with bigoted hiring practices. Wasn’t Walmart recently in the news? BMW? I believe Seets had an issue recently screening its black population of applicants differently than it did white applicants (or evaluating them differently). Abercrombie and Fitch was targeted for racially unjust hiring practices and sued. You let those numbers drop and you become a target. Hey Target? Have they been targeted yet? LOL - Look what I found, Target Is Under The Microscope For Racist Employment Practices. As a business owner, you can not let those minority numbers slip. Qualified or not, you have to hire them.
1 Like
I really hope you’re not being serious with this.
LOL… You took it wrong… It is a fact that any company can be sued for racially discriminatory hiring practices if they are not hiring the right percentage of minorities, whether or not they are engaged in discriminatory practices. It is just a fact. Anyone running any company needs to be aware of this fact. And in today’s world, they will be guilty unless they can demonstrate their innocence.
Whilst this might not be an entirely accurate or fair indicator, as I said above, it is possible of course that systemic racism is one factor for this disparity. Though of course a disparity in the education and qualifications between various ethnic groups might also be indicative that there is systemic racism in those institutions, though some other factors like poverty, and geographic location are factors that might also influence this of course.
The more accurately this is examined, the more likely such research can identify the causes and legislate against them. In the US, one of the richest countries in the world, the amount of people living in poverty is unconscionable, and changing that would be a start, instead of the cultural obsession with wealth and success.
2 Likes
This is misleading. Where I live, I can bring a civil lawsuit against anyone for anything if there is cause. If there is no cause, or if the plaintiff loses the case, they can be held responsible for the defendant’s court costs or that plaintiff can be countersued to recover costs.
Additionally, just because a case is brought, it doesn’t mean the plaintiff will prevail.
There is a distinction between civil cases (suing someone) and criminal cases. A demonstrated violation of EEOC law is criminal and would be heard in a criminal court.
As to the law concerning hiring practices, size matters. A corporation is responsible for adherence to more EEOC laws than a mom and pop shop.
1 Like
This stuff is never-ending.,… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5tR9XSxzsc
You might be right. As long as the US remains a transactional capitalist state that favors individual over collective rights they will never be able to come to grips with societal issues like discrimination. Attempts to address discrimination at the societal level are always going to be attacked by individuals who feel the process disadvantages them. Another reason I believe that the US is circling the drain.
1 Like
It’s really gotten out of hand. Why do some of these people feel they need way more money than they could ever need or use?
Example: Jeff Bezos could spend $10 million a day, every day, for 54 years before he runs out of money. Is that reasonable considering how many people are below the poverty level in this country?
2 Likes
This is very appropriat: Thomas Sowell has some great Videos.
This, I think, is essential. Education is a key to break out of poverty. If you are born into poverty, and do not have access to a good and affordable education, this feeds back into poverty. Lucky are the ones that escape this loop. And this shows up as the correlations we see between education levels and ethnic groups.
Where I live, a good education is seen as an investment in the future, and therefore basically available for everyone through free schooling up to and including high school, and then essentially free college or university education(*) for those willing and able, with relatively favourable student loans and stipends from the government. Access to education is quite easy here, and the expectation of being educated is quite strong, which is why I tend to forget that such is not the case everywhere. With the high tuition rates typical in e.g. the U.S., it’s no wonder being poor and uneducated runs in families and ethnic groups that are historically poor.
Additionally, the focus on the rights and responsibilities of the individuals in the U.S. is quite different from the approach more common in Europe, where the attention is more on collective rights and responsibilites. The U.S. approach puts the responsibility squarely on the individual - if you don’t succeed, it’s because you are a failure. The European approach tends to be more collective - if groups of people don’t succeed and don’t get educated, it’s a failure of society.
(*) there are a few private colleges where you have to pay tuition, but even then at around USD 10k per year, it’s not anywhere near the tuition rates I hear reported from e.g. the U.S.
5 Likes
Sowell talks shit.
He’s a shill for right wing garbage.
