 |
|
I think that probably depends a lot on the size of the compa
Posted on: November 22, 2017 at 15:52:13 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72669
Member For:
21.56 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
ny.
You might well be right regarding the workforce overall, but I've talked to a couple of guys who did hiring at larger companies who said that if there were a number of candidates for a job who were all reasonably close he would always hire a black over a white and a woman over a man, and the ideal hire was a black woman. He could never get in trouble if he hired in that way and it helped keep them out of trouble with the government.
But at smaller companies the opposite can be true. Sometimes it could just be outright racism, but other times it might be a reaction to the overreaction of the government. One guy who owned a small business told me of a company that he dealt with that had a customer service rep who was exceptionally rude to one of his clients. I don't remember all of the details but his client called him and complained loudly. My friend called a contact at the CSR's company and was told that they had had a ton of complaints about her. He asked my friend to get a detailed written statement from his client about the transaction as they were trying to document her file before getting rid of her. This was back in the days before routine recording of phone calls. He said they had a big fat file on her already but were worried about the EEOC coming down on them because she was black. The guy gladly documented everything he could remember from the call & sent it in.
A year(?) or so later my friend found out that they had continued to document the complaints and finally fired her... and she promptly sued them for discrimination... and the EEOC fined them and made them hire her back with full back pay and credited her seniority for the time off.
My friend said that the moral of the story for him was "Don't ever hire a black person because you can't get rid of them no matter how bad they are.". He said he didn't have enough employees to come under the purview of the EEOC so he didn't have to worry about quotas/percentages etc.
A neighbor owned a small contracting company that used all union laborers. He said one guy showed up with his pants half way down to his knees. He said this job was at a retail store and when he came by checking on things he walked by the guy who was on a ladder facing away from the store's customers walking by. Unfortunately, his crack was showing and was about face high. He never called the guy back for a job, but it wasn't "because he was black", it was a cultural thing, though, to an extent, and undoubtedly affected blacks at a much higher rate that whites on a percentage basis.
I think the first case illustrates how the government mandates can sometimes have the counterintuitive effect of hurting those it is ostensibly designed to help. Bending over backwards to give people a chance can give others the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they only got the job because of the color of their skin.
I remember reading a book about Brooks Robinson, or perhaps Roy Campanella years ago that made kinda the same point, though in the opposite direction. He said that he knew there was strong and rampant discrimination against blacks and he also knew that he had to be better than everyone else just to survive. In those early days every black player that was brought up clearly deserved to be there. They proved, even to the skeptics, that they were as good as or better than the average white players, and the best were as good as or better than the best white players.
I don't think that's an argument for discrimination, but probably indicates that things will tend to seek their own level despite artificial attempts to adjust the level up or down.
You might well be right regarding the workforce overall, but I've talked to a couple of guys who did hiring at larger companies who said that if there were a number of candidates for a job who were all reasonably close he would always hire a black over a white and a woman over a man, and the ideal hire was a black woman. He could never get in trouble if he hired in that way and it helped keep them out of trouble with the government.
But at smaller companies the opposite can be true. Sometimes it could just be outright racism, but other times it might be a reaction to the overreaction of the government. One guy who owned a small business told me of a company that he dealt with that had a customer service rep who was exceptionally rude to one of his clients. I don't remember all of the details but his client called him and complained loudly. My friend called a contact at the CSR's company and was told that they had had a ton of complaints about her. He asked my friend to get a detailed written statement from his client about the transaction as they were trying to document her file before getting rid of her. This was back in the days before routine recording of phone calls. He said they had a big fat file on her already but were worried about the EEOC coming down on them because she was black. The guy gladly documented everything he could remember from the call & sent it in.
A year(?) or so later my friend found out that they had continued to document the complaints and finally fired her... and she promptly sued them for discrimination... and the EEOC fined them and made them hire her back with full back pay and credited her seniority for the time off.
My friend said that the moral of the story for him was "Don't ever hire a black person because you can't get rid of them no matter how bad they are.". He said he didn't have enough employees to come under the purview of the EEOC so he didn't have to worry about quotas/percentages etc.
A neighbor owned a small contracting company that used all union laborers. He said one guy showed up with his pants half way down to his knees. He said this job was at a retail store and when he came by checking on things he walked by the guy who was on a ladder facing away from the store's customers walking by. Unfortunately, his crack was showing and was about face high. He never called the guy back for a job, but it wasn't "because he was black", it was a cultural thing, though, to an extent, and undoubtedly affected blacks at a much higher rate that whites on a percentage basis.
I think the first case illustrates how the government mandates can sometimes have the counterintuitive effect of hurting those it is ostensibly designed to help. Bending over backwards to give people a chance can give others the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they only got the job because of the color of their skin.
I remember reading a book about Brooks Robinson, or perhaps Roy Campanella years ago that made kinda the same point, though in the opposite direction. He said that he knew there was strong and rampant discrimination against blacks and he also knew that he had to be better than everyone else just to survive. In those early days every black player that was brought up clearly deserved to be there. They proved, even to the skeptics, that they were as good as or better than the average white players, and the best were as good as or better than the best white players.
I don't think that's an argument for discrimination, but probably indicates that things will tend to seek their own level despite artificial attempts to adjust the level up or down.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
I think that probably depends a lot on the size of the compa - JeffB MU - 11/22 15:52:13