|
|
|
|
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 6:09:46 AM | Atlantaman123:
Ok, I now understand what you are stating. I agree with that logic for the most part, however, I do not feel that a woman who has children by more than one father should be labeled as irresponsible, for to label a woman as such, one would have to label the father's of those children as well as such :) I do agree that if you can not afford the basics for your children, and you continue to have children, yes, this is definitely irresponsible, I agree.
I was pointing out that often times, those that pay taxes, sacrifice, and save are punished for that.
You are speaking of the middle class who constantly are screwed by the system. they are not wealthy enough to benefit from the tax breaks of the rich and they are not poor enough to quality for aid more times to none. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 6:34:27 AM | I don't see diversity as a bad thing whatsoever.
I feel the same way about affirmative action - done properly. The reason such measures were considered and put into place was due to the market being unable to do it itself.
If you want to start to integrate people into a job market, it has to start somewhere.
Now, on the subject of woman's salaries we agree. I do feel that gender should not impact on the money paid to a worker. I've seen that happen many times, and I always thought it was abusive.
There will be problems in a male oriented society, and sometimes that's due to the differences between the sexes - and also misogyny. Being equal doesn't mean being identical, and that's one of our problems.
Take for example women in positions like the armed forces, or as police officers. They may (for the most part) be physically weaker, but they also bring other skills to the job. In the case of police officers, those skills may in fact make them a great asset. I've seen female police officers in action here, and they (at least in the direct cases I've seen) have been better able to deal with people and avoided escalating a confrontational situation.
We don't really "test" for those skills, so they never show up in the results. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 6:36:44 AM | Sure Nona, you can call them all irresponsible.. However, all too often the man just leaves and lives his life, and the woman has the ultimate responsibility of giving birth and raising that child for 18 years, in many situations.
As an example, my friend went to social services to seek help. She has one child whom is autistic, and she is newly divorced. So, she needs help.
She was the only Caucasian there, and all the other women waiting were laughing, and asking each other if they knew whom the "baby daddy" was, and they were running down the list of whom the "baby daddy " might be for several of their children.. Then they asked her.. She is from England, and was quite surprised at the culture.
Thats what I am speaking of..
Recently in Atlanta, a 5 foot 2 African American female police officer was pistol whipped at the court house with her own gun, and the assailant escaped to go and murder 3 people,,,
Thanks affirmative action!
| |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 6:47:28 AM | Nona37, again.........affirmative action by civic employers is only to have a workforce that is representative of the population demographics. It is not discrimination, reverse or otherwise. Everyone pays into the tax base, everyone should be represented on the workforce.
Do some civic authorities abuse it? Do some take affirmative action beyond merely representing the demographics of the population? I suppose that could happen and in that case, it IS discriminatory but most go with affirmative action plans and goals and once those are met it accomplishes its goal.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AT ALL LEVELS SHOULD REFLECT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION THEY SERVE AND WHO PAY TAXES.
On the other hand, to accept a state, federal or city contract as a private enterprise as a condition of a contract is a bit coercive, but then many contracts carry conditions and all they require, anyway, is a plan in place, they dont dictate hiring and can't.
I think you folks really have overblown affirmative action into something it isn't.
THE REAL PROBLEM, AS I SEE IT, IS CONSIDERING WOMEN A MINORITY. THEY ARE HALF THE POPULATION, THEY ARENT A MINORITY, YET THEY DO MAKE UP HALF THE DEMOGRAPHICS. THAT IS A TOUGH ONE BECAUSE THAT, FAR MORE THAN THE HIRING OF MINORITIES, IS VERY TOUGH ON WHITE MEN. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 6:54:04 AM | Any other system than 'The Best Person For The Job Regardless of Any Other Factor' is to institutionalise and confer legitimacy upon the very discrimination such alternative selection policies wish to redress.
Would you choose an Olympic sprint team based on the ethnic breakdown of society? If so I'm sure there would be a number of white 100m runners looking forward to being cheered on by a British Crowd at the London 2012 Olympic Games en route to last place.........