2 Likes
I’'m looking forward to the debate.
On re-reading this, the term social mobility is the obvious one to use here. Increase social mobility through e.g. better access to education and other measures that ensure better economic stability for low-income families, and this will be a more natural way of improving the diversity in workplaces. This improves the chances that people can get a good education and, later, a good job, based on their own abilities instead of having to rely on rich parents. Of course, implementing such a scheme is easier said than done, but it is imho necessary if you truly want equality for all, independent of social status.
1 Like
Target, Walmart, and Kmart have fucked up in the past.
For example, they have a policy that new employees must get drug-tested as part of the hiring process.
So, a person with kidney failure who was on dialysis is unable to provide a urine sample because he doesn’t pee, so Kmart refused to hire him . . . because “If we make an exception for you, then we have to do it for everyone.”
So he sued, got a huge payday, and the judge made Kmart hire him anyway.
Things like this are what the EEOC are for.
In my case, I’ve been screened out of jobs because of body language issues and lack of eye contact, so I’ve sued.
2 Likes
What do you propose as the topic? That
or that:
Because any of these topics would be a waste of time because he does and he is.
1 Like
If you establish this as a debate, please start a new string for it.
I hear an ad hominem attack but not much else. I am certain you are far above that. I’m also certain your assertions are well grounded in facts and evidence, as is most of what you say. I understand your opinion; it is a popular one today. I fully admit that there are problems with 'Right Wing Garbage." There is also a problem with admitting unqualified students to universities and with the secret quotas government attaches to grant money. This sets unqualified people up for failure in their jobs and at universities. It creates a problem of unnecessary bias instead of solving a problem. There is also a problem with universities significantly lowering standards to accommodate more students and make more money. I would go on to hammer many of the useless liberal arts programs that have been given university status, but let’s keep the thread on topic. I think the focus of today’s university is money and not education. I believe I have a unique perspective because I see all the International programs Oxford, Harvard, Yale, and other universities set up (To Make Money). Is the “Left” proposing any realistic answers? “Let’s become socialist perhaps?” Like all ideas, there are positives and negatives. How we do it is everything. Is there a model that works? I believe that EEOC and Affirmative Action are failures. We have anti-discrimination laws in place and they need to be enforced.
1 Like
One only needs to look at the sports programs at major universities to realize that. The football coach is often the highest paid position at a big university.
Social democrat is the most I can hope for in a capitalist system. Of course nothing lasts forever and as the wage gap continues to broaden while the middle class shrinks and the uber rich become more brazen in their pursuit of power and control - well one can hope.
How about you choose one of the many assertions you’ve made and pose it as a debate topic. I would like to stipulate since the US system of everything is fucked that we broaden the topic reference area to include countries outside the US. This shouldn’t pose a problem since as you say:
I would further stipulate that since, I believe, you are using money as a red herring that we acknowledge that money is a necessary ingredient in any organization that has operational costs including universities. As a fiscal conservative I’m sure that you would not want to limit universities from reducing their fiscal dependence on government.
So @Cognostic let us know where we can find the assertion you want to defend. I assume that like all debates on this forum anyone can chime in with whatever points they want to make as long as they stay true to the topic.
But look at socialist countries:
Sweeden: Most of the wealth his held by a handful of people: List of Swedish billionaires by net worth - Wikipedia
Certainly you don’t want a socialist government like Cuba?
Norway is mixed, Capitalist, and socialist. We have the same issues in Norway? A few people have all the wealth?
Where is this socialist country you speak of? Certainly not China? I’m not seeing it.
Is England’s form of democracy better than ours? I tend to like the parliamentary system. I think it hides less. Still, all these groups band together and it really does nothing to keep the rich from getting richer. Do you really think there is a solution? If there is a solution do you imagine it is achievable? In the meantime, I (personally) still hate social welfare programs. I hate the idea of the government involving itself in giving away money for free. (Make the fucking churches do it. Turn them all into hotels and use the money to feed the poor.)
1 Like