[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by amexsbow

For all job applications remove all identifiers. Age, sex/ethnicity/address will NOT be included when applying. College degree will be listed where applicable, without the name of the institution. Date of degree will not be listed. Dates of work history will not be included. Individual identifiers attached to applicants identity will be issued by a third party.

After a pool of candidates are selected from the applications, blind interviews will be conducted. Only after a job offer is made will the employer and employee meet.

Where physical or skill sets are a criteria, a third party will test the applicants.

This will eliminate any hiring bias. Only the best qualified applicants will be hired based on qualifications not personality or appearances.

This seems ridiculous to me but what do I know?

[RichS$]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Totally out of touch with reality.
But for 60 seconds let's play the OP game.

Assuming the outcome looking for is more balance between races or fewer whites...

What is it that makes one think the outcome anticipated will be achieved by this suggestion?
Nothing!!!!

Remember the basic population distribution......
White...74%
Latino/Hispanic...18%
Black...14%

Departing from the basic population and consider what the distribution is in different levels of education or training.....wanna bet what the numbers look like.

Way too much effort being spent on the forced results for one race. That would be discrimination/racism......and oh by the way does not accomplish the anticipated out come!!

(With considerable effort, again, to remain polite about it!!!!!)

If you look at sports thru the same microscope, my guess the numbers would all reverse themselves...including college. Why then do sports figures have a hard time figuring out that he who works the hardest earns the trophy. Life is no different.

[Aloha1]

Any time I encounter a question asking what my "race" is, I always answer "other" if that is the only neutral choice, and then fill in the blank with "human". The government is the biggest perpetrator of racial politics and until that is changed equal treatment will never happen.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

That is definitely true for Government jobs where there is no need to make a profit or to break even. It has been that way for many years. But, if you own a private business, you really need to hire competent employees or you will soon be out of business.

never mind

[rjm1cc]

Hope you don' t need an experience hart doctor.

[saratogaman]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Before you can do any of those things, you need to get Congress to abolish the Federal affirmative action law. That law mandates employers to be biased when hiring employees, or face lawsuits and penalties by the Federal Government.

There is no federal law that mandates what you say. Affirmative action does not set mandates or quotas. You are simply wrong. Anything that you say based on that is de facto fundamentally unfounded and wrong. Period.

[saratogaman]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

Being told you have to hire X amount of black employees. Isn't that racist? Not X amount of mexicans, jews, or heaven forbid, whites. It is time for change.

There is no such mandate...cite whatever you claim that requires that...bet you can't.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by saratogaman

There is no federal law that mandates what you say. Affirmative action does not set mandates or quotas. You are simply wrong. Anything that you say based on that is de facto fundamentally unfounded and wrong. Period.

That is not correct. The affirmative action law mandates that employers prepare an affirmative recruitment and employment plan with a goal to have a workforce that is diversified and has "parity" in the workforce with respect to the protected groups named in the law. The groups are:

African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and women

It isn't a quota, but many companies have been sued by the Federal EEOC for, either not having a plan at all or for not making an effort to hire employees from these specific groups of people. For example, if you have a workforce that is all men or all whites, and you don't have a written affirmative employment plan and haven't made a sincere effort to hire minorities and women, you are violating the law. The EEOC can sue you in Federal court, and you can be fined and forced to change your hiring practices. It is a mandate.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

That is not correct. The affirmative action law mandates that employers prepare an affirmative recruitment and employment plan with a goal to have a workforce that is diversified and has "parity" in the workforce with respect to the protected groups named in the law. The groups are:

African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and women

It isn't a quota, but many companies have been sued by the Federal EEOC for, either not having a plan at all or for not making an effort to hire employees from these specific groups of people. For example, if you have a workforce that is all men or all whites, and you don't have a written affirmative employment plan and haven't made a sincere effort to hire minorities and women, you are violating the law. The EEOC can sue you in Federal court, and you can be fined and forced to change your hiring practices. It is a mandate.

Uh huh yup that's true. Meanwhile in the real world, on applications when you get to the EEOC section, the application is not required to fill out ANY of the questions. They are allowed to skip every single one of them if they wish.

At Amazon, you don't even get an interview. The entire application is done online, and you are hired or not hired depending on whether or not you pass their online tests and can show availability that matches their needs.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Uh huh yup that's true. Meanwhile in the real world, on applications when you get to the EEOC section, the application is not required to fill out ANY of the questions. They are allowed to skip every single one of them if they wish.

At Amazon, you don't even get an interview. The entire application is done online, and you are hired or not hired depending on whether or not you pass their online tests and can show availability that matches their needs.

Amazon is well aware of the legal hiring requirements. Here is a link that shows how well they track their workforce to ensure diversity. If they didn't, I think they would be a prime target for the EEOC.

