Private Discrimination

[syntax252]

You can think a statement of fact. Thoughts are not necesarrily just opinions, they can be facts.

 

Well I think that when I express an opinion that I know whether it is my opinion or a fact.

[YT2095]

and so, the OFF Topic posting begins....

 

and STOPS.

 

 

get back to the Subject people (that`s not an opinion either!)

[Phi for All]

I think a big part of the dilemma is that we tend to picture a business owner trying to succeed but being forced by the federal government to hire someone who is not capable of doing the job. This is rarely the case, but it's the one that sticks in our minds.

 

Most people would agree that capability should set the standard when it comes to hiring an employee. But in cases where capability is maximized through experience and performance, how can an employer be certain that his racial, gender, age, national origin or religious preferences will gain him/her the best employee in the long run?

 

I think it is part of the duty of the federal government, as a tool for maintaining order and fairness in our society, to make certain that all members of the workforce are given a decent amount of time to prove themselves on the job. Fair hiring practices are a far cheaper and more productive method of maintaining societal integrity than are the welfare, or worse, the prison system.

[blike]

how can an employer be certain that his racial, gender, age, national origin or religious preferences will gain him/her the best employee in the long run?

I understand the argument you're presenting, but I think there are cases where discrimination is clearly beneficial. For example, a christian school trying to promote christian ideas would want the right to discriminate based on religion. Or, an employer who will invest thousands of dollars and lots of time training an employee would want the right reject a woman because she stated she is going to start a family in the near future. Or, a service that caters to a certain class or subset of society would want to hire employees who fit the image their trying to present (be that race, sex, religion, anything).

 

There are lots of examples. I tend to agree with the "slippery slope" argument you made earlier, but I also tend to sympathize with companies who are discriminating in the name of doing better business. I don't think their intentions are wrong, as long as they're not actively discriminating because of personal reasons (i.e. we don't like x race). But yes, it does open the door for tons of problems.

[Cadmus]

I think a big part of the dilemma is that we tend to picture a business owner trying to succeed but being forced by the federal government to hire someone who is not capable of doing the job.

This has not occured to me within the context of this argument.

 

Most people would agree that capability should set the standard when it comes to hiring an employee.

I do not. I think that a person in a private operation should hire who he wants. If a person wants to work around a group of beautiful blonds, with that being the only 2 criteria, then what do you and I care?

 

But in cases where capability is maximized through experience and performance, how can an employer be certain that his racial, gender, age, national origin or religious preferences will gain him/her the best employee in the long run?

Again, I don't care about this at all. Neither do most small employers, I would think.

 

I think it is part of the duty of the federal government, as a tool for maintaining order and fairness in our society, to make certain that all members of the workforce are given a decent amount of time to prove themselves on the job. Fair hiring practices are a far cheaper and more productive method of maintaining societal integrity than are the welfare, or worse, the prison system.

I do not agree. You seem to be establishing an ideal for business that I think does not necessarily exist. Would you force a Hutu businessman to hire a group of Tutsis, solely because they applied first and seem to be qualified? Should he reject the notion of working to support Tutsi families, would you have the Tutsis sue him for his letting a little past personal feelings cause him to violate your convictions?

[Sayonara]

No, because we aren't discussing Burundi.

[coquina]

I think it is part of the duty of the federal government' date=' as a tool for maintaining order and fairness in our society, to make certain that all members of the workforce are given a decent amount of time to prove themselves on the job. Fair hiring practices are a far cheaper and more productive method of maintaining societal integrity than are the welfare, or worse, the prison system.[/quote']

 

Here's the deal on that. When you hire someone, you have 30 days to decide whether they will be a productive employee, before they are able to collect unemployment compensation.

 

There are both federal and state unemployment taxes. After the 30 day period, if you terminate an employee for anything short of blatant misconduct, they can file an unemployment claim with the state. Having people collect unemployment against your company is worse than what happens to your auto insurance when you have a couple of wrecks.

 

The rate that the company pays the state is based on the ratio of benefits paid out to claimants vs the employer's total payroll. The short version of this is that the smaller company you have, the higher your rate is likely to be. If you employ 4 people and terminate 2, you terminated 50% of your workforce - but they got paid the same each as if they would have if they worked for a larger company. The employee pays unemployment tax on the first $8000 a person earns per year. If someone quits mid-year and has earned over 8k, and you have to replace him, you start paying the tax again on the new person.

 

The taxes can range from less than 1% of the employees wages to more than 6%. When employees are terminated, even if they are fired for cause or sometimes if they walk off the job, the state will sometimes award them unemployment and jack up your rates.

