Here come the quotas..

AllieBaba

Rookie
Oct 2, 2007
33,778
3,927
0
Next we'll get the death panels.

"What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America's financial industry.

In addition to this bill's well-publicized plans to establish over a dozen new financial regulatory offices, Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion. This has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.

The Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau...all would get their own Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

Each office would have its own director and staff to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors.

What would be the mission of this new corps of Federal monitors? The Dodd-Frank bill sets it forth succinctly and simply - all too simply. The mission, it says, is to assure "to the maximum extent possible the fair inclusion" of women and minorities, individually and through businesses they own, in the activities of the agencies, including contracting.

How to define "fair" has bedeviled government administrators, university admissions officers, private employers, union shop stewards and all other supervisors since time immemorial - or at least since Congress first undertook to prohibit discrimination in employment.

Sometimes, "fair" has been defined in relation to population numbers, for example, by the U.S. Department of Education in its enforcement of Title IX, passed in 1972 as an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which pertains to varsity athletic opportunities for male and female undergraduates.

Title IX was intended to protect against sex discrimination, but not to allow the use of quotas. Indeed, it specifically prohibited arbitrary leveling of student numbers by gender.

Yet in 1997 the courts essentially sided with an interpretation of the law promulgated by the Department of Education that left universities with no choice but to adopt a proportionality standard for college sports if they wished to avoid lawsuits. If 55% of the students are female, then 55% of the varsity sports slots have to go to women. Financial institutions might have to meet a similar proportionality standard.

Lest there be any narrow interpretation of Congress's intent, either by agencies or eventually by the courts, the bill specifies that the "fair" employment test shall apply to "financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services." That last would appear to rope in law firms working for financial entities.

Contracts are defined expansively as "all contracts for business and activities of an agency, at all levels, including contracts for the issuance or guarantee of any debt, equity, or security, the sale of assets, the management of the assets of the agency, the making of equity investments by the agency, and the implementation by the agency of programs to address economic recovery."

This latest attempt by Congress to dictate what "fair" employment means is likely to encourage administrators and managers, in government and in the private sector, to hire women and minorities for the sake of appearances, even if some new hires are less qualified than other applicants. The result is likely to be redundant hiring and a wasteful expansion of payroll overhead.

If the director decides that a contractor has not made a good-faith effort to include women and minorities in its workforce, he is required to contact the agency administrator and recommend that the contractor be terminated."

RealClearMarkets - Racial, Gender Quotas in the Financial Bill?
 
Exactly how many affirmative action departments do we need to have in government and the private sector? Nobody should ever be given a job because of what gender or race they are. Legalizing discrimination against certain people isn't going to promote equality, it only stirs the flames more. We can't achieve a society free of discrimination if the government openly partakes in it. I don't know why this is so difficult for some of our elected "representatives" to understand.

If this bill becomes law, this provision should be challenged and struck down as unconstitutional.
 
Government mandated racism and discrimination. Did you expect any less from the Obama administration? Of course not. Remember, Obama's self-proclaimed hero, FDR, built internment camps and rounded up 2 entire races of US citizens for indefinite detention with no probable cause of any criminal action.

YAY HOPEY CHANGEY!
 
Exactly how many affirmative action departments do we need to have in government and the private sector? Nobody should ever be given a job because of what gender or race they are. Legalizing discrimination against certain people isn't going to promote equality, it only stirs the flames more. We can't achieve a society free of discrimination if the government openly partakes in it. I don't know why this is so difficult for some of our elected "representatives" to understand.

If this bill becomes law, this provision should be challenged and struck down as unconstitutional.
It's not just some of our representatives but many people still believe that open discrimination is somehow going to get rid of discrimination. It makes no sense. What these people do not realize is that the more affirmative action that there is the more racism is encouraged. Such laws bring attention to the fact that people are different races and require hiring based on race where that prejudice would normally be fading away. You are not born a bigot, you are taught to be one and these laws are one such avenue to learning bigotry.
 