Furthermore if you achieve the correct ‘mix’ by the horribly named ‘affirmative action’ but then over time though normal movement of employees the ratios once more become unbalanced does it ‘kick in’ again? Does one group have preference in perpetuity? Or does it change ‘target’ to once more ‘correct’ the ratios.... | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 6:56:19 AM |
Recently in Atlanta, a 5 foot 2 African American female police officer was pistol whipped at the court house with her own gun, and the assailant escaped to go and murder 3 people,,,
Thanks affirmative action!
Singling that out as some sort of proof of affirmative actions failures is rather disingenuous.
Police in Augusta, Ga., killed an inmate who fled on April 21 after overpowering a state corrections officer and taking his gun, authorities said. Two days later, a man under arrest in Spring Valley, Ill., wrested away an officer's gun and beat him with it. The suspect then fatally shot himself, police said.
In the Providence case, Esteban Carpio allegedly grabbed detective Sgt. James Allen's gun while being questioned in a locked conference room. Police will not discuss how Carpio got Allen's gun, or what kind of holster Allen was using.
http://www.policeone.com/weapon-retention/articles/100228/
That's two male officers overpowered, versus one female.
That deputy in Atlanta was overpowered because she was alone with a dangerous individual who wasn't shackled.
Michael White, assistant professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City, said the deputy overpowered in Atlanta should have been accompanied by more officers.
"Certainly when you're moving someone from prison to a courtroom, if that person's not going to be shackled you need to have more than a 1-to-1 ratio," he said.
Defendant Brian Nichols wasn't restrained, partly because of legal rulings against letting a jury see a defendant in shackles.
- Ibid
If you have a prisoner who isn't restrained properly, for whatever reason, then you need far more than one person guarding them.
It has NOTHING to do with gender. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 7:01:58 AM | Sure, affirmative action for all!!!!
What about Jewish people? They seem to be over represented in Hollywood, banking, Wall street, law, doctors, etc.. Lets cut that number down to 2%!
There sure are a lot of Asian kids at top universities.. Lets cut that down to 3-5%!
Do you really want the workforce and schools to represent the population? Then you would have to do the above. Not just cut out White Christian males. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 7:09:36 AM | I don't see diversity as a bad thing whatsoever.
Neither do I. But I see diversity imposed by Political diktat using patently unfair criteria to favour one group over another as fundamentally wrong.
Affirmative action programs are nothing more than a re-branded form of racial, sexual, religious, ethnic, or any other label you care to prefix it with, discrimination.
If the Klan were to re-name themselves the 'Christian Caucasian Assistance Co-Operative' it wouldn't make them any less objectionable...... | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 7:10:29 AM | I too feel the demographics of particular locations SHOULD reflect the population, but only qualified people. I do not feel that just because someone is a minority, they should be awarded the position. I feel they need to be just as qualified as the next person. Sometimes people's lives depend on those qualifications. I feel fair is fair, but is it really fair that someone is not qualified to perform a said job and is merely working that position due to their gender or ethnic background? I don't think so, however, the law disagrees with me.
Referencing the African American woman who was pistol-whipped and the prisoner escaping. I agree with MG, this can happen to any gender performing that particular job. I feel referencing that particular situation, mistakes were made overall, and not only the cop paid for it but civilians paid for it with their lives, the organization as a whole should be blamed for this along with the cop. She should have insisted he was shackled and she should have insisted on backup. This could have happened to a male cop as well. She should be reprimanded as well as her chain of command, if not sued. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 7:11:06 AM | Do you really want the workforce and schools to represent the population?
Short answer ?
Yes, as much as possible.
Otherwise you are seeing people only as a color or gender. 
Not including them means excluding them - and that's not good for anyone. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 7:14:48 AM |
Do you really want the workforce and schools to represent the population?
Short answer ?
Yes, as much as possible.
Otherwise you are seeing people only as a color or gender.