 

Case in point. I had an employee whose child support payments were increased substantially due to the children needing orthodontics. The judge told him he had to come up with a thousand dollars more a month. He heard that a company in North Carolina was hiring and paying big bucks. I employed him to work on a government site with a security clearance, and he walked off the job and went to Carolina. I didn't fire him - he disappeared, and left me flatfooted, I had to get a security clearance for another employee to finish the job. The Navy was pi$$ed because their job wasn't finished, I was pi$$ed because I had about 20 grand sunk in the job and couldn't bill the government because it wasn't complete. The ex-employee was hired by the NC company but they terminated him before he had worked 30 days, so they didn't have to pay unemployment on him. He came back to Virginia and filed unemployment against me, and the damned state gave it to him -- and my rates got jacked up about 2% on account of it.

 

Another employee was perfection in motion for 30 days. On the 31st day, he started killing jobs right and left. He would cut a part undersized or put a hole in the wrong place. I gave him several written warnings, and the errors continued so I fired him. He was also granted unemployment because I should have realized his limitations before the 30 days were up. My rate went up 2% more.

 

I found out later that this was a scam he had played on three other shops in the area. He was single and lived at home. He needed enough money to put beer in his stomach and gas in his truck. He did it by forcing employers to fire him then collecting unemployment.

 

Employers are not blameless either. Some of the big factories are particularly bad for luring employees with the promise of big bucks,terminating them before the 30 days is up, and getting off scott free. This is especially easy for them to do when they are running automated machinery that requires little training more than which button to push when.

 

As you might have noticed - this is an extremely sensitive area for me. The unemployment laws need to be changed to a small flat amount based on the annual salary so small companies are not penalized.

 

Somebody kick the soapbox out from under me!

[Phi for All]

This has not occured to me within the context of this argument.

Oh.

 

I do not. I think that a person in a private operation should hire who he wants. If a person wants to work around a group of beautiful blonds, with that being the only 2 criteria, then what do you and I care?

 

Again, I don't care about this at all. Neither do most small employers, I would think.

Since I was addressing the concept of quotas and companies being forced to hire employees based on a broad spectrum of profiles other than capabilities, I assumed it was tacit that we were discussing large companies. Small companies are "under the radar" except for the most egregious infractions.

 

I do not agree. You seem to be establishing an ideal for business that I think does not necessarily exist. Would you force a Hutu businessman to hire a group of Tutsis, solely because they applied first and seem to be qualified? Should he reject the notion of working to support Tutsi families, would you have the Tutsis sue him for his letting a little past personal feelings cause him to violate your convictions?

I have read this part through six times and I fail to understand how it applies to what I posted. You are normally a great deal clearer in your arguments, Cadmus, though you do tend to introduce more red herrings than a canning factory. What does this have to do with whether fair hiring practices are more productive than welfare or prisons?

[Cadmus]

Since I was addressing the concept of quotas and companies being forced to hire employees based on a broad spectrum of profiles other than capabilities, I assumed it was tacit that we were discussing large companies.

Oh. Since you did not cite to whom you were responding, I just assumed that you were refering to the topic of the thread, which refers to private companies. I did not know that you were refering to large companies, for which I tend much more to agree with you.

 

I have read this part through six times and I fail to understand how it applies to what I posted. You are normally a great deal clearer in your arguments, Cadmus, though you do tend to introduce more red herrings than a canning factory. What does this have to do with whether fair hiring practices are more productive than welfare or prisons?

I number of people tend not to cite the post that they are responding to. In such cases, I think that perhaps a number of people become confused as to the context of the post. I responded to your post as though the context was similar to mine. Now that I know that it was not, my arguments do not seem very relevant to yours, I agree.

[Phi for All]

Oh. Since you did not cite to whom you were responding' date=' I just assumed that you were refering to the topic of the thread, which refers to private companies. I did not know that you were refering to large companies, for which I tend much more to agree with you.

 

 

I number of people tend not to cite the post that they are responding to. In such cases, I think that perhaps a number of people become confused as to the context of the post. I responded to your post as though the context was similar to mine. Now that I know that it was not, my arguments do not seem very relevant to yours, I agree.[/quote']I actually was not responding to anyone's post in particular. I was a bit unclear in post #28 and I did switch topic from private companies to large public ones. I was trying (miserably, apparently) to suggest that some misconceptions arise due to comparing federal government involvement in the affairs of private companies with those of larger public ones. Please forgive the tangent on which I went off.

