Coke goes Full Woke

[Flash]

You didn't prove anything there, Flash. You just insisted really hard.

My insistence was based on actual laws and court cases. I just summarized the law for you.

Yes, which was my point earlier...AA only seems to discriminate against those with weak qualifications, laziness, or poor work ethics...and none of those are protected classes.

I wish. Unfortunately, job applications are not at revealing laziness or poor work ethics. Increasingly, references are reluctant to criticize candidates for fear of lawsuits; or, they hope the lazy guy will get hired away and bad references would block that.

[Flash]

Exactly what I've been saying about Affirmative Action this whole time, Flash.

All it did was level the playing field so that no one is excluded from employment.

You think that is discriminatory but have yet to explain who is being discriminated against there.

That is not what is does. If we have a committee/person who wants to discriminate against minorities, it is still easily done and follow the guidelines. I could get 30 applications with ten minorities and still hire the white guy because of something I could find in his qualifications to justify hiring him. That did not level any playing field.

The minorities are being discriminated against in that example. Your statement implies I have said it is discriminatory against whites which I never said or implied. Again, my point was that it does not require hiring minorities or does it prevent discrimination against minorities.

The abuses (based on my examples) come not from AA requirements but administrators who may be trying to limit or increase minorities.

[Flash]

Coke Bear.jpg

[Flash]

Well, AA didn't establish any quotas, so I don't know what the fuck you think this adds to the debate. We get it, you don't like quotas. Too bad no one is talking about them except for you.

I never talked about them. You keep bringing up quotas. I just said once they were illegal and then repeat that same information back to you when you again brought them up.

[LV426]

Hey if you wanted to get rid of Affirmative Action, even though it literally has done nothing to harm anyone, you could always make a Federal Jobs Guarantee.

Something to think about...

[LV426]

That is not what is does. If we have a committee/person who wants to discriminate against minorities, it is still easily done and follow the guidelines. I could get 30 applications with ten minorities and still hire the white guy because of something I could find in his qualifications to justify hiring him. That did not level any playing field.

Yes, it did because you said yourself that you considered other candidates, particularly minorities. So you employed Affirmative Action without realizing it.

My question to you would be...how did you source those applications? Did you sit back passively and wait for people to apply, or did you actively solicit applicants? Because there's a difference.

Now if you hired the white guy because you're a racist piece of shit, then that kind of practice is a Civil Rights violation and can be easily proved in court.

In fact, Wells Fargo did exactly what you described here and ended up having to pay restitution to the employees it discriminated against. That was -I believe- in 2019.

The minorities are being discriminated against in that example.

Right, because it's a Civil Rights violation.

Your statement implies I have said it is discriminatory against whites which I never said or implied.

Then who is AA discriminating against?

Again, my point was that it does not require hiring minorities or does it prevent discrimination against minorities.

I never said it required hiring minorities. I've been very consistent in what I've been saying about AA. All I've said it is, are a set of guidelines for federal contractors and employees only that are intended to make sure no one is frozen out of the employment/hiring process because of their race. So that alone prevents discrimination against minorities, and if those people are discriminated against that way, can sue the employer for discrimination and win, just like what happened to Wells Fargo when their racist hiring practices were finally litigated in court.

[LV426]

The abuses (based on my examples) come not from AA requirements but administrators who may be trying to limit or increase minorities.

Yes, and those practices are violations of the CRA, and that behavior opens employers up to being sued for discrimination. Like what happened here:

Wells Fargo to Pay $7.8 Million to Settle Hiring Bias Claims (1)
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-...ng-bias-claims

Now that is in the private sector, and thus not applicable to AA, but this example goes to show how far one can go and if you can sue a private firm for bias in hiring, then just imagine federal contractors and hiring managers embracing AA, if for no other reason than to avoid being sued in court for being racist.

[Flash]

Yes, it did because you said yourself that you considered other candidates, particularly minorities. So you employed Affirmative Action without realizing it.

We very much realized it. As a government agency we are under AA guidelines. We considered other candidates because we sought the best candidates and sought to increase minority employment. But, my point was that if we wanted to discriminate we could have easily found reasons not to hire them. Also, we were not required to consider any minorities in choosing which candidates to bring in for interviews.

Of course, the race of the person is not identified on their application. But, once we choose those to be interviewed HR notifies us if no minorities are included and asks if we would like to consider additional candidates.

My question to you would be...how did you source those applications? Did you sit back passively and wait for people to apply, or did you actively solicit applicants? Because there's a difference.

It partially depends on the budget available. Ideally, we would advertise in the Chronicle of Higher Education which is a prime source for those seeking university positions. We would also advertise in publications of the particular discipline. When I was committee chair I would do additional steps such as advertising and seeking interviews at conventions and writing graduate departments addressed to new graduates seeking jobs. We did not have the money to lure good candidates away from other universities.

