Will unemployment benefits be extended?

[Benvolio]

And since not half a page back you yourself whipped out the black unemployment rate being 14% and pushed it under our nose as something we should all be concerned about, it is now disingenuous of you to turn right around and ask us to say that policies which seek to ensure fair chance to black applicants in the job market is a bad thing.

Besides, Benvolio--- isn't your position that the real pressure and threat to all white American jobs is from immigrants, not from blacks? Which is it?

See # 239 below.

 

[xbuzzerx]

See # 239 below.

In post 239 you suggest that the system works against blacks because if two minority applicants apply and only one is black, the employer can justify not hiring the black by hiring the other minority.

What that analysis (or more accurately, supposition) overlooks is that there's no reason to believe this would not happen without fair hiring guidelines, and more reason to believe that both the minorities would be passed over in favor of the white dude in the suit who quote-unquote "looks more professional." So it's a dishonest nitpick of this system as something that "hurts blacks."

 

[Benvolio]

In post 239 you suggest that the system works against blacks because if two minority applicants apply and only one is black, the employer can justify not hiring the black by hiring the other minority.

What that analysis (or more accurately, supposition) overlooks is that there's no reason to believe this would not happen without fair hiring guidelines, and more reason to believe that both the minorities would be passed over in favor of the white dude in the suit who quote-unquote "looks more professional." So it's a dishonest nitpick of this system as something that "hurts blacks."

Please read the last sentence of 239.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Please read the last sentence of 239.

Your evidence does not persuasively or conclusively lead to a necessary conclusion that the system hurts blacks. In fact, since in every other post you are complaining that this system encourages what you describe as "affirmative action" or "preference against whites", the reasonable conclusion is that the black unemployment rate would be higher without these guidelines-- not that it would be lower.

What this suggests to us is that discrimination is still a fairly powerful unseen hand in the market with regard to hiring-- there is no evidence to believe this system has created higher black unemployment.

 

[Benvolio]

Your evidence does not persuasively or conclusively lead to a necessary conclusion that the system hurts blacks. In fact, since in every other post you are complaining that this system encourages what you describe as "affirmative action" or "preference against whites", the reasonable conclusion is that the black unemployment rate would be higher without these guidelines-- not that it would be lower.

What this suggests to us is that discrimination is still a fairly powerful unseen hand in the market with regard to hiring-- there is no evidence to believe this system has created higher black unemployment.

I have frequently said that the initial protection of blacks was necessary. By extending the anti discrimination protection to all minorities the law provides a justification or even a mandate for discrimination against blacks. If the law had been limited to blacks or race, many more would have benefited.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I have frequently said that the initial protection of blacks was necessary. By extending the anti discrimination protection to all minorities the law provides a justification or even a mandate for discrimination against blacks. If the law had been limited to blacks or race, many more would have benefited.

What you are doing is the equivalent of taking government loans available for minorities to start businesses and claiming it "hurts black businesses because women may use these loans as well." There is absolutely no reason to believe blacks would be better off without such loans simply because minorities other than blacks may also use the program.

 

[Kulindahr]

It is not a system for hiring good employees. It is a system of mandatory racial discrimination in favor of groups who tend to vote democrat. White males tend to vote Republican, while minorities and to a lessor extent, women vote democrat. So, the democrats have enacted a panoply of laws mandating discrimination in favor of the democrat constituents and against White males. The most extreme was the new banking law mandating the hiring of minorities and women "to the maximum extent possible". They must, thus, avoid hiring white males to the maximum extent possible.

Where in the name of all that's rational do you get that raving rant out of this:

The pre-employment interview is an integral part of the testing process. In larger organizations, the interviewer is not the same person who makes the selection. In that way, the results of the interview are not biased by personal affinities or other common fallacies associated with personal appeal or preference. All pre-employment interviews should be based upon validated questions that have been pre-established and possible answers assigned a score. In some cases an answer may not have been anticipated; however, there are mechanisms to assign a relative score to such answers after the response is collected. Each recruit should be asked the same set of questions under the same technique of interview. In the end, the employer is left with a reasonable comparison of the interview results from all candidates that can then be compiled to assist in the selection process. If the objective is to hire the person best qualified to fill a position, then blind data is an excellent way to make a comparison.

I understand that most employers take liberties during job interviews by asking inappropriate questions and allowing personal bias to influence decisions. Nonetheless, it is true that the more a firm’s methodology resembles a truly fair approach, the less likely that firm will face a challenge or related litigation. Even if a firm doesn’t wish to expend extra time and resources to ensure and document compliance with the law – the more the employer knows about proper or recommended methods, the less likely he/she is to make a mistake. It’s really not that difficult to be fair.

?

 

[Kulindahr]

I have frequently said that the initial protection of blacks was necessary. By extending the anti discrimination protection to all minorities the law provides a justification or even a mandate for discrimination against blacks. If the law had been limited to blacks or race, many more would have benefited.

Once more you show you're not really a lawyer -- a lawyer would know that you can't play off one minority against another without incurring penalties. The only real way to game the system is if you have one employee who fills several minority "slots", as in a ranger who used to work at a nearby state park -- she was female, native American, and lesbian, so she filled three slots by herself.