...dumbs down the action. In the construction industries, affirmative action assures us that inept and unaccomplished contractors will be overpaid to provide substandard performance of work which may have been ineptly designed by affirmative action fed architectural firms, all suckling the federal tit, voting for and contributing to the campaign funds of those crooks in office that procreate the 'system' of 'fairness' to all whose work would be related to the contracting business.

It has led to cost overruns, substandard construction and endangerment of the public. That's all opinion, don't you see. I can't prove it to you. I've just watched it happen time after time after time.

Affirmative Action is just another way for liberals to take from those that have and give to those that don't...while creating more government jobs to oversee the corruption and hide the actual costs....and the lawyers love it.
 
i think the op writer of the article should have given support for her contentions of what she thinks is in this bill....

Also, I don't think hiring a woman MEANS they are less qualified than a man.... as all of you above seem to be mouthing off...
 
i think the op writer of the article should have given support for her contentions of what she thinks is in this bill....

Also, I don't think hiring a woman MEANS they are less qualified than a man.... as all of you above seem to be mouthing off...
No, it does not mean that she is definitively less qualified. What the law DOES mean is that if you have 2 candidates and one is less qualified you may have to hire that one ANYWAY because you have a quota to fill. That is plain wrong. Another unintended side effect is that people KNOW that this law exists and when going up for an interview they sometimes believe they were not hired BECAUSE of these types of laws. I have experienced this within my own workplace where a minority woman was hired on and it was ASSUMED she was hired to fill a quota. That is what breeds bigotry and racism. Without that law, that sentiment will not exist or simply factor into the belief that the boss is racist, not that the ENTIRE SYSTEM is. That sentiment grows and is damaging over time. Everyone should be hired based SOLELY on qualifications, sex and race should NEVER be a determining factor.


No, we are not mouthing off, do you have anything constructive here?
 
i think the op writer of the article should have given support for her contentions of what she thinks is in this bill....

Also, I don't think hiring a woman MEANS they are less qualified than a man.... as all of you above seem to be mouthing off...
No, it does not mean that she is definitively less qualified. What the law DOES mean is that if you have 2 candidates and one is less qualified you may have to hire that one ANYWAY because you have a quota to fill. That is plain wrong. Another unintended side effect is that people KNOW that this law exists and when going up for an interview they sometimes believe they were not hired BECAUSE of these types of laws. I have experienced this within my own workplace where a minority woman was hired on and it was ASSUMED she was hired to fill a quota. That is what breeds bigotry and racism. Without that law, that sentiment will not exist or simply factor into the belief that the boss is racist, not that the ENTIRE SYSTEM is. That sentiment grows and is damaging over time. Everyone should be hired based SOLELY on qualifications, sex and race should NEVER be a determining factor.


No, we are not mouthing off, do you have anything constructive here?

the laws of Equal OPPORTUNITY employment, only state that if you have EQUALLY QUALIFIED new hires, consideration should be given to the woman or minority....it does not force you to hire someone not as qualified?

where do you get this from?
 
Out of his ass, just as all these people do.

Problem is, that they want a free ride. If someone of a differant race or sex is hired instead of them, they immediatly blame affirmative action. For, in their minds, there is no way a minority or women could actually be better qualified than they are.
 
Ah yes, death panels. Allie, instead of this constant shit, why don't you have a look at the real death panels that are ran by the present Health Insurance Companies?
 
i think the op writer of the article should have given support for her contentions of what she thinks is in this bill....

Also, I don't think hiring a woman MEANS they are less qualified than a man.... as all of you above seem to be mouthing off...
No, it does not mean that she is definitively less qualified. What the law DOES mean is that if you have 2 candidates and one is less qualified you may have to hire that one ANYWAY because you have a quota to fill. That is plain wrong. Another unintended side effect is that people KNOW that this law exists and when going up for an interview they sometimes believe they were not hired BECAUSE of these types of laws. I have experienced this within my own workplace where a minority woman was hired on and it was ASSUMED she was hired to fill a quota. That is what breeds bigotry and racism. Without that law, that sentiment will not exist or simply factor into the belief that the boss is racist, not that the ENTIRE SYSTEM is. That sentiment grows and is damaging over time. Everyone should be hired based SOLELY on qualifications, sex and race should NEVER be a determining factor.


