Why does the police brutality of a counterfeiting drug addict mean more workplace discrimination?

[justme6272]

I'm talking about George Floyd, and the fact that the 'black community' gets more hiring and promotion preferences than ever before, as they demand an extortionist style 'payback' for the life of one man who was far from a model citizen. Was he a career oriented individual, trying to get ahead, or a self-made entrepreneur? For goodness sakes, he was suspected of passing counterfeit money in a convenience store, and that's what prompted the calling of police to begin with! Was he looking to get hired and promoted somewhere when he couldn't even pass a drug screen? Did police keep him from doing that before he died? What does George Floyd have to do with racial inequality in hiring? Was he sending out a bunch of resumes and no one would interview or hire him? Guess what, that happens to people of other races too, due to age discrimination, lack of qualifications, or whatever. The answer is no, he wasn't. Even if he were, what would an unfortunate act of police abuse have to do with him becoming the poster child for quota hiring and promotion for an entire race who had nothing to do with the incident? If George Floyd were the same man, but white, latino, or asian, would there be an outcry for more whites, latinos, or asians to be hired, as if that would cut down on the number of George Floyds in the world?

Today, big bank executives are proudly testifying before the U.S. Senate, bragging about all the racial discrimination they've invoked in their companies after the death of George Floyd. This is a circus of political grandstanding by a group of politicians who have said, "you'd better hire and promote who we tell you to or we're going to drag you before Congress and hold you accountable." They've turned an unemployed drug addict and counterfeiter into a martyr to gain an advantage in workplaces everywhere. The two subjects have nothing to with each other. They're practicing 'strike while the iron is hot' and it's ALL political. As the well known politician once said, "don't let a crisis go to waste." Threatening to burn down cities unless a certain group gets advantages in the workplace is nothing short of extortion.

 

[civilwarbuff]

If you can answer your question you win the prize.......I'm still scratching my head as to why people would honor the life of a criminal.......

 

[The Barbarian]

One of the principles of democracy is that that everyone has rights, even a guy who had a drug problem. Another is that murder is still murder, even if the victim is unlikable and the murderer is a cop.

I'm still scratching my head as to why people would honor the life of a criminal.......

Actually, he was convicted and he's going to spend a long time in prison.

What really upsets white nationalists, is that this murder spotlighted an ongoing problem in America. What with the ubiquity of cameras, more and more thugs are being fired, demoted, or being sent to prison for their crimes. And that's a healthy change. It's more dangerous to be a racist than it used to be, and authority is no longer an automatic pass for those criminals.

We've got a long way to go, but the change is encouraging.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What really upsets white nationalists,

What should really upset people is that there are others out there who think this criminal is some kind of folk hero. What kind of screwed up reasoning does it take to arrive at that? Maybe we should start up an Al Capone or Pretty Boy Floyd day. We could begin a narrative that they were really just a couple of good ole boys who were misunderstood by society and rehabilitate their image. Sheesh........

 

[The Barbarian]

What should really upset people is that there are others out there who think this criminal is some kind of folk hero.

He got convicted of murder and sent away. The white nationalists who have made him their folk hero are truly upset. But justice was served.

What kind of screwed up reasoning does it take to arrive at that?

The assumption that the lives of black people are of less concern than those of other people. But fewer and fewer people accept that idea. That idea just cost this criminal his job and his freedom.

Maybe we should start up an Al Capone or Pretty Boy Floyd day.

Maybe a Derek Chauvin day, to keep the theme consistent.

We could begin a narrative that he was really just a good ole boy who was misunderstood by society and rehabilitate his image.

Sheesh........

Yep.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm talking about George Floyd, and the fact that the 'black community' gets more hiring and promotion preferences than ever before

Well, maybe "hiring and promotion preferences" aren't what you've been led to believe...

Employers may be selecting or overlooking prospective job candidates for interviews based on their potential race as suggested by names, according to a recent study by two professors from the University of Chicago and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

To test whether employers might discriminate against job applicants with black-sounding names, associate professors of economics Marianne Bertrand with Chicagos Graduate School of Business and Sendhil Mullainathan with MIT conducted an elaborate experiment. They fabricated resumes for multiple phantom job seekers with common black and white names. The professors then sent out nearly 5,000 resumes for 1,300 job openings advertised in newspapers and on online job sites throughout Chicago and Boston.

We searched online and selected resumes of actual job seekers, says Bertrand. We then used those to create models for several different realistic resumes with the appropriate education and experience needed for typical job openings advertised in newspapers.