Now if you hired the white guy because you're a racist piece of shit, then that kind of practice is a Civil Rights violation and can be easily proved in court.

Not easily proved at all. We wouldn't say we didn't want to hire a minority but give some other good reason. If we knew who we wanted to hire up front we would write the job description narrowly so it would only fit his particular qualifications. This was one of my points; if people want to discriminate they can do so regardless of AA.

Then who is AA discriminating against?

It doesn't necessarily discriminate against anybody--I never said it did.

I did say abuses are caused not by AA requirements but by administrators who want to look good by increasing their minority employees who might hire a lesser qualified candidate often going against the choice of the selection committee. That is a type of discrimination because AA sets goals.

There is a current book called "Whistleblower" about a woman who won a large settlement from Uber. Employees with good job ratings were eligible to transfer to other positions. The male managers would lower the ratings of females so they couldn't transfer in order to keep their female numbers up.

I never said it required hiring minorities. I've been very consistent in what I've been saying about AA. All I've said it is, are a set of guidelines for federal contractors and employees only that are intended to make sure no one is frozen out of the employment/hiring process because of their race. So that alone prevents discrimination against minorities, and if those people are discriminated against that way, can sue the employer for discrimination and win, just like what happened to Wells Fargo when their racist hiring practices were finally litigated in court.

I didn't say that you said it requires hiring of minorities. I said that is one of the criticisms of AA that is not true. But it also does not prevent minorities from being frozen out if an applicant pool contains no minorities or none of them are selected to be interviewed. They could have sent in an application without AA.

[Flash]

Yes, and those practices are violations of the CRA, and that behavior opens employers up to being sued for discrimination. Like what happened here:

Wells Fargo to Pay $7.8 Million to Settle Hiring Bias Claims (1)
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-...ng-bias-claims

Now that is in the private sector, and thus not applicable to AA, but this example goes to show how far one can go and if you can sue a private firm for bias in hiring, then just imagine federal contractors and hiring managers embracing AA, if for no other reason than to avoid being sued in court for being racist.

The Wells Fargo case is probably due to a pattern of discrimination (like my example of Uber). Individual hiring practices over the years with different administrators are less likely to result in findings of discrimination. The example I used earlier about the college president who, rather than hiring the candidate recommended by the selection committee, had the committee recommend the top three candidates and he would choose from those. He could always argue that the top three candidates were all obviously well qualified (according to the committee).

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Uh I have been saying it all along. You still are missing the point.

no he's not.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

"But, once we choose those to be interviewed HR notifies us if no minorities are included and asks if we would like to consider additional candidates."

this is the lowering of the standard for racial reasons.

this is race and gender discrimination.


could you say no to hr on considering more people?

"our process ignores race and gender, until someone's actually getting hired."

you people are jokes. do you believe your own lies?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

It might be aggressive but it is no different from trainings on sexual harassment, sexism and others.

yes it is.

it's very different.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

Already explained. I want the full course so I can see for myself, not some photos taken by a "whistleblower" (lol at that) and tweeted. How can we confirm anything if we do not have the facts?

you have the facts. you deny them due to blind idiocy and partisanship.

[AProudLefty]

you have the facts. you deny them due to blind idiocy and partisanship.

You have the full course?

[LV426]

The Wells Fargo case is probably due to a pattern of discrimination (like my example of Uber).

Right, a pattern of discrimination in hiring around race.

So, had Wells Fargo employed the same sort of affirmative action guidelines federal contractors employ, they probably wouldn't have been sued for racial discrimination in hiring, would they?

So that's an example of where AA combats discrimination in hiring, despite the bad faith wondering out loud of what good it does.

Individual hiring practices over the years with different administrators are less likely to result in findings of discrimination.

I don't know what you're trying to say here...

The example I used earlier about the college president who, rather than hiring the candidate recommended by the selection committee, had the committee recommend the top three candidates and he would choose from those. He could always argue that the top three candidates were all obviously well qualified (according to the committee).

Right, but if one of those candidates who wasn't considered decides to sue the college for racial discrimination, they would have an easy case to prove if the college President went around the recommendations to do their own thing.

It would be very difficult for the college president to make the argument in court, under oath and threat of perjury. All the plaintiffs would need to do is question the President on why they went around the recommendations of the selection committee. And also, is the President hiring people? Wouldn't the hiring be done by someone else?

I can't see a world or instance where that end-around was done in good faith.

Discovery would be a bitch for the college. In fact, they would probably fire the President to avoid a courtroom altogether.