Affirmative Action ( Good or Bad for US Employees?)

[Robby999 1,024]

I have my own feelings about Affirmative Action but I am sorta interested in everyone else's opinion about the subject. I more or less believe while the idea was good the implementation of said idea has become a tool of extortion for many politicians and unions who are backed by the government. I believe that these polices/regulations have caused employers to create a skewed pool of qualified applicants to conform/comply with Federal regulations for any available job positions within the company. This has resulted in qualified people people passed over just so the company can comply with the regulations and causing qualified employees to leave and seek employment in a different field or location.

8. Affirmative Action Encourages Mediocrity and Incompetence
A few years ago Jesse Jackson joined protesters at Harvard Law School in demanding that the Law School faculty hire black women. Jackson dismissed Dean of the Law School, Robert C. Clark's standard of choosing the best qualified person for the job as "Cultural anemia." "We cannot just define who is qualified in the most narrow vertical academic terms," he said. "Most people in the world are yellow, brown, black, poor, non-Christian and don't speak English, and they can't wait for some white males with archaic rules to appraise them."19 It might be noted that if Jackson is correct about the depth of cultural decadence at Harvard, blacks might be well advised to form and support their own more vital law schools and leave places like Harvard to their archaism.
At several universities, the administration has forced departments to hire members of minorities even when far superior candidates were available. Shortly after obtaining my Ph D in the late 70's I was mistakenly identified as a black philosopher (I had a civil rights record and was once a black studies major) and was flown to a major university, only to be rejected for a more qualified candidate when it discovered that I was white.

Stories of the bad effects of Affirmative Action abound. The philosopher Sidney Hook writes that "At one Ivy League university, representatives of the Regional HEW demanded an explanation of why there were no women or minority students in the Graduate Department of Religious Studies. They were told that a reading of knowledge of Hebrew and Greek was presupposed. Whereupon the representatives of HEW advised orally: 'Then end those old fashioned programs that require irrelevant languages. And start up programs on relevant things which minority group students can study without learning languages.'"20

Nicholas Capaldi notes that the staff of HEW itself was one-half women, three-fifths members of minorities, and one-half black - a clear case of racial over representation.

In 1972 officials at Stanford University discovered a proposal for the government to monitor curriculum in higher education: the "Summary Statement...Sex Discrimination Proposed HEW Regulation to Effectuate Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972" to "establish and use internal procedure for reviewing curricula, designed both to ensure that they do not reflect discrimination on the basis of sex and to resolve complaints concerning allegations of such discrimination, pursuant to procedural standards to be prescribed by the Director of the office of Civil Rights." Fortunately, Secretary of HEW Caspar Weinberger discovered the intrusion and assured Stanford University that he would never approve of it.21

Government programs of enforced preferential treatment tend to appeal to the lowest possible common denominator. Witness the 1974 HEW Revised Order No. 14 on Affirmative Action expectations for preferential hiring: "Neither minorities nor female employees should be required to possess higher qualifications than those of the lowest qualified incumbents."

Furthermore, no test may be given to candidates unless it is proved to be relevant to the job.

No standard or criteria which have, by intent or effect, worked to exclude women or minorities as a class can be utilized, unless the institution can demonstrate the necessity of such standard to the performance of the job in question.
Whenever a validity study is called for...the user should include ... an investigation of suitable alternative selection procedures and suitable alternative methods of using the selection procedure which have as little adverse impact as possible .... Whenever the user is shown an alternative selection procedure with evidence of less adverse impact and substantial evidence of validity for the same job in similar circumstances, the user should investigate it to determine the appropriateness of using or validating it in accord with these guidelines.22
At the same time Americans are wondering why standards in our country are falling and the Japanese and Koreans are getting ahead. Affirmative Action with its twin idols, Sufficiency and Diversity, is the enemy of excellence. I will develop this thought in the next section.

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/business_computer_ethics/the%20case%20against%20affirmative%20action.htm/The-Case-Against-Affirmative-Action-Sacramento-State

[LibCampFireClub 635]

As with many liberal plans of action, the intentions appear to be sensible. The end results often become a disaster.

What Are the Disadvantages of Affirmative Action in the Workplace?

Affirmative action involves the steps employers must take to include minorities, women, people with disabilities and veterans into the workforce. These steps include training programs as well as educational and outreach efforts that target underrepresented populations. The purpose of affirmative action is to provide equal opportunity to historically underrepresented populations. Employers must write and successfully implement an affirmative action plan and regularly update the program to ensure federal compliance with equal opportunity laws. Although affirmative action is designed to create equality, the program has some disadvantages that oppose fair treatment in the workplace.

Job Qualifications

A disadvantage of affirmative action is that the program often compels employers to potentially overlook highly qualified applicants in favor of only marginally qualified applicants who meet affirmative action standards. Although affirmative action hires are qualified for the position, in some cases they are not the most qualified of all applicants. This could possibly lead to high turnover if the position turns out to be a poor fit or the applicant fails to perform job duties optimally.