No, we are not mouthing off, do you have anything constructive here?

the laws of Equal OPPORTUNITY employment, only state that if you have EQUALLY QUALIFIED new hires, consideration should be given to the woman or minority....it does not force you to hire someone not as qualified?

where do you get this from?

I will tell you from personal experience where I have first hand knowledge of this.

Quotas do ingnore the qualified applicate in favor of how many minorities to hire!!!!

26 years ago I interviewed and took 6 hours of tests for a line technitions job with Bell South Telephone CO.

I placed in the top 4% of test applicants in test scores.

The company hired 8.3% of all the applicants that made it to the testing phase.

I was not hired, why? because they had a Quota to hire Blacks and Women.

I know this for a fact because my Uncle worked for the Company in Human Resources, he could get me hired even though I scored higher than so many of the ones hired. They hired over 75 people that week.

So Quota's are Racist and Force Companies to hire less qualified People!!!!!!

.
 
i think the op writer of the article should have given support for her contentions of what she thinks is in this bill....

Also, I don't think hiring a woman MEANS they are less qualified than a man.... as all of you above seem to be mouthing off...

No, but as every individual with at least a third grade education understands, if you are going to hire people solely on the basis of their gender or race, ignoring all other factors, then you are going to end up with some or many people less qualified than those who don't fall into the favored victim group of the day. It's not hard to understand.
 
i think the op writer of the article should have given support for her contentions of what she thinks is in this bill....

Also, I don't think hiring a woman MEANS they are less qualified than a man.... as all of you above seem to be mouthing off...
No, it does not mean that she is definitively less qualified. What the law DOES mean is that if you have 2 candidates and one is less qualified you may have to hire that one ANYWAY because you have a quota to fill. That is plain wrong. Another unintended side effect is that people KNOW that this law exists and when going up for an interview they sometimes believe they were not hired BECAUSE of these types of laws. I have experienced this within my own workplace where a minority woman was hired on and it was ASSUMED she was hired to fill a quota. That is what breeds bigotry and racism. Without that law, that sentiment will not exist or simply factor into the belief that the boss is racist, not that the ENTIRE SYSTEM is. That sentiment grows and is damaging over time. Everyone should be hired based SOLELY on qualifications, sex and race should NEVER be a determining factor.


No, we are not mouthing off, do you have anything constructive here?

the laws of Equal OPPORTUNITY employment, only state that if you have EQUALLY QUALIFIED new hires, consideration should be given to the woman or minority....it does not force you to hire someone not as qualified?

where do you get this from?

What the law says and how employers interpret the law may very well be two different things, but say for instance that employers understand that they will lose federal contracts for not having a "proper mix of sex/race" in their employ, they are going to take steps to insure they do not lose that contract and that means that they may very well choose a less qualified person in order to protect their contract.

Congress may not (although that is skeptical) intend for this law to breed quotas, but that is in fact what it accomplishes.

Immie
 
No, it does not mean that she is definitively less qualified. What the law DOES mean is that if you have 2 candidates and one is less qualified you may have to hire that one ANYWAY because you have a quota to fill. That is plain wrong. Another unintended side effect is that people KNOW that this law exists and when going up for an interview they sometimes believe they were not hired BECAUSE of these types of laws. I have experienced this within my own workplace where a minority woman was hired on and it was ASSUMED she was hired to fill a quota. That is what breeds bigotry and racism. Without that law, that sentiment will not exist or simply factor into the belief that the boss is racist, not that the ENTIRE SYSTEM is. That sentiment grows and is damaging over time. Everyone should be hired based SOLELY on qualifications, sex and race should NEVER be a determining factor.


No, we are not mouthing off, do you have anything constructive here?

the laws of Equal OPPORTUNITY employment, only state that if you have EQUALLY QUALIFIED new hires, consideration should be given to the woman or minority....it does not force you to hire someone not as qualified?

where do you get this from?

