Michigan, Workers must not have a choice! Vote Union

[SgtSpiderMan]

Umm really? You're the one demanding we show where Affirmative action is a law.... You're the one demanding we show how an executive order holds water. Face it Bucky, you called it, I brought it, and you're still holding on to your CNN/Liberal media attitude.......

I'm done here. You're not intelligent enough for me to continue to waste time on.... Bye bye Sarge...

You're wasting your own time because you didn't actually read what I wrote, and you don't understand what affirmative action is.

Affirmative Action was an executive order that dealt only with hiring within the government, not PRIVATE businesses.

So as you run away hurling personal attacks, just remember you're the one who couldn't back up your incorrect claim.

 

[Wyldfire]

You're wasting your own time because you didn't actually read what I wrote, and you don't understand what affirmative action is.

Affirmative Action was an executive order that dealt only with hiring within the government, not PRIVATE businesses.

So as you run away hurling personal attacks, just remember you're the one who couldn't back up your incorrect claim.

Last time I'll get in this.

Okay, executive orders are for government agencies, but, and a huge fucking drive a freight train through it but, it is something that the private sector takes to heart. If the Government does it under presidential order then the private sector tends to follow suit. It's how business works. Really. Truely.

Not running away, just not wasting anymore time with you.

 

[Wyldfire]

Honestly, I have to say, I think Sarge is being obtuse just to incite reaction. Or he has no basis in Business or how Business works.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Last time I'll get in this.

Okay, executive orders are for government agencies, but, and a huge fucking drive a freight train through it but, it is something that the private sector takes to heart. If the Government does it under presidential order then the private sector tends to follow suit. It's how business works. Really. Truely.

Not running away, just not wasting anymore time with you.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was that businesses are FORCED to do this. They're not. If any business adopted Affirmative Action is was 100% voluntary.

 

[PoppingTom]

If the Government does it under presidential order then the private sector tends to follow suit. It's how business works. Really. Truely.

O RLY ?

Yor business is sooo communist.....

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Honestly, I have to say, I think Sarge is being obtuse just to incite reaction. Or he has no basis in Business or how Business works.

You were flat out wrong, but I'm being obtuse?

 

[Wyldfire]

But that wasn't your point. Your point was that businesses are FORCED to do this. They're not. If any business adopted Affirmative Action is was 100% voluntary.

Yeah, like it's voluntary that I don't walk the streets in nothing but underwear everyday. It might not be a law that I can't, but it is a societally accepted policy that I don't. Just because it's not law doesn't make it okay not to follow the Government's lead.

 

[Wyldfire]

O RLY ?

Yor business is sooo communist.....

LOL...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yeah, like it's voluntary that I don't walk the streets in nothing but underwear everyday. It might not be a law that I can't, but it is a societally accepted policy that I don't. Just because it's not law doesn't make it okay not to follow the Government's lead.

You could roam the streets in your underwear. I see people roam the streets in comparable clothing (bathing suits, workout attire) quite frequently, granted I do live in Florida. The real reason you don't is that I imagine that when you leave the house you have a destination in mind and that destination would not allow you to wear that attire. Or, that you don't want the attention that wearing that attire would bring. Either way, it's a voluntary choice you're making, and the government has not set a lead on what one should wear in the street (outside the realm of common decency).

Yes. It is 100% OK not to follow the government's lead.

 

[Wyldfire]

You could roam the streets in your underwear. I see people roam the streets in comparable clothing (bathing suits, workout attire) quite frequently, granted I do live in Florida. The real reason you don't is that I imagine that when you leave the house you have a destination in mind and that destination would not allow you to wear that attire. Or, that you don't want the attention that wearing that attire would bring. Either way, it's a voluntary choice you're making, and the government has not set a lead on what one should wear in the street (outside the realm of common decency).

Yes. It is 100% OK not to follow the government's lead.

Yeah, do that and try to compete for anything with a company that does. Uncle Sam will definately do his best to make sure their boy gets the contract. The Government is a mafia all unto itself. They may not MAKE you do what they say but they will make you uncomfortable to NOT do what they say. It's fact. It's how it all works. Keep moral high ground and see how far you go.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There is no law that prevents any private business in the US from hiring exactly who they want.

If there is please cite it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which clearly prohibits businesses from hiring based on race, religion, etc. This has been broadly interpreted by courts as justifying affirmative action and set-asides and even discrimination against whtes or males.

 

[PoppingTom]

Yeah, do that and try to compete for anything with a company that does. Uncle Sam will definately do his best to make sure their boy gets the contract. The Government is a mafia all unto itself. They may not MAKE you do what they say but they will make you uncomfortable to NOT do what they say. It's fact. It's how it all works. Keep moral high ground and see how far you go.

Oh baby, c'mon.... do you REALLy want to jump that "civilization threads my freedom" train.


You have the right to be anti-social.

We have the right to think about you as a piece of shit.

That's civilization. Fight it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

But that wasn't your point. Your point was that businesses are FORCED to do this. They're not. If any business adopted Affirmative Action is was 100% voluntary.

