-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Minnesota says government agencies must ‘justify’ hiring white men
- Thread starter Valletta
- Start date
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,016
- 15,616
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Hey, thanks for pointing out exactly what's not happening. Nobody is being discriminated against. If two people have equivalent qualifications for a job, then the deciding factor in choosing which one gets it will be the one that addresses any previous bias against those of any particular race, colour, religion, sex or national origin.UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - 1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
So let me put it into a practical example so it's easy for you to understand. You are working in an office where the work is gender neutral - it can be done equally well by either sex and there's 20 men working there and no women. Now you may think that every time a person has been employed then the person chosen who was best qualified just happened to be a man. In which case I'd suggest that you study statistics, because a 20 to 0 gender difference indicates a problem. So...you're in charge of selecting the next employer and the two final applicants are equally qualified. Should you choose the man or the woman? Choosing the man would either be a coin toss, or it would show bias. Whereas selecting the woman would be actively redressing that massive gender inequality.
Sorry that I couldn't make it any simpler.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2020
- 12,064
- 5,738
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
I fully understand. My point is that the law does not allow such a decision to be made based on gender. What do you think about having to justify hiring a non-minority?
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,416
- 2,771
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The supreme court ruled otherwise, and these guidelines appear to have been crafted with their guidance in mind. Because they said that such considerations were acceptable as a way of redressing a specific historic inequality so long as there is not the creation of a privileged status. These guidelines identify a specific historic inequality and do not create a privileged status, simply an all-else-being-equal consideration that can be reasonbly set aside with appropriate justification.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2020
- 12,064
- 5,738
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Then the Minnesota government leaders have nothing to worry about.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,906
- 16,875
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
A) there's no such thing as perfectly "equally qualified" -- having been in a hiring position, I can't recall any time where it was "too tough to call" tie. There's always some aspect that shines through.
B) This doesn't just pertain to "equally qualified"...
Under this proposal if I had two candidates, and the guy happens to be the better choice objectively...
I'd have to consult an 18 page form
In order to fill out the 6 page form
in order justify my hiring choice and explain why the white guy was more qualified, when no such hiring justification would be necessary for other groups.
Upvote
0
- Jan 8, 2016
- 17,431
- 6,679
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,016
- 15,616
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
It's been explained to you. It can't be made clearer. If there is a very obvious imbalance in the makeup of any workplace then all other considerations being equal, you work to redress that imbalance.
What's not to understand?
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,016
- 15,616
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Absolute bulldust. You are completely misrepresenting the matter.
If you're in a position whereby you hire people, then you read the first document the one time to see what your responsibilities are. I just read it and it took me 5 minutes. Then, if you don't hire someone who was part of an unrepresentative group then the second document asks you to fill out one of 4 options, which is simply a couple of lines explaining the reason why he or she wasn't hired. That should take you 5 minutes tops.
So 5 minutes out of your busy day to show that you're doing your job properly, that you appreciate that there's a need to consider under representation and it all prompts you to avoid any subconscious bias. Obviously a step in the wrong direction as far as you are concerned.
Anyone in upper management who had someone in a position to hire people who complained about this...well, I'd personally reconsider their position in that regard.
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,416
- 2,771
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The idea isn't exactly equally qualified, but capable of meeting the minimum requirements of the job.
It establishes minimum qualifications and competence, if there are clear standouts then it allows for discretion in hiring.
How devastating that hiring managers have to take a few minutes out of their day to justify that their decision wasn't the result of subconscious bias. Such a hardship, don't they know the white guy is entitled to that job?
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,906
- 16,875
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Sorry friend, but you're the one mispresenting here
This is by no means a "5 minute exercise"
What, did you actually think they're going to accept a simplistic quick 1-sentence answer to each of these for approval?
If so, that would be an example of ignorance of the nature of initiative-based protocols and what upper management are expecting when they implement these sorts of things.
They're expecting in-depth details on these sorts of things.
If it was as simple as putting "I thought Joe Whiteman had better verbal skills" rubber stamp process, they wouldn't be bothering to do it.
Really think about it, if this was something where vague one-sentence bumper sticker answers were enough to BS your way through it and get a rubber stamp of approval, then it would be a pointless endeavor.
What, did you think that them implementing this policy was a case where a hiring manager could simply say "I thought the white guy was better" and that would be the end of it?
