Affirmative action measure on Nov. ballot

Posted by happymike44 on March 25, 2008 at 1:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I believe no one should get special treatment because they are black,hispanic, or a woman.I have worked with women who do not have to do the same work that I had to.I have worked in retail some women did not and would not do the work assigned to them.They would want to be paid equal to me,but refuse to do the work.This is unfair because if you take the job you do the work.This means all the duties of the job.The excuse I have heard on more then one occasion I can't do that I am a girl.This means other people who did do their assigned work,had to pick up the slack for those who did not.So I am all for this law because it may level the hiring laws you should only have a job if you do all the work.Unless you are disabled and can not do certain types of work because of physical disability.By the way I am disabled and to many times I see healty people who are just lazy,just stand around and do nothing.So if you do the work you have a job if you don't then you are terminated.Simple do your job.

Posted by mrfxx on March 25, 2008 at 3:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's all have a pity party for the white males out there still running the vast majority of businesses, while taking advantage of the females/minorities in their employ. What about the women/minorites who have been cheated of pay while doing EXACTLY the same job as their white male counterparts (this is IT - not exactly an industry where brawn counts)? I personally found out that - doing exactly the same job, with exactly the same experience as one counterpart & triple the experience of another - I was making $10k/year less, which gets compounded every year. And as a single, I am expected to cover for mothers & fathers who take time off to go to children's school functions, take care of sick kids, etc - yet, when my father was dying was not afforded the time to take the afternoon off to be with him.

Unless/until boards of directors, management chains, etc reflect the face of the workforce, EEO's job isn't done. Pay attention some time to who gets the breaks - would, for instance, W be where he is if it weren't for the success of his WHITE father? Frankly, happymike44, it is the business owners who are keeping us at each other's throats - instead of us "worker bees" getting together & saying ENOUGH - but they have convinced us that the pie is only so large - and that the crumbs that are left are all that the workforce gets to fight over.

Posted by Mtnsjohn on March 25, 2008 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is illegal to pay different pay based for equal work based on gender.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/epa.html

Mrfxx, you may have a valid EEOC complaint that you should pursue.

As far as the oft-quoted stat that women make so much less on average than men, on closer examination it has to do with women's choice of jobs that generally pay less and more women choose to work part-time. As director of an organization I made more than my part-time female assistant, but to throw our salaries into the stats would reinforce the rumor.

Some people want to "level the playing field" by having it slope to their advantage. There is nothing so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.

Posted by Mtnsjohn on March 25, 2008 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To make my point:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/comme...

Posted by Bot on March 25, 2008 at 8 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I worked for the (old) AT&T. When it started promoting Black females, so that they comprised twice the percentage of the surrounding demographics, the good white males saw the handwriting on the wall, and left for greener pastures. Black females with no college degree were being promoted over white males with advanced college degrees.

These incompetents drove the company into the ground, so "Ma Bell" was purchased by one of its offspring (SWB).

In my opinion, if the (old) AT&T had promoted people fairly, based on their qualifications and contribution to the success of the enterprise, and had not kowtowed to the "Poltically Correct" Affirmative Actionistas, "Ma Bell" would still be a successful business.

Posted by Diff on March 25, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I beleive we have pushed the pendulum "the other way" long enough. at one time affirmative action had it's place. No longer though. It is time for equal treatment. I do believe there would still be laws that would penalize anyone who is proven to make choices based on race,religion etc. and those should remain.
Kudos to Connerly for having the guts to stand up for this one and take on the special interests in this issue!

Let me relate a small story about a women in a job, and comments that they often do not do the same "work" as a man.
I was in the military and later the Colorado Air Guard. I won't go into the details of the job, but I was in charge of a small work group - all male until we had a young female assigned to our group. (late 70's time frame) She was accepted fairly well by most but I was hearing some "complaints' about her inability to do certain tasks, related to height and strength. I responded pointing out the fact that we had some shorter men and some also were not as strong as others and we compensated for them, helping when nessasary, so why not help our new young woman in the same way? It put most of the griping to rest and she was more than capable of keeping up both physically and knowledge wise. There where areas on the aircraft she could not reach, and there were items that some would lift alone that she (and I most of the time) would ask for help lifting.( 70-75lbs+)
Each person has strengths and weaknesses, and if allowances are made for any male in a job functions why should not the same level of allowance be made for a woman - as long as she can and does contribute her fair share if not 100% the same?
-
She became accepted and did a good job but She too had to make some "allowances" putting up with some grief form the men and what would now be considered not so PC language and comments. She did so without too much complaining and made no big issues of it. She moved on, to a position requiring more skills and did very well for herself in the years that I was in the unit with her!

