is affirmative action worth it?

[SuperDemocrat]

I happen to work in a place that pushes diversity and I am sure they utilize all the tax breaks that they get every time they hire a non-whites. Over the years I have made several observations about this practice. The first is that they hire unqualified persons to do the work just so they can get their quota. This hurts the overall productivity of everyone and begins to devalue the worth of the labor itself. The result is slightly depressed wages since they view the labor as cheap labor. My second observation is that the people doing the hiring are pretty f'n racist themselves which means that nonwhites may be able to get into entry level positions but they can't seem to advance beyond that. In fact, the entire upper staff is mostly white. I guess minorities are only good at back breaking labor. My third observation is that it does nothing to correct the already existing prejudice attitudes in place since jobs handed to these people are seen as hand me out jobs as in "isn't it nice whity is giving you a job? Now be thankful!". You may wonder who I work for. I work for the Democratic Party. Thank you!

 

[Mr. H.]

Yes, AA is worth it. It suppresses minorities and the middle class and guarantees votes for the Democrat party.

 

[Moonglow]

AA only works for teachers...

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Yes, AA is worth it. It suppresses minorities and the middle class and guarantees votes for the Democrat party.

What minority dares to vote for a republican when they know they are against it and could revoke it? What republican actually voted for this thinking minorities will put them in office because of it?

 

[Mr. H.]

Yes, AA is worth it. It suppresses minorities and the middle class and guarantees votes for the Democrat party.

What minority dares to vote for a republican when they know they are against it and could revoke it? What republican actually voted for this thinking minorities will put them in office because of it?

Minorities don't vote for Republicans because Republicans would put them to work.

And they wouldn't stand for that, would they?

 

[Pogo]

Yes, AA is worth it. It suppresses minorities and the middle class and guarantees votes for the Democrat party.

What minority dares to vote for a republican when they know they are against it and could revoke it? What republican actually voted for this thinking minorities will put them in office because of it?

Nixon got it started, so ... go figure.

 

[ScienceRocks]

No,

We replace our best with far less based on race. How isn't that racist?

 

[JQPublic1]

You may wonder who I work for. I work for the Democratic Party. Thank you!

Whew! You had me worried there for a moment. I thought you were gong to say you worked for the Democrat party.
It is confusing at times trying to figure the difference between the Democratic party and the Democrat Party.

 

[JQPublic1]

Yes, AA is worth it. It suppresses minorities and the middle class and guarantees votes for the Democrat party.

What minority dares to vote for a republican when they know they are against it and could revoke it? What republican actually voted for this thinking minorities will put them in office because of it?

Minorities don't vote for Republicans because Republicans would put them to work.

And they wouldn't stand for that, would they?

Do you know how stupid you sound? AA was designed to put Blacks and White women to work. Obviously it worked as only 12% of the Black population is on welfare. 88% are NOT! THE VAST majority of Blacks eligible to work ARE working, stupid!

 

[Mr. H.]

Yes, AA is worth it. It suppresses minorities and the middle class and guarantees votes for the Democrat party.

What minority dares to vote for a republican when they know they are against it and could revoke it? What republican actually voted for this thinking minorities will put them in office because of it?

Minorities don't vote for Republicans because Republicans would put them to work.

And they wouldn't stand for that, would they?

Do you know how stupid you sound? AA was designed to put Blacks and White women to work. Obviously it worked as only 12% of the Black population is on welfare. 88% are NOT! THE VAST majority of Blacks eligible to work ARE working, stupid!

Is your middle name Queer?

Minorities don't vote Republican because it would dry up the free shit.

 

[JQPublic1]

Yes, AA is worth it. It suppresses minorities and the middle class and guarantees votes for the Democrat party.

What minority dares to vote for a republican when they know they are against it and could revoke it? What republican actually voted for this thinking minorities will put them in office because of it?

Minorities don't vote for Republicans because Republicans would put them to work.

And they wouldn't stand for that, would they?

Do you know how stupid you sound? AA was designed to put Blacks and White women to work. Obviously it worked as only 12% of the Black population is on welfare. 88% are NOT! THE VAST majority of Blacks eligible to work ARE working, stupid!

Is your middle name Queer?

Minorities don't vote Republican because it would dry up the free shit.

Is the H in your name short for HOMO?

You don't even know what "free shit" is. You are just talking out of your arse with no proof. If there is some free shit " to be given away, you can bet your pink ass that CAW Cajuns will get their share!

 

[Pogo]

No,

We replace our best with far less based on race. How isn't that racist?

I've been passed over by AA for at least two jobs. Neither of those were based on race.

 

[Pogo]

You may wonder who I work for. I work for the Democratic Party. Thank you!

Whew! You had me worried there for a moment. I thought you were gong to say you worked for the Democrat party.
It is confusing at times trying to figure the difference between the Democratic party and the Democrat Party.

I can help.
A poster using the term "Democratic Party" is making a serious point.
A poster using "Democrat [sic] Party" is regurgitating what he just heard Lush Rimjob say (Limblob apparently doesn't grok the distinction between noun and adjective).

It's a dead giveaway as to the source. And as such, kind of a public service.

 

[Pogo]

You may wonder who I work for. I work for the Democratic Party. Thank you!

Whew! You had me worried there for a moment. I thought you were gong to say you worked for the Democrat party.
It is confusing at times trying to figure the difference between the Democratic party and the Democrat Party.