I agree that as much as possible the population needs to represented within that community, but while being realistic in the qualifications for the job and not dismissing qualified candidates to appease the minority quotas. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 7:18:43 AM |
....but while being realistic in the qualifications for the job and not dismissing qualified candidates to appease the minority quotas.
And never forget that men were against women working or even voting, a great number of them. Women made some great strides under that "new mentality", the one we see as normal now. There's still a way to go, but it's a start. It's far better than what it used to be.
I think we both remember those glory days of the "Women's Lib" backlash. 
If you wait for the market to do such things, you'll wait forever. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 7:22:42 AM | I agree, the female police officer wasn't the best example.. However, an entire thread could be started to debate that in itself.
My question is
Is it acceptable for minorities to be over represented in certain schools, or fields?
It seems hypocritical, because then they are said to have "better merit" in that field when it happens. When they are under represented, well then they are just not "included", and it is unfair and racist!
Ok, it is time for you to have heart surgery... Are you wanting the best possible surgeon? Or, someone who is less qualified, but they will do you heart surgery so that they are representative of the community..:) | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 7:47:33 AM | atlantaman, Hollywood and private universities are not subject to the same rationales or policies that govern civic instititions and employers. White males, Christian or otherwise, have dominance in employment and income and have had dominance for quite a while.
Stop your damned whining. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 7:51:25 AM |
Otherwise you are seeing people only as a color or gender
Can you not see the irony of that statement in relation to this thread? By imposing rigid quotas based precisely upon those very visible differences are not you guilty of doing exactly that? | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 8:01:44 AM | Seeing as how census estimations will have the caucasan population in the minority in less than ten years....?
Anyone who owns property and/or a business already has a sense that "diversity" sucks. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 12:01:25 PM | | I do not believe in quota's. For more times to none there are not enough qualified to reach the said quota's anyways. I know there are many qualified minorities out there to perform jobs, no matter what they are, but let them perform said jobs due to qualifications, NOT quota's. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 12:09:19 PM | | The most diverse workplace I was ever in had an incredibly diverse mix of people from all over the world: men and women, different ethnicities, nationalities, religions, etc. It was the telecommunications industry. Everyone was hired based on qualifications, and I think that's why we got along so well. We respected each other. I'd have a hard time respecting someone who got in because of a quota, the same way I would resent having the boss' son get hired over better qualified people. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 12:11:54 PM | | I must say, where I work is very diverse. People from so many different nationalities, it's hard to keep track of them, I like that but........where the problems come in where I work is promotions. Promotions within the blue collar field are not automatic, they have to be competed for, and I have witnessed many an investigation being requested upon people who were NOT qualified being hired over people who were indeed qualified, and yes, I will admit, it was due to minorities being promoted over white males more times to none. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 1:21:17 PM |
I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AT ALL LEVELS SHOULD REFLECT THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION THEY SERVE AND WHO PAY TAXES.
Why? Let's say 50% of the populace is illiterate, would it make sense that government requires 50% of its civic employees to be from that illiterate group even though there are plenty of literate and educated people looking to fill those jobs?
Who cares what race or ethnicities work for the government? I want the best and brightest. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 1:43:06 PM |
Can you not see the irony of that statement in relation to this thread? By imposing rigid quotas based precisely upon those very visible differences are not you guilty of doing exactly that?
I certainly can see that. Unless you have another way to ensure that people get a chance to find jobs in certain sectors, we are stuck with it.
It's also a question of doing it properly. Bad solutions aren't proof that the solution (as a general idea) isn't the right one.
In a perfect world, they wouldn't be needed.
We don't live in a perfect world.  | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 1:55:36 PM | My post comes from a different thread , but it definately fits here as well...
There's no point to Free Speech, unless it includes unpopular , offensive, or even stupid speech. (I know you know that, but I couldn't resist!)
I find it to be a welcome change for people to say what they really think and I promise to say what I really think!