What the law says and how employers interpret the law may very well be two different things, but say for instance that employers understand that they will lose federal contracts for not having a "proper mix of sex/race" in their employ, they are going to take steps to insure they do not lose that contract and that means that they may very well choose a less qualified person in order to protect their contract.

Congress may not (although that is skeptical) intend for this law to breed quotas, but that is in fact what it accomplishes.

Immie

do you think companies getting tax payer's money, should be allowed to only have white males working for them or only black males working for them because that is what THEY WANT, EVEN if there are females that are as qualified or even more qualified than the ''boys club of workers'' they have hired?

I think us women pay taxes as well, and if tax payer's money is being used to give companies business and a profit, then they SHOULD have a representation of our qualified citizenry....and an equal opportunity for all citizens to benefit from OUR MONEY.....

soooo, especially, and maybe solely on gvt funded projects using all of us tax payer's money, I think there should be an equal opportunity for qualified employees to benefit.
 
the laws of Equal OPPORTUNITY employment, only state that if you have EQUALLY QUALIFIED new hires, consideration should be given to the woman or minority....it does not force you to hire someone not as qualified?

where do you get this from?

What the law says and how employers interpret the law may very well be two different things, but say for instance that employers understand that they will lose federal contracts for not having a "proper mix of sex/race" in their employ, they are going to take steps to insure they do not lose that contract and that means that they may very well choose a less qualified person in order to protect their contract.

Congress may not (although that is skeptical) intend for this law to breed quotas, but that is in fact what it accomplishes.

Immie

do you think companies getting tax payer's money, should be allowed to only have white males working for them or only black males working for them because that is what THEY WANT, EVEN if there are females that are as qualified or even more qualified than the ''boys club of workers'' they have hired?

I think us women pay taxes as well, and if tax payer's money is being used to give companies business and a profit, then they SHOULD have a representation of our qualified citizenry....and an equal opportunity for all citizens to benefit from OUR MONEY.....

soooo, especially, and maybe solely on gvt funded projects using all of us tax payer's money, I think there should be an equal opportunity for qualified employees to benefit.

Absolultey and business that receives funds from the government should be subject to t heir rules, should have to follow their rules. Any that don't , shouldn't. If I own my own business and choose to only hire 24 y/o statuesque blond women then that is MY business. Where does the government get off putting ANY restrictions on me?
 
i think the op writer of the article should have given support for her contentions of what she thinks is in this bill....

Also, I don't think hiring a woman MEANS they are less qualified than a man.... as all of you above seem to be mouthing off...
No, it does not mean that she is definitively less qualified. What the law DOES mean is that if you have 2 candidates and one is less qualified you may have to hire that one ANYWAY because you have a quota to fill. That is plain wrong. Another unintended side effect is that people KNOW that this law exists and when going up for an interview they sometimes believe they were not hired BECAUSE of these types of laws. I have experienced this within my own workplace where a minority woman was hired on and it was ASSUMED she was hired to fill a quota. That is what breeds bigotry and racism. Without that law, that sentiment will not exist or simply factor into the belief that the boss is racist, not that the ENTIRE SYSTEM is. That sentiment grows and is damaging over time. Everyone should be hired based SOLELY on qualifications, sex and race should NEVER be a determining factor.


No, we are not mouthing off, do you have anything constructive here?

the laws of Equal OPPORTUNITY employment, only state that if you have EQUALLY QUALIFIED new hires, consideration should be given to the woman or minority....it does not force you to hire someone not as qualified?

where do you get this from?

You get POINTS for different things, Care. Depending how many points one gets for being a certain color or sex, if you receive fewer points on your work qualifications, but you get points for your race, you can (and this happens all the time) trump a more qualified candidate.

Look at reservation employees sometime.
 
the laws of Equal OPPORTUNITY employment, only state that if you have EQUALLY QUALIFIED new hires, consideration should be given to the woman or minority....it does not force you to hire someone not as qualified?

where do you get this from?