[syntax252]

I actually was not responding to anyone's post in particular. I was a bit unclear in post #28 and I did[/i'] switch topic from private companies to large public ones. I was trying (miserably, apparently) to suggest that some misconceptions arise due to comparing federal government involvement in the affairs of private companies with those of larger public ones. Please forgive the tangent on which I went off.

 

When you refer to a company as "large" and "public," What exactly do you mean?

[Phi for All]

When you refer to a company as "large" and "public," What exactly do you mean?

The federal anti-discrimination laws usually apply to all public sector employers (government, publicly-held corporations, institutions, etc), and private sector employers of more than 15 people.

[syntax252]

The federal anti-discrimination laws usually apply to all public sector employers (government, publicly-held corporations, institutions, etc), and private sector employers of more than 15 people.

 

Well see, I have a problem with a business being considered "public" absent any public money being invested in it or it being a business that does work for the government.

 

I think that is how the government got away with passing hireing regulations on private businesses by labeling them as "public."

[Phi for All]

Well see' date=' I have a problem with a business being considered "public" absent any public money being invested in it or it being a business that does work for the government.

 

I think that is how the government got away with passing hireing regulations on private businesses by labeling them as "public." [/quote']In other threads, you've played the "as long as it's the law, it's not for us to decide" card when it supported your beliefs. What has changed? As long as a business falls under the jurisdiction of federal and state commerce regulations, the public looks to the government to protect their interests.

[Cadmus]

Please forgive the tangent on which I went off.

I think that there is a lot of friction in this forum in cases where the source begins with a simple misunderstanding of what other people are talking about. It is a shame. It is good that we discovered our difference here without resorting to shouting, as seems to happen all too frequently by some people.

[Newtonian]

In other threads, you've played the "as long as it's the law, it's not for us to decide" card when it supported your beliefs. What has changed? As long as a business falls under the jurisdiction of federal and state commerce regulations, the public looks to the government to protect their interests.

I cannot believe you have just said that to syntax.Wether its mutual or not,when i discuss things with you,i respect your views.You come across as someone down to earth,above childish power farts(dont abuse your status as moderator).

It reflects badly on yourself to bring up other threads as a defence for your argument,when you have been guilty of contradicting yourself as well.For instance your stance in saying government should not force any religious bias on its population,at the same time your all for government instructing companies who should/should not be employed.

TBH syntax shows consistency,which you dont.

Im not defending syntax so much,but i am bringing to your attention,the fact that im dissapointed in you.

As i said regardless of mutual appraisal,i didnt expect such comments from one i respect

[coquina]

Well see' date=' I have a problem with a business being considered "public" absent any public money being invested in it or it being a business that does work for the government.

 

I think that is how the government got away with passing hireing regulations on private businesses by labeling them as "public." [/quote']

 

The technical definition of a "public corporation" is one that is traded on one of the stock exchanges. People other than the owners have invested in it, so it needs to answer to its stockholders.

 

A privately held corporation can do business with the government - mine does. There is a whole ramification of that, contracts can be "set aside" for "small businesses" - I find it interesting that the smallest small business catagory is 500 employees or less. HELLO - when I had 30 employees I felt like I was in the hands of the gestapo. One is only exempted from government decrees (which is more a PITA on account of filing papers than compliance, if one has less than 15 employees .... depending on the regulation, sometimes less than 5).

 

Let me tell you guys and gals - a small manufacturing business cannot get off the ground in competition with NAFTA and China, and at the same time be in compliance with our labor laws. We gave the other folks free trade, but we did not insist that they conform to our laws.

 

Let me clue you in. I cannot hire a 12 year old girl, put her in a dormatory that is like a prison, and send her father the equivalent of $0.12 an hour. If you had a daughter, would you want her to be inslaved in this manner? Of course, you wouldn't enslave her in this manner, unless your family was starving and she was your way out....

 

These are the conditions with which I must compete. While my employees are complaining that I only pay them $15 an hour. Please believe me, I do not begrudge my employees every penny they make. They are worth more than I pay them. The only thing is that only in rare circumstances ( one of a kind, extraordinarily complex government parts) can I be repaid for their worth. Did I ever tell you guys that my very damn best employee ( I am extraordinarily sexist and refer to them as "my guys") started working for my dad when I was 15? He is now 80 and has worked for this company for 40 years. I wouldn't trade him for 4 20's.

[Phi for All]

I cannot believe you have just said that to syntax.Wether its mutual or not,when i discuss things with you,i respect your views.You come across as someone down to earth,above childish power farts(dont abuse your status as moderator).