I can help.
A poster using the term "Democratic Party" is making a serious point.
A poster using "Democrat [sic] Party" is regurgitating what he just heard Lush Rimjob say (Limblob apparently doesn't grok the distinction between noun and adjective).

It's a dead giveaway as to the source. And as such, kind of a public service.

Well, no..Rush has no influence on what I say or do. I was using the correct terminology "Democrat Party" before he started to saturate the airwaves. If anything, the fat slob probably read one of my posts and got educated

There's no such thing as a "Democrat Party". Never has been. And to save time we should probably note that there's no such thing as a "Repub Party" either.

The jury's still out on whether the "Commun Party", "Social Party", "Constit Party" or "Gr Party" ever existed but no evidence has shown up yet.

 

[JQPublic1]

You may wonder who I work for. I work for the Democratic Party. Thank you!

Whew! You had me worried there for a moment. I thought you were gong to say you worked for the Democrat party.
It is confusing at times trying to figure the difference between the Democratic party and the Democrat Party.

I can help.
A poster using the term "Democratic Party" is making a serious point.
A poster using "Democrat [sic] Party" is regurgitating what he just heard Lush Rimjob say (Limblob apparently doesn't grok the distinction between noun and adjective).

It's a dead giveaway as to the source. And as such, kind of a public service.

Well, no..Rush has no influence on what I say or do. I was using the correct terminology "Democrat Party" before he started to saturate the airwaves. If anything, the fat slob probably read one of my posts and got educated

There's no such thing as a "Democrat Party". Never has been. And to save time we should probably note that there's no such thing as a "Repub Party" either.

The jury's still out on whether the "Commun Party", "Social Party", "Constit Party" or "Gr Party" ever existed but no evidence has shown up yet.

OMG! You' re right. Some one has finally GOT me! OHHHHH,,,the SHAMMMMMME

 

[bendog]

No,

We replace our best with far less based on race. How isn't that racist?

I've been passed over by AA for at least two jobs. Neither of those were based on race.

yeah, that's the problem with the OP. It doesn't define what specific actions constitute AA, in asking whether its worth it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I happen to work in a place that pushes diversity and I am sure they utilize all the tax breaks that they get every time they hire a non-whites. Over the years I have made several observations about this practice. The first is that they hire unqualified persons to do the work just so they can get their quota. This hurts the overall productivity of everyone and begins to devalue the worth of the labor itself. The result is slightly depressed wages since they view the labor as cheap labor. My second observation is that the people doing the hiring are pretty f'n racist themselves which means that nonwhites may be able to get into entry level positions but they can't seem to advance beyond that. In fact, the entire upper staff is mostly white. I guess minorities are only good at back breaking labor. My third observation is that it does nothing to correct the already existing prejudice attitudes in place since jobs handed to these people are seen as hand me out jobs as in "isn't it nice whity is giving you a job? Now be thankful!". You may wonder who I work for. I work for the Democratic Party. Thank you!

So you work at the post office or the DMV?

 

[Flopper]

I happen to work in a place that pushes diversity and I am sure they utilize all the tax breaks that they get every time they hire a non-whites. Over the years I have made several observations about this practice. The first is that they hire unqualified persons to do the work just so they can get their quota. This hurts the overall productivity of everyone and begins to devalue the worth of the labor itself. The result is slightly depressed wages since they view the labor as cheap labor. My second observation is that the people doing the hiring are pretty f'n racist themselves which means that nonwhites may be able to get into entry level positions but they can't seem to advance beyond that. In fact, the entire upper staff is mostly white. I guess minorities are only good at back breaking labor. My third observation is that it does nothing to correct the already existing prejudice attitudes in place since jobs handed to these people are seen as hand me out jobs as in "isn't it nice whity is giving you a job? Now be thankful!". You may wonder who I work for. I work for the Democratic Party. Thank you!

I think you're mixing up a couple of related issues. You can not discriminate based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, citizenship status, or disability. You must give "equal employment opportunity" to all individuals applying for a job. That does not mean you have to hire unqualified employees.

All employers do not have to be affirmative action employers. For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps.

An affirmative action employer must create an affirmative action plan. This plan can cover hiring, promotions, employee training, general rules concerning treatment of protected groups in the work place, and diversity programs in the community. From the employers perspective, it helps prevent huge discrimination legal settlements and lays down a set of rules to be followed in regard to discrimination.

The EEOC issues guidelines to employers to help create Affirmative Action Plans, but it is the employer who decides whether he wants a modest or aggressive plan.

If the affirmative action goal is modest, employers anticipate meeting the goal by dipping into the surplus of qualified minorities, which in turn raises the probability of a qualified minority being hired, thereby increasing the incentive for minority workers to become qualified and further narrowing the skill gap.

If, the affirmative action goal is highly ambitious, then employers will perceive a shortage of qualified minorities relative to the numbers needed to be in compliance with their regulations, and so they will be inclined to hire some who are unqualified, thereby lowering the minority incentives to invest in skills. In addition, it will create employee relations problems with existing better qualified employers. Thus the plans need to be carefully constructed so the employer is not being forced by his own regualtions to hire unqualified employees.

Although affirmative action requirements for government contractors was originated by government, almost all medium to large employers have created such plans to avoid costly discrimination lawsuits, labor union disputes, and employee grievances. You can change the law but the only way to do away with affirmative action in businesses is to do away with the civil rights laws and that's pretty unlikely.