Posted by Scott on March 25, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I can vouch for what Bot said in a previous post. I started at Bell Labs in Westminster back in 1981. Reverse discrimination was running rampant. Two white males took an extra year to complete their Masters degree under a company sponsored program called LUPT. Because of the extra year, they were "encouraged" to quit the company. They weren't fired, but were told that they did not have a future at Bell Labs because of the extra year to complete their Masters degree. About two years later a black female (double whammy on the quota board) also took an extra year to complete her Masters degree. The difference is that the black female was promoted to supervisor at about the same time she graduated with her Masters!

When any of us brought up the difference in treatment we were told to shut up or a reverse discrimination charge would be filed against us. I was not one of the two white males in the afore mentioned incident.

Scott

Posted by freethought on March 25, 2008 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BOT,I was one of the first male phone operators hired in Utah for old "Ma Bell" and I remember that I was told at my orientation that I was hired not because of my background, education, experience or that I did well on the employment exams, but rather the fact that I was a male applying for a predominately female position. I was treated badly by customers and fellow employees because of this new way to fill the "quotas". After about a year I had given up. But today there is not really a gender based position in the industry. Things do change and for the better.

Posted by Scott on March 25, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Diff,

Good for you in how you handled the stuff in the Air Guard. This is how stuff like this should be handled. I had a Wave work for me while I was stationed at NAS Point Mugu. No issues there. She was just as competent as the other non-rates that were working for me. Yes, I did not send here out alone to pull a seven man life raft from a CH-46. But what the heck, even I didn't like pulling the !@*#$ things. Also, most of the Waves could whip any sailor's butt at billiards. To them it was a blood sport :-)

BTW, are you aware that "true" combat aircraft have tailhooks? ;-)

Scott

Posted by Diff on March 25, 2008 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Scott - our's had em - never had to use them tho ---
(I bumped my head on one or two)

A7D's - part of the 140th Wing at Buckley

Posted by Theoldguy on March 25, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

To Scott and Diff

The real crappy thing is that after we've completed our allotted tour in a company, about 30 years, and have had to endure the inequality of the preferential hiring practices of AT&T and the other RBOC's which promoted, in reality, incompetence and stupidity may have contributed to the downfall of the Bell System. Personally I still blame Charles L. Brown at AT&T for his 1983 decision to throw in the towel.

Posted by SASQUATCH on March 25, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS BECOME A BIG BUSINESS; it serves the financial interests of the appointed race-czars and race-Nazis very well. It's time we got rid of the relics from Jurasic Park and entered the 21st Century without their baggage.

Voters, concerned with big tuition hikes at CU, now have a chance to shut-down its very expensive Department of Affirmative Action, lose its new race-czarina and her very expensive staff of high-priced race-Nazis.

Posted by Scott on March 25, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Diff,

That's right! I had forgotten that the Colorado Air Guard use to fly A7s. Yup, those were "true" combat aircraft ;-) The parachute in the A7s (we called them NES-12) had a spreader gun. It used the equivalent of a 10 gauge shotgun shell to open the skirt hem (bottom) of the canopy. That's after the equivalent of a 38 caliber cartridge opened the parachute pack.

Scott

Posted by Scott on March 25, 2008 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Theoldguy,

I was at Bell Labs from 1981 until 2001 at which time they shipped my, and 120 other, jobs to Commie China. The number of just plain stupid management decisions was incredible. The dumb reverse discrimination decisions were bad, however, I do not believe that they could have caused the downfall on their own. Hurt us? Yes. Kill us? No.

Scott

Posted by OhBrother on March 25, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think affermitave action had and still has it's place, let me explain why. In cases like AT&T, if they had fairly hired and promoted women and minorites from the begining they wouldn't have had to wait untill they were under the gun and could have avioded promoting and employing people that couldn't fufil there position. In other words it was big business that again hurts the little guy. They instead began a vicous practice of only hiring/promoting women and minorties to reach a qouta regardless of experince or job knowledge which eventualy leads to a downfall.

I still think it is needed but it should be re-written to aviod a trend of reverse racisim and to insure people are placed in the right position. But to remove it completly...well I think it opens the doors for companys to do what they did previously and that's why aferm action was invinted in the first place

Posted by Scott on March 25, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OhBrother,

Regarding your first paragraph. I've got some "inside" information regarding AT&T. One of my uncles was on the "tiger team" that was tasked with implementing AA at AT&T back in the early 70s. My uncle worked for Mountain Bell and back then AT&T would pull people from its different divisions to work on corporate projects.

