Phoenix To Recruit Minority Lifeguards Even If They Can’t Swim…

[sigh]

you IGNORE the elephant in the room

um...that's because there is no elephant in the room

is your elephant pink? have you started drinking again?

 

[RjThoughts]

I wonder how many Germans helped settle America?

I wonder how many pockets in America there were where German was the spoken language?

Ditto Jews, ditto Yiddish.

Ditto Acadian, ditto bastardized French.

Local to me, there was a small pocket of German immigrants, where German was spoken in public...but their children HAD to speak English, too. My father-in-law was a grandson of an immigrant.

My mother's grandparents came from Poland, came to the city after first settling in Pittsburgh and Scranton. They came to work at General Electric and American Locomotive. Their children, my grandparents and their siblings, spoke Polish, but only in the house or at church.

Now, we have Hispanic immigrants in the city, the children are bilingual, speaking English in school but Spanish at home and in church.

I see nothing wrong with having bilingual lifeguards, shit we have them here, but they first had to pass BOTH the Red Cross lifesaving course AND the swim test. From my understanding, all those that were recruited passed the lifesaving course, but only half passed the swim test. Those that didn't pass the swim test were asked if they'd like a job in the parks department, as summer help. They wouldn't be lifeguards but they would be close to assist if anything terrible had happened.

 

[Busybody]

um...that's because there is no elephant in the room

is your elephant pink? have you started drinking again?

 

[Busybody]

if they have a cock, they swim with you

enjoy!

 

[Busybody]

There is an elephant in the room

No one is taking about

For obvious reasons

http://traumatalks.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Elephant-in-room-e1287557116235.jpg

"The kids in the pool are all either Hispanic or black or whatever, and every lifeguard is white," she says, "and we don't like that. The kids don't relate; there's language issues."

Is this what we have become?

Language problems? If a NIGGER is drowning and a white kid dives in and swims to them....does the NIGGER expect to be mugged? Does the NIGGER not know what is going on?

If the NIGGER doesn't, LET THE MOFO DROWN!

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's not legal if your bidnizz used gender and race as a hiring criteria though.

So I can come up with whatever disqualifying bullshit I want and still be racist as fuck any nothing will happen to me? HAHAHAHA bullshit, that may fly for passant peats' local store with all of 3 employees. Not in mega corp...they will just drag you to court and force you to hire someone for diversity.

 

[Busybody]

So I can come up with whatever disqualifying bullshit I want and still be racist as fuck any nothing will happen to me? HAHAHAHA bullshit, that may fly for passant peats' local store with all of 3 employees. Not in mega corp...they will just drag you to court and force you to hire someone for diversity.

hell

they even have DIVERSHITTY officers

 

[Boxlicker101]

What law does this? Show me.

As far as I know, the main law that addresses this is the Civil Rights of 1964.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/

However, Affirmative Action would seem to violate this law when it comes to preferential hiring, etc. Unless the aw has been amended, hiring people based on race, religion, gender or national origin is illegal. The way that the law gets flouted is through bureaucratic interference in the ordinary working of commerce and through court decrees. Since bureaucrats and judges are above the law, they can get away with it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I wonder if they'll dumb down the course and make the test easier. That's how affirmative action usually works. The competitive local swimmers, who are mostly white, would probably be better at the job than somebody who just learned to swim a few days earlier. Unfortunately, that's also how affirmative action works - sacrifice competence in an attempt to achieve equality, and never mind that users of the public pools will be in greater danger than they would have been.

That's not what affirmative action is at all. Affirmative action policies seek to preferentially hire qualified minority candidates to increase diversity IF diversity is a problem. So a police department that covers a Latino neighborhood might want to implement an affirmative action policy in case its police force is all white men. When they're sifting through the pile of workable candidates they've interviewed (meaning they're all cops who have passed the tests and successfully completed the interviewing process), they might want to give preference to certain applicants based on race or gender in order to construct a police force that better reflects the population it serves.

Yes, and the way they get more qualified members of the targeted groups is by lowering the qualifications. As for the police department, I think it would be a very good thing for them to hire as many bilingual officers as possible. That would favor Hispanics over Anglo-Saxons, but it would be a legitimate factor in hiring.

 

[cjh]

I wonder whether part of being a lifeguard is preventative as well as responsive? Whether it requires being able to tell kids to not run and to defusing fights as well as swimming and giving CPR?

Now don't get me wrong. I think, in the USA, if you want to swim in a public pool you should score better than Boxlicker on the language part of the SAT. That is a natural fact.

But, I wonder if safety requires more than breaststrokes? And which is more effective for that part if keeping a pool safe: teaching culture or teaching swimming?

 

[coastal-boy]

BTW

Speaking of FACTS

Its NOT

BB!

or

BBII!

its

Jihad, Anquan Jihad

Looks like shit, smells like shit...is shit.