The more offensive the better. Let it all hang out! It's good therapy.
Obama scares hell out of me politically, but in what other nation would we see a member of a very small racial minority (less than 13%) as a serious contender for the Top Job?
To add to this , a member of a race that is unassimilatable . A guy who has been keeping the company of anti-white black nationalists.
The US is a nation that has been driven to insanity . Is the definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over and to expect a different result?
I do think there is no alternative to racial seperation , and it will happen anyway , it ALWAYS does in world history. . Why do white people need the eternal burden ? Where is it written that we MUST live together. There should be the option of a white nation and a black nation . That is a people's basic human right .
The liberals could have their own mutli-cult nation as well .It would be very interesting to see the result as we watch them carry on the mirage of impossible "equality" ( I'm sure they would come scratching at the door in no time! lol )
Personally , I would gladly pay a large sum of money to say : " here , you're paid off , now go to your nation and good luck black people." We could do what we could to help our new neighbours.
We've already paid a fortune (trillions?) through the years of the burden of supporting a disfunctional underclass.....with no end in sight! Who believes the future holds anything different if things do not change ?
The degenerate communist MLK said : " I have a dream...." Well , as planned your dream is more of a nightmare!
Radical ?.... as compared to the status quo? ....it's not radical.
Who believes other wise?
Grow up and face reality . | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 1:57:06 PM | | the problem with quotas/affirmative action etc... is that they don't make sense mathematically. If African Americans make up say 13% of the population are they entitled to 13% of the good jobs. How many of the 13% are in the work force? how many have the education required? how many have the experience and qualifications for the job? So the actual pool drops to say maybe less than one percent but the government or whomever requires 5% to be African American then you have 4% that received jobs for which they were not qualified...all jobs should hire and promote by merit alone... | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 2:20:38 PM | Insolent exactly...
So what ends up happening is any black guy with a clean record (33%20-29 are under one form of the criminal justice system), with a degree, gets the best jobs, no matter what his qualifications are. It's a joke. All of his coworkers know as well.
Somebody suggested the need it for govt jobs.. Well in the states, most of the govt workers ARE black, so thats not the issue.
We are talking about private companies. So, should Wall Street firms be forced to hire 82% white Christians? Law firms?What about the Hollywood? I feel 82 % of producers and directors should be white Christian as well. Sounds good to me. Let's have it all the way around.. | |
|
| Diversify This!
Posted: 4/5/2008 3:04:43 PM | Here is some typical verbiage in from a government contract. This is a couple of years old but I am sure things have not changed much. This is another part of the diversity / affirmative action BS that businesses are faced with if you want to do business with the government or a company that does business with the government. I can understand the government buying into or letting contracts go to areas that have some economic deficiencies. That part seems to make some sense. Some considerations for small businesses are ok as well or the big boys would roll all over everyone. It’s the part you get to at the bottom that gives special dispensation to EVERYONE except a white guy out there trying to compete. He is at the bottom of the list. Actually he isn’t even mentioned go figure. This is just wrong in every way.
Contractor must fill in the following and submit with quote:
52.219-1 Small Business Program Representations.
As prescribed in 19.307(a)(1), insert the following provision:
Small Business Program Representations (Oct 2000)
(a)(1) The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code for this acquisition is ________________ [insert NAICS code].
(2) The small business size standard is _____________ [insert size standard].
(3) The small business size standard for a concern which submits an offer in its own name, other than on a construction or service contract, but which proposes to furnish a product which it did not itself manufacture, is 500 employees.
(b) Representations. (1) The offeror represents as part of its offer that it ____ ____ is not a small business concern.
(2) [Complete only if the offeror represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror represents, for general statistical purposes, that it ______ is not, a small disadvantaged business concern as defined in 13 CFR 124.1002.
(3) [Complete only if the offeror represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror represents as part of its offer that it _______ is not a women-owned small business concern.
(4) [Complete only if the offeror represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror represents as part of its offer that it ______ is not a veteran-owned small business concern.