Most job openings for which the researchers sent resumes were administrative, sales, clerical and managerial positions. Bertrand and Mullainathan randomly assigned the applicants names common to either black men, black women, white men or white women and were careful not to send identical resumes to the same employer.

Bertrand and Mullainathan then tracked which of their applicants were called for job interviews. Bertrand said that more resumes were sent to Chicago area employers simply because it is the larger metropolitan area but added that the rate for interview requests was virtually identical between the two cities.

The results are a bit disturbing, the researchers admit. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be contacted for job interviews than those with typical black names. There were no significant differences between the rates at which men and women were contacted.

Once we compiled the data and got a good look at it, I was immediately struck by the disparities in the response rates, said Bertrand. I expected that there would be a difference, but not one that was so striking.
Study Suggests Bias Against ‘Black’ Names On Resumes

I hope that this has changed in the last ten years, but the evidence suggests we have a way to go before "preferences" aren't harming minority workers.

Based on available data, if I was black, I'd be naming my kids names like "Steven" and "Carolyn."

 

[civilwarbuff]

He got convicted of murder and sent away.

George Floyd got convicted of murder and sent away?......I didn't know that.....

 

[renniks]

I'm talking about George Floyd, and the fact that the 'black community' gets more hiring and promotion preferences than ever before, as they demand an extortionist style 'payback' for the life of one man who was far from a model citizen. Was he a career oriented individual, trying to get ahead, or a self-made entrepreneur? For goodness sakes, he was suspected of passing counterfeit money in a convenience store, and that's what prompted the calling of police to begin with! Was he looking to get hired and promoted somewhere when he couldn't even pass a drug screen? Did police keep him from doing that before he died? What does George Floyd have to do with racial inequality in hiring? Was he sending out a bunch of resumes and no one would interview or hire him? Guess what, that happens to people of other races too, due to age discrimination, lack of qualifications, or whatever. The answer is no, he wasn't. Even if he were, what would an unfortunate act of police abuse have to do with him becoming the poster child for quota hiring and promotion for an entire race who had nothing to do with the incident? If George Floyd were the same man, but white, latino, or asian, would there be an outcry for more whites, latinos, or asians to be hired, as if that would cut down on the number of George Floyds in the world?

Today, big bank executives are proudly testifying before the U.S. Senate, bragging about all the racial discrimination they've invoked in their companies after the death of George Floyd. This is a circus of political grandstanding by a group of politicians who have said, "you'd better hire and promote who we tell you to or we're going to drag you before Congress and hold you accountable." They've turned an unemployed drug addict and counterfeiter into a martyr to gain an advantage in workplaces everywhere. The two subjects have nothing to with each other. They're practicing 'strike while the iron is hot' and it's ALL political. As the well known politician once said, "don't let a crisis go to waste." Threatening to burn down cities unless a certain group gets advantages in the workplace is nothing short of extortion.

Yep.

 

[The Barbarian]

George Floyd got convicted of murder and sent away?......I didn't know that.....

No, Floyd was murdered, and the killer was convicted of murder and sent away.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, maybe "hiring and promotion preferences" aren't what you've been led to believe...

Employers may be selecting or overlooking prospective job candidates for interviews based on their potential race as suggested by names, according to a recent study by two professors from the University of Chicago and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

To test whether employers might discriminate against job applicants with black-sounding names, associate professors of economics Marianne Bertrand with Chicagos Graduate School of Business and Sendhil Mullainathan with MIT conducted an elaborate experiment. They fabricated resumes for multiple phantom job seekers with common black and white names. The professors then sent out nearly 5,000 resumes for 1,300 job openings advertised in newspapers and on online job sites throughout Chicago and Boston.

We searched online and selected resumes of actual job seekers, says Bertrand. We then used those to create models for several different realistic resumes with the appropriate education and experience needed for typical job openings advertised in newspapers.

Most job openings for which the researchers sent resumes were administrative, sales, clerical and managerial positions. Bertrand and Mullainathan randomly assigned the applicants names common to either black men, black women, white men or white women and were careful not to send identical resumes to the same employer.

Bertrand and Mullainathan then tracked which of their applicants were called for job interviews. Bertrand said that more resumes were sent to Chicago area employers simply because it is the larger metropolitan area but added that the rate for interview requests was virtually identical between the two cities.

