1srelluc
Diamond Member
LOL.....I'd damn sure round file a application with his ugly mug attached to it. 

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is no proof why he wants a headshot but it seems just for generally senior posts who he has to deal with...
Not a bad idea knowing who you are working with or potentially work with...
You are attributing your own racism to the Mayor.
There is no evidence how the photo's are used, other than for inclusion in their personnel file.
Just slip on a rainbow tutu and toss glitter in the air and you'll get the job...
Proving that you are who you say you are for voting purposes is not remotely similar to proving your skin color so they can decide if they want to hire you or not.Dang.... you need to show a photo in order to vote. Why not to get a job?
Yawl set the ID standard.
Live with it.
They don't have a personnel file before they're hired, dipshit. He wants the picture BEFORE he makes the hiring decision.
Must I point out how you're wrong again. BY law they are required to create a personnel file.
What are the federal record retention guidelines for applications and resumes of candidates we do not select?
Major federal laws addressing the retention of employment records and, specifically, hiring records, include Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Employers covered under any or all of these laws must retain hiring records for each position for at least one year from the date of the hiring decision (i.e., the date the position was filled). Hiring records include, but are not limited to, all applications and resumes considered for the position, selection testing (employment tests, drug tests) and investigations (reference checks, background or credit checks).
Why do you suppose (your own prejudice in action) that's the purpose they'll be used for?Proving that you are who you say you are for voting purposes is not remotely similar to proving your skin color so they can decide if they want to hire you or not.
Do you actually not see the distinction?
All I can see is including a photograph in the personnel file, you claim the people don't have.Once again, why request a picture BEFORE the hiring decision is made?
I'll bet you got it wrong. We do not know which ethnicity he is seeking to help his administration. And I will bet that (he) has incurred some fake identification problems upon interviews. Imagine what that is like for the workers processing the interviews.Dang.... you need to show a photo in order to vote. Why not to get a job?
Yawl set the ID standard.
Live with it.
Adams said directly that his reason was so that he could hire based on race. It's in the article you didn't read from the OP.Why do you suppose (your own prejudice in action) that's the purpose they'll be used for?
I can only see inclusion in the personnel file.
that might be true except for the fact he says its for a racist reason,,There is no proof why he wants a headshot but it seems just for generally senior posts who he has to deal with...
Not a bad idea knowing who you are working with or potentially work with...
This hearkens back to the DemoKKKrats' heyday, when the Klan handled their PR, and the color chart was the only hiring tool they needed.
More from the New York Post:
so in light of a blatant racist act you try and change the subject,,Dang.... you need to show a photo in order to vote. Why not to get a job?
Yawl set the ID standard.
Live with it.
Actually it works both ways. Without a photo we have no way of knowing the person making the hiring decision knew the persons ethnicity. With a photograph (part of the hiring personnel records) a review of hiring discrimination would have prima facia evidence of any sort of bias.I'll bet you got it wrong - we do not know which ethnicity he is seeking to help his administration.
I don't know... maybe because the article (which you should read) said so:Why do you suppose (your own prejudice in action) that's the purpose they'll be used for?
I can only see inclusion in the personnel file.
If it's anti-white it's not discrimination. Whites are not recognized as people by the Reich.I may be living in the past here....
Back when I had employees the HR outfit I used advised that it was a federal violation to ask for a photo.
But, of course, if that's still law.....well, laws don't apply to liberals.
Adams said directly that his reason was so that he could hire based on race. It's in the article you didn't read from the OP.
Lawsuits should follow, especially if one is very qualified.
You are becoming like Canada where our Security Industrial Complex decides who is "worthy" or not. In your case it's politicians.
Take a look at our economy, healthcare system, Old Age Homes etc. We are reverting back to the pioneer days.