Our workforce data

[alfredpopcorn@gmail.com]

Affirmative action in all sports - with equal representation based on your representation in society. Including coaches . Let’s see how that’s received.

[tsmall22204]

That does not end racism, it fills job openings with unqualified applicants. Without checking employment history, experience, and education, applicants can say anything to get an interview. Sorry, I do not agree with you.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by billethkid

Totally out of touch with reality.
But for 60 seconds let's play the OP game.

Assuming the outcome looking for is more balance between races or fewer whites...

What is it that makes one think the outcome anticipated will be achieved by this suggestion?
Nothing!!!!

Remember the basic population distribution......
White...74%
Latino/Hispanic...18%
Black...14%

Departing from the basic population and consider what the distribution is in different levels of education or training.....wanna bet what the numbers look like.

Way too much effort being spent on the forced results for one race. That would be discrimination/racism......and oh by the way does not accomplish the anticipated out come!!

(With considerable effort, again, to remain polite about it!!!!!)

I read that the OP said to ignore color and look for people doing a good job. Pick the doers. Don't allow race to be a factor making anyone select a person for a job. Do not hold places in school or business for a certain race. Do not pick someone to do a job because of their color but because of their skill and personality and permanent record showing diligence, no matter what color they are.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I read that the OP said to ignore color and look for people doing a good job. Pick the doers. Don't allow race to be a factor making anyone select a person for a job. Do not hold places in school or business for a certain race. Do not pick someone to do a job because of their color but because of their skill and personality and permanent record showing diligence, no matter what color they are.

Works for me

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

That is not correct. The affirmative action law mandates that employers prepare an affirmative recruitment and employment plan with a goal to have a workforce that is diversified and has "parity" in the workforce with respect to the protected groups named in the law. The groups are:

African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and women

It isn't a quota, but many companies have been sued by the Federal EEOC for, either not having a plan at all or for not making an effort to hire employees from these specific groups of people. For example, if you have a workforce that is all men or all whites, and you don't have a written affirmative employment plan and haven't made a sincere effort to hire minorities and women, you are violating the law. The EEOC can sue you in Federal court, and you can be fined and forced to change your hiring practices. It is a mandate.

You are right, or close to it. At the university where I taught for decades, applicants for teaching positions were all sent a card on which they could if they wished check their “race”. It wasn’t required. This was mailed to the Diversity Office, where it would be registered. If there were any applicants who met diversity requirements, this was communicated to the chair of the department search committee. In my department, any “diverse” applicants were interviewed as a matter of course unless they were clearly unsuitable for the job because of education or work history or publication history. We weren’t forced to hire a “diverse” candidate, but sometimes we were told that if we did, we would also get to hire someone else: two hires for the price of one.

Before we could post an advertisement for a job opening anywhere, we had to submit the ad to the Diversity Office, where it would be examined. It had to meet diversity requirements before it would be approved. It had to deliberately state that we really wanted to hire a “diverse” person of some sort. (This did not include people of Asian ancestry, as we already have a lot of them teaching on campus, though not in my department, or women, as my department was over 50% women.) Ideally, the teaching duties would be listed in such a way that the “diverse” applicant would be the best suited, or at least would fit one of the POSSIBLE needs.

We had to provide a written reason for not hiring for all diversity candidates, as well. This went a bit beyond the sentence or two we wrote for each applicant. (Such as “This job is for a Shakespeare specialist, but the candidate is a specialist in contemporary American literature.”)

HOWEVER, I should also note that any self-identified MILITARY VETERANS automatically went to the head of the line for any job search. They were ALWAYS interviewed if they were somewhat qualified. We were never forced to hire them, but if we didn’t, we had to provide a written explanation of why they weren’t the best candidate. (Consider that there might be a hundred applicants for one position, with seven interviewed in person, so a guaranteed interview offers a great opportunity to shine.)

A couple years ago we had sort of a scandal. We wanted to hire someone for a permanent position teaching Creative Writing/Poetry. We had a woman (also a lesbian) teaching it as an adjunct, and we liked her, and she was doing a good job. We all expected her to be hired. We requested a permanent tenure line in that field in order to give it to her. Then the department hiring committee for that position (I wasn’t on it) found another candidate who had published several excellent books of poetry with a top poetry press and was very impressive in person. The committee recommended that candidate unanimously, as the candidate was far superior. The university complied and offered the position to the top candidate. Unfortunately, that candidate was a straight male of European ancestry. A number of activists of various sorts in the department worked hard to stop that hire, but didn’t succeed. After all, rescinding the job offer would be grounds for a lawsuit if the reason came out, and that reason appeared in a lot of emails.