The results are a bit disturbing, the researchers admit. Applicants with white-sounding names were 50 percent more likely to be contacted for job interviews than those with typical black names. There were no significant differences between the rates at which men and women were contacted.

Once we compiled the data and got a good look at it, I was immediately struck by the disparities in the response rates, said Bertrand. I expected that there would be a difference, but not one that was so striking.
Study Suggests Bias Against ‘Black’ Names On Resumes

I hope that this has changed in the last ten years, but the evidence suggests we have a way to go before "preferences" aren't harming minority workers.

Based on available data, if I was black, I'd be naming my kids names like "Steven" and "Carolyn."

It's the result of current anti-discrimination laws that cause this.

Years back at my place of employment, a black representative from HR held a meeting with the managers in the company.

He told us that whenever a company hires a black man and that man doesn't work out, and for whatever legit reason he is fired, a lawsuit will be filed and more often than not, settled out of court.

As a result of this, companies across the US were very careful before hiring black people, because if that person didn't work out for them, they'd have to carry the person until he/she quit. Many times they'd promote them to some meaningless job where they couldn't do much harm.

A similar thing happened in France, only worse. France put a law in place that if a company let an employee go, they had to pay that employee's salary for up to two years
until that person found employment elsewhere.
As a result, unless a person was well connected with people inside the company, and this often meant they were related of friends, the company would not even advertise the job until they already had an employee hired.

It's what caused the riots in France about 12 years ago, by immigrants from Algeria and other nations, many of them Muslims, as they were not getting jobs.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Identical resumes with "white-sounding" names are 50% more likely to get an interview than those with "black-sounding" names)

It's the result of current anti-discrimination laws that cause this.

I see. Laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, cause people to discriminate on the basis of race. I guess we should stop outlawing theft and murders, then.

He told us that whenever a company hires a black man and that man doesn't work out, and for whatever legit reason he is fired, a lawsuit will be filed and more often than not, settled out of court.

He lied to you. I was in corporate work for many years, and it only happened once in my experience. And she wasn't black. We had many black employees, and some were let go from time to time. (Edit: there was one case of a black woman in a branch office; her manager didn't follow company procedures, so it never got to EEOC; corporate dealt with it)

As a result of this, companies across the US were very careful before hiring black people, because if that person didn't work out for them, they'd have to carry the person until he/she quit.

Nope. That's a completely false excuse:

The analysis was conducted by Paychex, Inc., a Rochester, NY – based company that provides payroll, human resource, and benefit outsourcing services to small and medium sized businesses.

The Paychex data indicates the EEOC failed to failed to find discrimination in 87 percent of the almost 1.9 million cases filed by discrimination victims over the 21-year-period.

The EEOC found no reasonable cause for discrimination in 64.3 percent of cases, closed 18.3 percent for administrative reasons and 4.8 percent were withdrawn by the charging party. The EEOC found reasonable cause for discrimination in only 4.6 percent of complaints and considered filing a lawsuit in only 3.2 percent of complaints.

Annual statistics from the EEOC show that its percentage of reasonable cause determinations has declined considerably in recent years, from a high of 9.9 percent in 2001. The EEOC found reasonable cause in only 3.5 percent of complaints in 2018; 2.9 percent in 2017, and; 3.2 percent in 2016.
Is The EEOC Protecting Workers Or Discriminatory Employers?

It's understandable that it was so low under Trump, who appointed a director who was hostile to the law. But under Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton? No I don't think so. Whoever told you that was hoping you wouldn't actually check the facts for yourself.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

(Identical resumes with "white-sounding" names are 50% more likely to get an interview than those with "black-sounding" names)



I see. Laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, cause people to discriminate on the basis of race. I guess we should stop outlawing theft and murders, then.



He lied to you. I was in corporate work for many years, and it only happened once in my experience. And she wasn't black. We had many black employees, and some were let go from time to time. (Edit: there was one case of a black woman in a branch office; her manager didn't follow company procedures, so it never got to EEOC; corporate dealt with it)



Nope. That's a completely false excuse:

The analysis was conducted by Paychex, Inc., a Rochester, NY – based company that provides payroll, human resource, and benefit outsourcing services to small and medium sized businesses.

The Paychex data indicates the EEOC failed to failed to find discrimination in 87 percent of the almost 1.9 million cases filed by discrimination victims over the 21-year-period.

The EEOC found no reasonable cause for discrimination in 64.3 percent of cases, closed 18.3 percent for administrative reasons and 4.8 percent were withdrawn by the charging party. The EEOC found reasonable cause for discrimination in only 4.6 percent of complaints and considered filing a lawsuit in only 3.2 percent of complaints.