What the law says and how employers interpret the law may very well be two different things, but say for instance that employers understand that they will lose federal contracts for not having a "proper mix of sex/race" in their employ, they are going to take steps to insure they do not lose that contract and that means that they may very well choose a less qualified person in order to protect their contract.

Congress may not (although that is skeptical) intend for this law to breed quotas, but that is in fact what it accomplishes.

Immie

do you think companies getting tax payer's money, should be allowed to only have white males working for them or only black males working for them because that is what THEY WANT, EVEN if there are females that are as qualified or even more qualified than the ''boys club of workers'' they have hired?

I think us women pay taxes as well, and if tax payer's money is being used to give companies business and a profit, then they SHOULD have a representation of our qualified citizenry....and an equal opportunity for all citizens to benefit from OUR MONEY.....

soooo, especially, and maybe solely on gvt funded projects using all of us tax payer's money, I think there should be an equal opportunity for qualified employees to benefit.

Then you are for quotas.

Why don't you just come out and admit that? Why doesn't the Obama Administration come out and admit that they are enforcing quotas?

Do I think companies should hire only white males? No, I think they are foolish if they do. However, I do not like the idea that the government requires quotas thus possibly forcing business to hire less qualified individuals to do a job.

Immie
 
i think the op writer of the article should have given support for her contentions of what she thinks is in this bill....

Also, I don't think hiring a woman MEANS they are less qualified than a man.... as all of you above seem to be mouthing off...

No, but as every individual with at least a third grade education understands, if you are going to hire people solely on the basis of their gender or race, ignoring all other factors, then you are going to end up with some or many people less qualified than those who don't fall into the favored victim group of the day. It's not hard to understand.

Not only that but the policy is degrading and detrimental to those who ARE qualified. For most of my life I have held jobs that were typically held by men. And because I married a man who got transferred a lot, I've had to start over at the bottom in a lot of different places and work my way back up.

Every now and then I had to be twice as good as the guys to prove I deserved my position; otherwise I was seen as the 'token woman' that they HAD to hire because of affirmative action. And that is an infuriatingly frustrating position to be in. Many highly intelligent and highly qualified black people found themselves in that boat.

And when women or minorities were actually hired BECAUSE they were women or minorities and took positions that otherwise would have gone to a more qualified white guy, they were rightfully resented which makes it even more difficult to earn your place in the world.

You can't eliminate racism or sexism or any other 'ism' by keeping it up there front and center and an issue in everybody's mind. We've won that battle. Let's end the war now and become a society that allows people to be people rather than only different genders, races, ethnicities, or whatever.
 
What the law says and how employers interpret the law may very well be two different things, but say for instance that employers understand that they will lose federal contracts for not having a "proper mix of sex/race" in their employ, they are going to take steps to insure they do not lose that contract and that means that they may very well choose a less qualified person in order to protect their contract.

Congress may not (although that is skeptical) intend for this law to breed quotas, but that is in fact what it accomplishes.

Immie

do you think companies getting tax payer's money, should be allowed to only have white males working for them or only black males working for them because that is what THEY WANT, EVEN if there are females that are as qualified or even more qualified than the ''boys club of workers'' they have hired?

I think us women pay taxes as well, and if tax payer's money is being used to give companies business and a profit, then they SHOULD have a representation of our qualified citizenry....and an equal opportunity for all citizens to benefit from OUR MONEY.....

soooo, especially, and maybe solely on gvt funded projects using all of us tax payer's money, I think there should be an equal opportunity for qualified employees to benefit.

Then you are for quotas.

Why don't you just come out and admit that? Why doesn't the Obama Administration come out and admit that they are enforcing quotas?

Do I think companies should hire only white males? No, I think they are foolish if they do. However, I do not like the idea that the government requires quotas thus possibly forcing business to hire less qualified individuals to do a job.

Immie

I am not talking about businesses....I am talking about specific businesses that suck off of the GVT tit.....that get all of us tax payer's money....and only where male/female workers are equally qualified....as example, i wouldn't expect businesses supplying security in iraq to have more females working the front line....just to meet some balance....
 

Forum List

Back
Top