 

[mercury14]

As far as I know, the main law that addresses this is the Civil Rights of 1964.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/

That just says employers can't discriminate. It doesn't mean employers have mandates for racial quotas.

So I can come up with whatever disqualifying bullshit I want and still be racist as fuck any nothing will happen to me? HAHAHAHA bullshit, that may fly for passant peats' local store with all of 3 employees. Not in mega corp...they will just drag you to court and force you to hire someone for diversity.

You didn't specify what you meant by disqualifying bullshit, but if said bullshit is racially discriminatory it could be illegal.

Yes, and the way they get more qualified members of the targeted groups is by lowering the qualifications.

Lowering standards is not an inherent part of affirmative action. You might find some local municipality that decided to change testing criteria for city sewage manager but that's just them making their own personal decision about something.

When female police became a reality in America some places changed the standards on their physical testing of gave concessions to female applicants on upper body strength. But they did so in a way that they kept standards high enough that women still had to possess good physical fitness and strength. And decades later we can conclude that the standards are still perfectly sufficient to do the job.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That just says employers can't discriminate. It doesn't mean employers have mandates for racial quotas.

Employers would not usually discriminate except that, as I said in the part of the post you omitted, courts and the bureaucrats at EEOC order them to do so.

Lowering standards is not an inherent part of affirmative action. You might find some local municipality that decided to change testing criteria for city sewage manager but that's just them making their own personal decision about something.

When female police became a reality in America some places changed the standards on their physical testing of gave concessions to female applicants on upper body strength. But they did so in a way that they kept standards high enough that women still had to possess good physical fitness and strength. And decades later we can conclude that the standards are still perfectly sufficient to do the job.

I still say Affirmative Action means lower standards in order to help more of the target groups qualify. It may not have been the intended result, but it is the one we got. You cited one example, and you can take your pick here of more. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien...16,d.cGE&fp=16e39df54121d4da&biw=1366&bih=564

 

[mercury14]

Employers would not usually discriminate except that, as I said in the part of the post you omitted, courts and the bureaucrats at EEOC order them to do so.

Reverse discrimination through affirmative action is a myth because AA doesn't give preference to any one group. Inherent to the concept of affirmative action is the concept that all groups must be treated equally because in the absence of EEOC policies minorities are treated unequally. You say that employers would not usually discriminate but decades of research say that women and minorities are pervasively discriminated against even when they are just as qualified as white males. More than that, research says that minorities are discriminated against in even getting an interview, much less being hired.

Make sense?

I still say Affirmative Action means lower standards in order to help more of the target groups qualify. It may not have been the intended result, but it is the one we got. You cited one example, and you can take your pick here of more. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclien...16,d.cGE&fp=16e39df54121d4da&biw=1366&bih=564

Standards will not be lowered if a qualified candidate is hired. There's no affirmative action policy that I'm aware of that leads to unqualified people being hired and if one is out there, well that company is stupid.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Reverse discrimination through affirmative action is a myth because AA doesn't give preference to any one group. Inherent to the concept of affirmative action is the concept that all groups must be treated equally because in the absence of EEOC policies minorities are treated unequally. You say that employers would not usually discriminate but decades of research say that women and minorities are pervasively discriminated against even when they are just as qualified as white males. More than that, research says that minorities are discriminated against in even getting an interview, much less being hired.

There aren't quotas and there aren't court orders for quotas.

Standards will not be lowered if a qualified candidate is hired. There's no affirmative action policy that I'm aware of that leads to unqualified people being hired and if one is out there, well that company is stupid.

You know, hiring isn't the only place where AA is enforced. College admissions is another. Are you saying colleges do not or did not discriminate in favor of targeted groups?

What does "qualified" mean? It means the applicant passes a test that shows he or she can meet certain standards. If A barely meets those standards and B easily exceeds those standards, but A is hired because of race or gender, that is discrimination. The best qualified should be the ones hired. As for lowering standards to allow more of the targeted groups to meet them, the people setting the standards would never say it had been done.

My own research, in the 1960's when I was looking for my first job after leaving the Air Force, showed that the kind of entry level clerical job I was seeking was mostly limited to women. That was more discrimination, but it wasn't called that back then.

 

[mercury14]

Affirmative Action means that employers may if they choose, use diversity of background as one element of the hiring process.

For example, imagine a university whose psychology department is entirely made up of white male professors. They want to hire one more and receive a stack of 100 resumes. 10 of them meet their criteria for education and professional experience and are "qualified" as per the university's official criteria.

If the university has a diversity policy it's allowed to have a goal (not quota) of increasing staff diversity to more closely match the student or community population. So what it can do is consider race/gender/class as one of several other factors in picking from the ten qualified candidates. So they might look at a Latina qualified candidate and give her background a bit of weight in the consideration process since they believe it would strengthen their department - perhaps because a big chunk of their students are Hispanic. That doesn't mean they don't necessarily still select a white male professor though.