Saying "it's just a quick 5 minute thing" would be an acknowledgment that it's a cheap pandering tool that has no real value, is that the message that you want to convey about this initiative? That Racism/Sexism is legal as long as you type for 5 minutes?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,016
- 15,616
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Gee, you have to add your details to the form so they know who filled it in? Looks like you'll need to work late tonight! And as I said, you fill in one of either A, B, C or D. If anyone thinks this is onerous, then they shouldn't have been hired in the first place, let alone be in a position to hire people themselves.
Get a grip.
Upvote
0
- Jan 8, 2016
- 17,431
- 6,679
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
If we keep letting them have their way, making new law,s added forms and regulations and increased problems, the whole system's just going to come to a grinding halt at some point.
Why even have business in Minnesota, or in this country even, if it's just better in every way to do it somewhere else? Or else, where you can give in and reduce work, just for your own good.
It's a bad trend. How about we reverse it, instead, and make things easier. People, I'm sure would rather try that - that's why these people are losing their grip in large parts of the country - people see where it's going. Downhill.
Why even have business in Minnesota, or in this country even, if it's just better in every way to do it somewhere else? Or else, where you can give in and reduce work, just for your own good.
It's a bad trend. How about we reverse it, instead, and make things easier. People, I'm sure would rather try that - that's why these people are losing their grip in large parts of the country - people see where it's going. Downhill.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Bradskii
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,016
- 15,616
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
This is nonsense. Have you actually hired someone before? It's a long drawn out business. You have to advertise, make sure the right people hear about the vacancy, sift through applications, make a short list, check CVs, contact referees, arrange interviews, discuss potential employers with your hierarchy, discuss wages and terms of conditions, check their availability, make an official offer and hope it's accepted. The 'added forms' you're complaining about represent a miniscule proportion of the process. It's not worth any time mentioning it. And would be covered informally in any case, explaining to your boss why you rejected some applicants.
Is this the only argument available? No-one wants to actually say 'Hey, if you want to hire a white guy then it's your call', so you're going into complain that you have to fill out a form instead? Good grief...
Upvote
0
- Jan 8, 2016
- 17,431
- 6,679
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
This is exactly what I explained to you in previous discussions, and I still feel the same way.... Always adding! Always adding! Making more laws, more regulations, or stripping away freedoms, more and more, with more restrictive rules.
When will you *ever* agree that less is better?
Upvote
0
- Apr 30, 2013
- 33,364
- 20,685
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
My dad, a lifelong Republican who worked both in the military and in NGO's, said these policies were routine back in the 80's through 2000's in most federal programs at one time. It wasn't discrimination, it wasn't "affirmative action", it was simply a good faith effort to make sure qualified minority candidates weren't being overlooked.
So this is really false outraged dressed up as grievance. These kinds of policies aren't fundamentally unjust. It's meant to be a procedural hurdle against somebody whose subtle bigotry goes unchallenged.
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,906
- 16,875
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Let's not not move the goalposts from what you originally said.
"That should take you no more than 5 minutes"
As I stated before, they're not going to rubberstamp one-sentence answers (and they even state as much on the form)
If it was merely going to be a "formality" for when someone wants to hire a straight white guy, then they wouldn't be bothering to do it because it wouldn't accomplish anything.
"I thought he had better communications skills" isn't going to cut it for what they're asking for.
What they're aiming for is trying to make sure you've exhausted every "UC" option from the candidate pool before allowing you to hire an "NUC", by making them do the paperwork browbeating in the form of a "honkey hire" walk of shame.
It's also going to create a culture of paranoia due to the fact that no hiring manager (knowing the "vision" of the state administration) is going to want to be the one who's submitted the highest number of these forms out of fear of "looking bad"
Upvote
0
- Sep 4, 2005
- 27,906
- 16,875
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
...this isn't the 80's and 90's anymore.
There's almost certainly going to be a stigma associated with any manager submitting one of these forms with their name on it.
"Hey Dave, we couldn't help but notice that you've submitted three of this forms in the past year to hire NUC candidates, Mike hasn't submitted any and has hired all UC candidates... Now Dave, I don't think I need to tell you how serious the administration is taking equity. What's the matter Dave, do you not care about about equity??"
Upvote
0
Similar threads