What had happened was that after the federal government got "religion" it went out and started forcing it upon every one else. At that time AT&T was the second largest racist/sexist employer in the nation, right behind the federal government. The first time AT&T was told by the feds to implement EEO. AT&T responded in "Ernestine" fashion, "We don't have to care. We're the telephone company." The second time the feds came after AT&T they told AT&T that if they did not implement reverse discrimination (a.k.a. affirmative action) then the feds would take them to court. At that point AT&T "got religion" and implemented reverse discrimination. The team that my uncle worked on told AT&T corporate management that if they were not careful, e.g. hiring unqualified people to fill quotas, then the whole thing would end up backfiring on them. AT&T corporate was too scared of the feds to listen to the recommendations of the team, hence the backfiring, i.e. reverse discrimination.

What you are talking about in your second paragraph is call EEO, Equal Employment Opportunity. A person is hired/promoted solely upon their abilities. This could sometimes lead to "imbalances" in either direction, but so what? At least everyone was hired/promoted based upon performance, NOT their genetic makeup. Yes, sometimes the boss will goof and hire/promote someone that does not work out. However, in an EEO environment this happens on the basis of human error and not because of racism/sexism. The absolutely best example of EEO is the U.S. military.

Scott

Posted by Diff on March 25, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Scott -
SLUF we called them (Short Little Ugly F .. ellows) - I even got a ride in the one E model two seater we had just before the switch to F16's
We never carried the chute - but my being in armament - i had to Learn about it 'em - just in case -
Off subject here but the day is about done -
lots of good times and good memories brought up by that little story today -
But I figured if the young lady wanted to do the job let her
it was not the most glamorous job long hours and lot of hard work but we had a lot of fun too - never asked why or how she ended up as a bomb loader - but she did fine!

She was on my crew for almost a year and then we re arranged everyone - I do know she was not as happy on another crew, that's when she moved into the Gun shop.
Happy Tuesday all -
OUT

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What really helps give every one a level playing field from which to launch is a good education. I'd like to see us put more of our taxes back to public education, and also use those taxes to make higher education more affordable for all.

That seems a fairer way all around to approach "an equal shot" at employment opportunities.

Posted by MGD on March 25, 2008 at 6:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a white male, I benefited from Affirmative Action. I applied and tested for a state job in the IT field. The two highest scores and the highest minority score were then offered interviews. I got the job and later found out that I had tied for the highest score, very close to 98. The third person was an African American female who scored a 32. There were over 50 applicants and most scored 50 - 90 points.

My boss later told me that she had never interviewed someone less qualified for a job than the minority that was allowed into the top 3. My boss actually felt sorry for the women because she couldn't answer the simplest IT questions. The rules stated that all interveiews consist of the same questions so they couldn't let her off the hook. Really the interview and hiring came down to just two people and I ended up with the job.

1 point less on that test and I may not have been able to interview for it although the unqualified minority would have. I also found out that my supervisor got called into the personnel department to explain why she didn't hire the minority.

I almost agree with MTS (surprise!). Education helps level the playing field. Where we might differ are the taxes to pay for it. No new taxes.

If we can divert money from other things (the wars) or something to pay then great. Or, perhaps people can do what I did. Join the military and use the GI Bill plus work one or two jobs. Yes it was hard and yes I knew people whose parents paid everything and others who got a free ride based on minority status. I hold no grudges, I figure I got out of it what I put in.

Posted by mytwosense on March 25, 2008 at 9:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MGD: "I almost agree with MTS (surprise!). Education helps level the playing field. Where we might differ are the taxes to pay for it. No new taxes.

If we can divert money from other things (the wars) or something to pay then great. Or, perhaps people can do what I did. Join the military and use the GI Bill plus work one or two jobs. Yes it was hard and yes I knew people whose parents paid everything and others who got a free ride based on minority status. I hold no grudges, I figure I got out of it what I put in."

Oh, I actually would support diverting taxes back to public education rather than adding new taxes. Every time you add a new tax, it quickly gets spent and then another one has to be proposed...

We need to get out of that habit *when* it's possible.

And military people should get a free college education equivalent to the free ride a lot of athletes get in college, period. Living expenses, everything.

Posted by OhBrother on March 26, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Scott- Thanks for the clarfication, I was aware of EEO and agree with it. I think more than anything is people want a fair shot regardless of race, gender, etc. An EEO is suposed to do that and I would say works a majority of time. just like mytwocents, all I want is a even playing field, nothing more.

I like MGD comment as well, it shows another side of the situation.
I like to add that while I was in a mangement position I would be questioned by HR from time to time on why I didn't hire someone. It wasn't just minorties, women or the eldery either, it was just to guage my hiring practices to see if I was consistant. inconsistant hiring practices leaves room for a lawsuit