How is my response in this instance an abuse of my "power" as a moderator?

It reflects badly on yourself to bring up other threads as a defence for your argument,when you have been guilty of contradicting yourself as well.For instance your stance in saying government should not force any religious bias on its population,at the same time your all for government instructing companies who should/should not be employed.

I don't usually bring up other threads, it is true. I was not using an argument from that thread in this instance, I was using syntax's debate tactic, saying that as long as it is a law, we can't flout that law. Just because I think a separation of Church and State is laudable it doesn't relate well to violating anti-discrimination laws. I admit I was trying to prod syntax a bit for his use of the tactic in the other thread, and it was supposed to be a bit more good-natured than you're making it out to be. I try to balance his use of smiley's by not using any. Perhaps that is my mistake.

TBH syntax shows consistency,which you dont.

Im not defending syntax so much,but i am bringing to your attention,the fact that im dissapointed in you.

As i said regardless of mutual appraisal,i didnt expect such comments from one i respect

Duly noted, and as I respect your opinion as well, I'm sure your disappointment in me will affect my future posts.

[coquina]

Read my posts, please... when it comes to employment law, as far as the US, I know the drill. If you haven't been there, done that, and ended up paying for the damn T-shirt to be made in China for ten cents on the dollar, you ain't got a clue.

 

You guys are arguing with each other, and not a one of you has really got a dog in this fight.

[Phi for All]

Read my posts, please... when it comes to employment law, as far as the US, I know the drill.

I apologize if it seems like I was ignoring your post. I had been working on mine while you were working on yours, and then got sidetracked by another thread.

 

There are current inequalities in job discrimination laws. It is not a perfect system by any means. Add in foreign competition that doesn't have to play by our rules and it really gets messed up.

 

Perhaps, instead of some of us defending current circumstances, why don't those of you who are in favor of discrimination in employment for private businesses show us how it would improve things? Coquina, do you have some ideas on how it would help your business?

[john5746]

Coquina - I find your posts interesting, as I myself am interested in starting a business.

 

I keep thinking, if I own a restaurant, do I have the right to only serve people that I want to? We've been down that road before. If I can't pick and choose my customers based on criteria that has nothing to do with ability to pay, why can I pick and choose employees for the same criteria?

 

I guess the devil is in the details. I sure wouldn't want to be sued if I have 10 white employees and no minorities. I guess with small companies, we can hope that the few that discriminate won't affect the overall job market for a given group.

 

I would say at the very least, a private company can't have it written that they will not hire people based on race, religion, etc. They must be able to support the reason for not hiring fat people for example. If it has an effect on work performance, then it is OK. Of course, they will be able to discriminate anyway, but you can't legislate a perfect society.

[swansont]

You did notice the first 3 words' date=' didn't you?

 

...

 

I further think that the Constitution limits the authority of the federal government[/quote']

 

 

What you think the Constitution says is most decidedly not a matter of opinion. It is a statement of what you think to be true.

 

My post #14 only referred to what the Constitution actually says.

 

 

Your statement was incorrect, as applied to this issue. Accept it and move on.

[coquina]

I apologize if it seems like I was ignoring your post. I had been working on mine while you were working on yours' date=' and then got sidetracked by another thread.

 

There are current inequalities in job discrimination laws. It is not a perfect system by any means. Add in foreign competition that doesn't have to play by our rules and it really gets messed up.

 

Perhaps, instead of some of us defending current circumstances, why don't those of you who are in favor of discrimination in employment for private businesses show us how it would improve things? Coquina, do you have some ideas on how it would help your business?[/quote']

 

I'll think about it and try to reply tonight - I have got a load of work to do today.

[syntax252]

In other threads, you've played the "as long as it's the law, it's not for us to decide" card when it supported your beliefs. What has changed? As long as a business falls under the jurisdiction of federal and state commerce regulations, the public looks to the government to protect their interests.

 

And I still say "as long as that is the law" we will have to live with it.

 

That does not mean that I can't have an opinion of the law and thoughts about how the law came to be.

 

I don't think I indicated that the fact that the law said such and such made it morally right, I think what I said in the "pledge" thread (if indeed that is what you are referring to) was that the issue under discussion would be decided by the SCOTUS and we would have to live with their decision.

 

The same applies in this case, we will have to live with it. We don't have to like it.

[syntax252]

What you think the Constitution says is most decidedly not a matter of opinion. It is a statement of what you think to be true.

 

HUH???

 

So, if I said that I think that intelligence life exists outside the solar system, I would be stateing it as a fact that I had knowledge thereof?