sure it is, sexual harassment training, at least in my company doesn't include (be less of a man). etc. at least as far as I know, I ought to ask my hr department. lol
Coke goes Full Woke
- Thread starter dukkha
- Start date
sure it is, sexual harassment training, at least in my company doesn't include (be less of a man). etc. at least as far as I know, I ought to ask my hr department. lol
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
"Be more feminine" or "reach your inner female" would be better. LOL.
buahahahahahahaahaha I'm in chelsea nyc, so that wouldnt be that offensive to some men.
Another half-assed LV426 explanation. It also includes:
Part I — Nondiscrimination in Government Employment
Part II - Nondiscrimination in Employment by Government Contractors and Subcontractors
Part III – Nondiscrimination Provisions in Federally Assisted Construction Contracts
Many other agencies voluntarily use affirmative action policies. The Supreme Court found quotas unconstitutional.
That is what I said: "a set of guidelines that must be followed in hiring" I have headed many selection committees that had to follow these procedures.
Those are just facts, there is no narrative or bias.
And you are such a hypocrite. You claim anecdotes are not acceptable because you don't believe the person because it doesn't fit your preconceived partisan prejudices.
But, you use anecdotes about your personal experiences. I guess we should not believe them, either. Didn't you tell us you had covid at one time?
On one post you whined about how hard you worked on your master's degree and accused the other poster of never working that hard. We won't believe you ever worked hard or have a master's degree because they are "bullshit anecdotes" and "nothing is sourced" and "anecdotes are not acceptable in a debate."
Unless, of course, LV426 is using anecdotes and those are "different" and truthful.
Right, all federal employment there, not private sector.
And it's Non-discrimination.
No quotas yet...still waiting for you to provide those.
So then what's your problem?
Actually, the SCOTUS case you're referring to is for college admissions and SCOTUS said in that ruling that race can be one of the criterion for consideration.
Right, non-discrimination guidelines. So what is your problem with that? your problem with it is that if everyone was to be considered for the same position, your qualifications don't look quite as impressive, so you naturally think it's discrimination based on race, but it isn't. It's discrimination based on work ethic.
The lazy and entitled will always claim they were robbed of a job by a quota because it's easier to do that than come to terms with the fact that they're not as qualified as they think they are.
Any anecdote is filtered through the prism of bias, especially a personal one.
We know that you like to stretch the truth, Flash.
That's why no one can accept the anecdotes you relay as truthful...it's "take my word for it" without proving to anyone that we can.
And the anecdotes themselves? Pretty vague and ambiguous...almost as if you invented them on the fly to lend yourself credibility in a debate where you actually have none.
No, anecdotes aren't acceptable because there's no way to verify them as true!
We have to rely on your word.
And why the fuck should anyone take you at your word when you've already been caught stretching the truth about yourself before?
Any anecdote I write doesn't have anything to do with the arguments I make.
I make my arguments with facts and links...you make your arguments with half-truths and unverifiable anecdotes...and those unverifiable anecdotes are used as a crutch to lend yourself credibility in a debate where you have none along the facts.
My advanced degrees weren't and aren't intrinsic to my argument.
But your anecdotes are intrinsic to yours.
I can, and have, made arguments without referencing my personal educational experience. In fact, nearly all of my arguments are like that.
But yours aren't.
Yours always -ALWAYS- devolve into you relaying some personal anecdote, skewed and biased of course, that isn't really the full truth, just a version of the truth you are presenting to make yourself look better.
And we always -ALWAYS- end up in the same place: with you refusing to verify any of the claims you make about yourself while maintaining that your anecdotes are credible.
If you don't want to verify them, then they're not credible, obviously.
As I told you several times, quotas were declared unconstitutional.
True, but quotas are not allowed in other situations, either.
Race can be a factor but there can be no criteria that excludes any group. The Michigan undergraduate case gave points for being a minority and for being a varsity athlete. Those were struck down.
I never said I had a problem with it. My point is that AA does not cause the evils supposed by some nor does it accomplish the benefits claimed by supporters. As long as you follow the procedural guidelines you can hire who you choose.
You do not have to hire a minority even if they are more qualified than other applicants because there are many subjective factors determining who is the "best." Most employers want to hire more minority candidates so a good candidate will be seriously considered.