Annual statistics from the EEOC show that its percentage of reasonable cause determinations has declined considerably in recent years, from a high of 9.9 percent in 2001. The EEOC found reasonable cause in only 3.5 percent of complaints in 2018; 2.9 percent in 2017, and; 3.2 percent in 2016.
Is The EEOC Protecting Workers Or Discriminatory Employers?

It's understandable that it was so low under Trump, who appointed a director who was hostile to the law. But under Obama, George W. Bush, and Clinton? No I don't think so. Whoever told you that was hoping you wouldn't actually check the facts for yourself.

It was happening back in the 1970's as the company was hiring blacks to set the quotas which were in place back then. They even hired 150 black men and women from New York City, and relocated them to my area. It ended up being a train wreck.


One of the alternative solutions to that was to open a plant in a black neighborhood where mostly blacks were hired. The plant was always in the red and it eventually closed and moved to Mexico, but even there, it was a loser. So the company moved it to Singapore.

He didn't lie, we saw the law suits that were filed in other companies led by the blackmailer Al Sharpton.

It's not an excuse, but a reality. It's why hiring managers stressed being well networked across companies. One of the mistakes my generation made was staying loyal to the company for too long and net getting our name spread through many places of employment.

The trend changed over the years and the smarter approach was to hire temps first. Then if the employee worked out, hire them direct. However, even then, discrimination and then sex harassment lawsuits got attention. Doubt me again ? Check out what happened to a former VP of Miller Brewing who was falsely accused by a co-worker.

Laws against discrimination make companies liable which is why they end up working against the goal they set out at first.

I don't care what your experience was, it wasn't mine nor the managers whom I worked for.

 

[SummerMadness]

Murder is wrong, please stop trying to justify it.

 

[SummerMadness]

My question, how does a murderer being convicted turn into complaints about black people and job discrimination? They are not even connected to each other... I guess because they both include black people?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Murder is wrong, please stop trying to justify it.

Who's trying to justify murder here ?

I must've missed reading that post.

 

[iluvatar5150]

One of the alternative solutions to that was to open a plant in a black neighborhood where mostly blacks were hired. The plant was always in the red and it eventually closed and moved to Mexico, but even there, it was a loser. So the company moved it to Singapore.

Labor in Mexico is a lot cheaper than in Singapore. This sounds like a management problem.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Labor in Mexico is a lot cheaper than in Singapore. This sounds like a management problem.

Perhaps today, but the issue was the quality of the work was bad. Singapore, the quality of their work was excellent !

However, the bigger issue was that when our managers managers went down to Chihuahua to try and see what was happening, they were being robbed on their way from the airport to their hotel rooms by the cab drivers themselves. Turned out the Chief of Police was the ring leader of the corruption.

Anyway, it was long ago, however from what I've been reading, corruption in Mexico by the government and cartel leaders is still very high.

 

[rturner76]

"you'd better hire and promote who we tell you to or we're going to drag you before Congress and hold you accountable."

Am I to believe it is a bad thing to hold people accountable for civil rights violations? I don't feel sorry for some racist banker who only hires executives from his frat.

Being more conscious of racism is a good thing. Everyone should ask themselves, "am I racist? What stereotypes do I believe?" Railing on and on about it is making people do that. People are starting topics like this because they are looking for answers. The hard part is being willing to shift an opinion based on new information. Most of us stick to what we already know so reject any idea that doesn't agree with our preconceived notions. Some even reject facts in order to hold on to their current line of thinking.

 

[The Barbarian]

I don't care what your experience was, it wasn't mine nor the managers whom I worked for.

More importantly, the data on actual cases shows that the story they gave you is false. The government keeps statistics on this, and in only 3.2 percent of the complaints, did the government even consider filing a lawsuit, with only 4.6 percent of the complaints being found to have even credible evidence of discrimination.

That's the reality. They told you something manifestly not true.

 

[The Barbarian]

Murder is wrong, please stop trying to justify it.

Today's winner. I guess the argument is that because a black guy had a drug problem and someone gave him a counterfeit bill, the cop was justified in killing him on the spot, even though he wasn't resisting. It's one of the more extreme cases of trying to criminalize the victim to justify the murderer's behavior.

The takeaway is that no matter how pointless and vicious the killing of a black person turns out to be, there will always be those who suggest that he deserved it.