(5) [Complete only if the offeror represented itself as a veteran-owned small business concern in paragraph (b)(4) of this provision.] The offeror represents as part of its offer that it ______ is not a service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern.
(c) Definitions. As used in this provision--
"Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern"--
(1) Means a small business concern--
(i) Not less than 51 percent of which is owned by one or more service-disabled veterans or, in the case of any publicly owned business, not less than 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more service-disabled veterans; and
(ii) The management and daily business operations of which are controlled by one or more service-disabled veterans or, in the case of a veteran with permanent and severe disability, the spouse or permanent caregiver of such veteran.
(2) Service-disabled veteran means a veteran, as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(2), with a disability that is service-connected, as defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(16).
"Small business concern" means a concern, including its affiliates, that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on Government contracts, and qualified as a small business under the criteria in 13 CFR part 121 and the size standard in paragraph (a) of this provision.
"Veteran-owned small business concern" means a small business concern--
(1) Not less than 51 percent of which is owned by one or more veterans (as defined at 38 U.S.C. 101(2)) or, in the case of any publicly owned business, not less than 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more veterans; and
(2) The management and daily business operations of which are controlled by one or more veterans.
"Women-owned small business concern" means a small business concern--
(1) Which is at least 51 percent owned by one or more women or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 percent of the stock of which is owned by one or more women; and
(2) Whose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more women.
(d) Notice. (1) If this solicitation is for supplies and has been set aside, in whole or in part, for small business concerns, then the clause in this solicitation providing notice of the set-aside contains restrictions on the source of the end items to be furnished.
(2) Under 15 U.S.C. 645(d), any person who misrepresents a firm's status as a small, HUBZone small, small disadvantaged, or women-owned small business concern in order to obtain a contract to be awarded under the preference programs established pursuant to section 8(a), 8(d), 9, or 15 of the Small Business Act or any other provision of Federal law that specifically references section 8(d) for a definition of program eligibility, shall--
(i) Be punished by imposition of fine, imprisonment, or both;
(ii) Be subject to administrative remedies, including suspension and debarment; and
(iii) Be ineligible for participation in programs conducted under the authority of the Act.
(End of provision)
Alternate I (Oct 2000). As prescribed in 19.307(a)(2), add the following paragraph (b)(6) to the basic provision:
(6) [Complete only if offeror represented itself as a small business concern in paragraph (b)(1) of this provision.] The offeror represents, as part of its offer, that--
(i) It * is, * is not a HUBZone small business concern listed, on the date of this representation, on the List of Qualified HUBZone Small Business Concerns maintained by the Small Business Administration, and no material change in ownership and control, principal office of ownership, or HUBZone employee percentage has occurred since it was certified by the Small Business Administration in accordance with 13 CFR Part 126; and
(ii) It * is, * is not a joint venture that complies with the requirements of 13 CFR Part 126, and the representation in paragraph (b)(6)(i) of this provision is accurate for the HUBZone small business concern or concerns that are participating in the joint venture. [The offeror shall enter the name or names of the HUBZone small business concern or concerns that are participating in the joint venture: __________________________.] Each HUBZone small business concern participating in the joint venture shall submit a separate signed copy of the HUBZone representation.
Alternate II (Oct 2000). As prescribed in 19.307(a)(3), add the following paragraph (b)(7) to the basic provision:
(7) [Complete if offeror represented itself as disadvantaged in paragraph (b)(2) of this provision.] The offeror shall check the category in which its ownership falls:
_____ Black American.
_____ Hispanic American.
_____ Native American (American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, or Native Hawaiians).
_____ Asian-Pacific American (persons with origins from Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei, Japan, China, Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Vietnam,
Korea, The Philippines, U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Samoa, Macao, Hong Kong, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Tuvalu, or Nauru).
_____ Subcontinent Asian (Asian-Indian) American (persons with origins from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands, or Nepal).
_____ Individual/concern, other than one of the preceding. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