I have been on selection committees whose most qualified candidate was not included in the pool for interviews because we knew they would not be interested in taking the position; or, if they did would not stay. Bringing them in for interviews only wasted time and money and eliminated another good candidate. Some job seekers send resumes to any job openings available without studying the employer to determine if they had any real interest in taking the position. Most people are seeking higher salary and are less likely to remain at an institution that pays less than their last job.
Sometimes that "over-qualified" person was a white male and sometimes it was a minority. That was not discrimination based on race in either case but rational decisions based on the best interest of the institution.
That's only half the story, Flash. What SCOTUS ruled was that race could be used as a criterion in College Admissions.
In fact, all court cases related to AA are within the realm of college admissions, not employment.
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.
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.
Right, but that's not quotas, nor is that discriminating against anyone. And SCOTUS then said that race can be used as a criterion.
So what are you trying to say? What is your point?
What benefits have we claimed of it? This is you constructing a straw man.
OK, and?
Right, but all AA did was say that you can't not consider someone because of their race or gender. So again, what is your point?
OK, what does this have to do with anything? If someone doesn't want to apply for the position, so what? The point is that you have to put in the effort to look for and source candidates.
So again, this doesn't have anything to do with quotas, and everything to do with laziness.
To this day, no overqualified person has ever been passed over for a job they applied for because of quotas.
If they don't want to be a candidate, why would you bring them in to be a candidate?
This sounds like laziness to me. That you and the people you worked with were just too lazy to solicit candidates...what I think happened was that you made a job posting to the normal job posting sites and then sat back on your fat ass and passively waited for people to apply, instead of doing the work and soliciting candidates aggressively.
I hear this all the time..."oh we just didn't get enough minorities to apply for the job". That is a load of horseshit. You didn't get enough minorities to apply because you didn't try. You were lazy. That's the general theme here; laziness. AA combats laziness in hiring, so I can see why certain people have issues with it.
You don't have room to claim others are stretching the truth when I have proved you wrong on so many factual issues (most of which you conceded I was correct); others, you refuse to acknowledge your ignorance of constitutional law.
The "bias" in the example is proving how affirmative action requirements are easily avoided (even for the purpose of hiring a minority). Those saying it requires you to hire a minority don't know how it actually works in practice.
The requirements of affirmative action are good guidelines to follow in any job search even without any consideration of hiring minorities.
I seriously doubt if you have actually experienced it in practice--you just follow the liberal talking points seeking to justify it.
Why do you keep bringing up quotas? I never mentioned those and said several times they are not allowed even outside college admissions. My point (again) is that if you follow the paper work you can hire whoever you choose. So those claiming you have to hire minorities (even if less qualified) are incorrect.
Yeah, I agree with this.
Apologies if I wasn't understanding what you were saying earlier, but this definitely clears it up.
Yes, you and I see eye-to-eye here. I agree with it.
You didn't prove anything there, Flash. You just insisted really hard.
Right.
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.
Well, I'm not a hiring manager, so I don't have anything to do with it.
The desired benefit is to increase the number of minorities in the workforce to make-up for past discrimination.
Wrong. That is not what AA says. An institution must affirmatively attempt to recruit and hire minorities though a set of guidelines seeking a large pool of well-qualified candidates.
But they did apply for the position. We have their applications. We have to justify why we did not consider them if they are a minority. We did put in the effort to recruit candidates--that is the reason we have their application. They may be a very well qualified minority and most qualified candidate. If we did not put in the effort to recruit them they wouldn't have been aware of the position. I personally went to conventions and posted the job notices and interviewed candidates in addition to job announcements in relevant sources.
It is not supposed to have anything to do with quotas because that is not the topic I have been addressing other to say quotas are illegal (and not only in college admissions).
That was the point. We didn't bring them in to be a candidate although they might have been a well-qualified minority. It had nothing to do with discrimination.
I never said we didn't have enough minorities--you are making up information to fit your overly hostile and partisan view of everything. We were not "lazy" and had good minority candidates. We can't help it because our job pool was so good it included people over-qualified.
However, if you think AA combats laziness you again show your ignorance of how it works. You can follow all the guidelines and still have a candidate already picked out that has worked part-time that you know is very good at their job. You can write the job qualifications very narrowly so they only fit that candidate.
You realize AA does not require quotas, but you don't realize how it has nothing to do with eliminating laziness or even discrimination.