Does this sound voluntary? http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm

ETA: How about this? https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=38D7&key=7a94317567ac2ab18a9a82fdbe5c0b44

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yeah, like it's voluntary that I don't walk the streets in nothing but underwear everyday. It might not be a law that I can't, but it is a societally accepted policy that I don't. Just because it's not law doesn't make it okay not to follow the Government's lead.

If that is your pic in your AV, you can walk the street in your underwear or wearing nothing at all, and I won't complain.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Does this sound voluntary? http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/hiring/affirmativeact.htm

ETA: How about this? https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=38D7&key=7a94317567ac2ab18a9a82fdbe5c0b44

Yes and yes.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which clearly prohibits businesses from hiring based on race, religion, etc. This has been broadly interpreted by courts as justifying affirmative action and set-asides and even discrimination against whtes or males.

Wait. You mean to tell me that a private business would not hire a clearly more qualified candidate in favor of one who is less qualified?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wait. You mean to tell me that a private business would not hire a clearly more qualified candidate in favor of one who is less qualified?

Yes. Under Affirmative Action and court decisions I cited above, the employer would be required to hire targeted minorities until the goal was reached. After that, they could hire based of abilities, etc.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yes. Under Affirmatove Action and court decesions I cited above, the employer would be required to hire targeted minorities until the goal was reached. After that, they could hire based of abilities, etc.

Sadly a necessary evil.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Yes. Under Affirmatove Action and court decesions I cited above, the employer would be required to hire targeted minorities until the goal was reached. After that, they could hire based of abilities, etc.

So AFTER they hire far less qualified candidates solely because they are racist, homophobic, etc. the courts have come in and said you need to fix the mistake you made.

If they didn't voluntarily hire less qualified candidates based on ignorance and hatred, the courts would not have got involved.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Yes. Under Affirmative Action and court decesions I cited above, the employer would be required to hire targeted minorities until the goal was reached. After that, they could hire based of abilities, etc.

So AFTER they hire far less qualified candidates solely because they are racist, homophobic, etc. the courts have come in and said you need to fix the mistake you made.

If they didn't voluntarily hire less qualified candidates based on ignorance and hatred, the courts would not have got involved.

Whatever the reason, if the work force at a particular conpany was declared by the courts to be racially, etc. unbalanced, they would be required to correct it. Whether the cause was racism or simply a matter of more white applicants, they would have to follow the orders of the court.

I don't believe the federal law includes sexual preference as a factor, but some state laws do.

You realize, I hope, there are certain circumstances that would cause a job applicant to be rejected, such as illiteracy, drug addiction, alcholism, being a high school dropout or a convicted felon, etc. These circumstances do not depend on race or ethnicity, but they are far more prevalent among Hispanic and African-American men.

No, I do not consider affirmative action to be a NECESSARY evil.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No, I do not consider affirmative action to be a NECESSARY evil.

Then don't bitch about the crime rate.

 

[mercury14]

Yes. Under Affirmative Action and court decisions I cited above, the employer would be required to hire targeted minorities until the goal was reached. After that, they could hire based of abilities, etc.

The court decision you're referring to only applies to companies who were charged and found guilty of illegal discrimination in the first place.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Yes. Under Affirmative Action and court decesions I cited above, the employer would be required to hire targeted minorities until the goal was reached. After that, they could hire based of abilities, etc.



Whatever the reason, if the work force at a particular conpany was declared by the courts to be racially, etc. unbalanced, they would be required to correct it. Whether the cause was racism or simply a matter of more white applicants, they would have to follow the orders of the court.

I don't believe the federal law includes sexual preference as a factor, but some state laws do.

You realize, I hope, there are certain circumstances that would cause a job applicant to be rejected, such as illiteracy, drug addiction, alcholism, being a high school dropout or a convicted felon, etc. These circumstances do not depend on race or ethnicity, but they are far more prevalent among Hispanic and African-American men.

No, I do not consider affirmative action to be a NECESSARY evil.

Again, no.

The courts only call you out if you engage in a consistent pattern of employing less qualified candidates in favor of highly qualified candidates because of ethnicity.

Simply having a large white employment base alone will not make the courts get involved with you. There are some areas of the country where there aren't many minorities.

I also think that affirmative action only applies if the candidates were equally qualified.

 

[mercury14]

Again, no.

The courts only call you out if you engage in a consistent pattern of employing less qualified candidates in favor of highly qualified candidates because of ethnicity.

Simply having a large white employment base alone will not make the courts get involved with you. There are some areas of the country where there aren't many minorities.

I also think that affirmative action only applies if the candidates were equally qualified.

He doesn't understand his own links.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I didn't cite any specific court decision. I only cited the DOL on Affirmative Action and a law textbook that describes what judges can do if they believe an employer is discriminating. The latter are strictly decisions made by individual judgres, not juries, and the burden of proof is generally on the employer who has been accused. These are civil matters, not criminl ones, so words such as "guilty" would not apply.

I included these citations strictly to refute a statement made by Sgt. in Post 304.