 

[mercury14]

You know, hiring isn't the only place where AA is enforced. College admissions is another. Are you saying colleges do not or did not discriminate in favor of targeted groups?

AA isn't enforced.

College admissions are the hot topic right now. Many and probably most colleges use diversity as a factor in weighing applicants because they value having a diverse student body. There's no discrimination in favor of targeted groups though because there aren't targeted groups. If a university in Sioux City South Dakota puts a little more weight on an application because the student is an actual Sioux Indian, the community is full of Sioux, and there are hardly any Sioux in the student body, it doesn't mean that whites/blacks/Hispanics/genders are being targeted.

It goes both ways though. When white people apply to Wilberforce (an historically black university) they can give some weight to the diversity the applicant would bring to the college.

What does "qualified" mean? It means the applicant passes a test that shows he or she can meet certain standards. If A barely meets those standards and B easily exceeds those standards, but A is hired because of race or gender, that is discrimination. The best qualified should be the ones hired. As for lowering standards to allow more of the targeted groups to meet them, the people setting the standards would never say it had been done.

Qualified means whatever the employer decides. Maybe it's a test score, maybe it's a type of degree, maybe it's a certain number of years of experience, maybe it's being trilingual, etc.

If B is a minority candidate and only barely meets standards while A is a majority candidate and has a much more glowing resume then it's no different: the employer needs to pick the best candidate. If they think the value of having the extra diversity exceeds the value of having someone with exceptional skill then they should pick the minority guy. If they think it's best to have the guy with the better resume then they should pick that person.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What you are describing would be the idealized situation but, in the real world, quotas are used. They are forced on employers or colleges by the EEOC or by courts. I remember frequently reading about employers being forced to hire only members of targeted groups until a certain quota is met. They may not be called "quotas" but that's what they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_quota

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/10/supreme-court-weighs-race-based-college-admissions/

 

[mercury14]

What you are describing would be the idealized situation but, in the real world, quotas are used. They are forced on employers or colleges by the EEOC or by courts. I remember frequently reading about employers being forced to hire only members of targeted groups until a certain quota is met. They may not be called "quotas" but that's what they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_quota

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/10/supreme-court-weighs-race-based-college-admissions/

You said that in the real world quotas are being used - then you provided two links that say quotas are not only not being used, they're actually illegal as per multiple Supreme Court rulings. Would you like me to respond to your comment or your references that proved your comment wrong?

 

[lilsarah91]

Hey Anquan Jihad, Just a quick yes or no question.

Do you have the capability of ever telling the truth?

 

[Busybody]

Hey Anquan Jihad, Just a quick yes or no question.

Do you have the capability of ever telling the truth?

Dumbass.....

 

[Busybody]

AA isn't enforced.

.

really?

are you that DESPRATE to cling to your BS that you resort to SHT LIKE THAT?

REALLY?

 

[lilsarah91]

Dumbass.....

HAHAHAHAHA
Childish name calling ..... I'll take that as a no.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
What you are describing would be the idealized situation but, in the real world, quotas are used. They are forced on employers or colleges by the EEOC or by courts. I remember frequently reading about employers being forced to hire only members of targeted groups until a certain quota is met. They may not be called "quotas" but that's what they are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_quota

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ge-admissions/

You said that in the real world quotas are being used - then you provided two links that say quotas are not only not being used, they're actually illegal as per multiple Supreme Court rulings. Would you like me to respond to your comment or your references that proved your comment wrong?

The first quote describes AA, and how it quickly became quotas ordered by government bureaucrats or courts, just as I said and contrary to your Post 91. This has decreased, but it still exists. The second quote describes how the U. of Texas uses race in determining who gets admitted. This is contrary to your comment that colleges do not use such methods.

BTW, Sioux City is in Iowa.

 

[SeaDaddy1]

I wonder how many Germans helped settle America?

I wonder how many pockets in America there were where German was the spoken language?

Ditto Jews, ditto Yiddish.

Ditto Acadian, ditto bastardized French.

Let me rephrase my post you responded to w/the replacement of one word -"Oh, here's a bright idea, why don't we teach English in an English speaking country?"

If a life guard saves your life because he knows how to swim, are you going to say 'Thank you' or bitch about your being 'uncomfortable' that he/she doesn't speak your foreign language or has a different skin color?

Okay pilgrim, just remember that when you're dead and an untrained lifeguard couldn't save you because he never learned to speak the language of those that trained him/her. The last words you utter will be, "But the life guard spoke my language before I died."

I don't care how many nationalities helped settle America. English has been the official dominant language in the US for about 237 yrs. I'd feel the same way no matter what language my country has spoken for that long.

Whatever country a person lives in, they should learn its' primary language before deciding to live there employed as a life guard or any occupation.
You want to change life guard standards just because they don't fit "diversity" standards that have nothing do do with saving lives?