Reverse Discrimination

In a sense, affirmative action treats "majority" groups unfairly because the policy provides preferential treatment to minorities and other historically under-represented classes. Although affirmative action efforts are in place to prevent racism, gender bias and unfair discrimination, it creates these situations for the historical majority. Some may refer to affirmative action as a reverse form of racism or discrimination because the system now places the historic majority in a separate class because of race and gender.

Quotas

Affirmative action guidelines require covered employers to meet certain goals and timetables for hiring and/or promoting women and minorities. This may coerce employers to make hiring decisions based on numbers and not the overall qualifications of the applicant. It also creates an increase in competition for well-qualified applicants because employers direct job postings towards minorities and women to increase applications for those groups.

Redirects Focus

Another disadvantage of affirmative action is that it places the focus on racial and gender related issues when employers should primarily focus on how well a potential employee will perform in a particular position. Affirmative action also draws attention to past issues of racism and discrimination. Although these issues may still exist in today's business world, the affirmative action system cannot retract injustices of the past or completely eliminate them in the future.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-affirmative-action-workplace-10728.html

Edited December 6, 2014 by ExExpat

[NigeriaorBust 4,087]

When it comes layoff time as an engineer you don't want to be the middle aged white man Lucky I am the age protected, sex protected, handicapped protected employee.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

When it comes layoff time as an engineer you don't want to be the middle aged white man Lucky I am the age protected, sex protected, handicapped protected employee.

A white man over 40, faces the most work force discrimination in America.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I must be doing really great as I have progressed my career rather nicely in my 40's despite all that discrimination that I am apparently subjected to.

Imagine I'd pair my obvious talent with brown skin - I'd be the friggin' CEO of my company right now.

Let me head down to the beach and chase some pigments.

[Torete 121]

When it comes layoff time as an engineer you don't want to be the middle aged white man Lucky I am the age protected, sex protected, handicapped protected employee.

Sadly, I don't feel so protected. I'm a white, middle-aged male without any handicaps.

[Póg mo 1,749]

At orientation they tell you that they don't discriminate on sex,color, disability etc,etc. They say in the next breath that you're an at will employee and can be fired for any reason at all. Now you tell me, if you're not a member of a union, what protection from work place discrimination do you really have? No sir, we're not firing you because you're black,we're firing you because....

[LibCampFireClub 635]

At orientation they tell you that they don't discriminate on sex,color, disability etc,etc. They say in the next breath that you're an at will employee and can be fired for any reason at all. Now you tell me, if you're not a member of a union, what protection from work place discrimination do you really have? No sir, we're not firing you because you're black,we're firing you because....

You're best bet is to move to a "right to work" state like Florida or Texas. Avoid the lib states like California, the West coast and northeast. Unions are nothing more than a front for organized crime and fully docked in liberal politics.

Edited December 6, 2014 by ExExpat

[Póg mo 1,749]

You're best bet is to move to a "right to work" state like Florida or Texas. Avoid the lib states like California, the West coast and northeast. Unions are nothing more than a front for organized crime and fully docked in liberal politics.

Oh dear lord.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Funny how poverty rates tend to be much higher in the supposedly paradise-like "right to work" states. Productivity is generally lower there and health care coverage, well, you know it's not looking so good for folk in "right to work" states on that front either. And yet, some people are still pimping that race to the bottom accelerator as something worth pursuing or something to be proud of, even. Fools.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Closer Look at Union vs. Nonunion Workers’ Wages

Over the weekend, the Journal reported on the economics of “right-to-work” rules. The conclusion: It’s complicated, especially when it comes to proving cause and effect. But at a very basic level, right-to-work states have lower unemployment rates and faster job growth, but also lower wages.

A number of readers, however, noted that looking only at hourly or weekly wages fails to account fully for unions’ impact on their members’ paychecks. Dues eat into higher wages, while better benefits provided under union contracts don’t show up in wage data. Quantifying such impacts is difficult, but government data allow for a rough approximation.

Dues structures vary widely from union to union. The United Auto Workers, for example, generally charges the equivalent of two hours’ straight-time pay per month. Other unions charge a fixed monthly rate, or a percentage of members’ pay (generally 5% or less, and more often 1-3%, though higher and lower rates aren’t uncommon). Further complicating the picture: Many unions charge initiation fees to new members and reduced rates to retirees, as well as other assessments and charges.

As a result, it’s difficult to calculate a representative average dues payment, at least without wading through reams of impenetrable government disclosure forms. But it’s possible to come up with a rough upper and lower bound. U.S. unions collected about $8.8 billion in dues last year, according to the Labor Department, a figure that includes private-sector and federal-employee unions, but not most public-sector unions at the state and local level. Those unions have some 54 million members, for an average annual dues payment of about $163 per member.

That figure, however, includes retirees, meaning it vastly overstates the number of current union members and therefore underestimates average dues. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates about 9.2 million Americans are members of private or federal unions. Using that figure, the average union member pays about $959 per year. That’s too high, since it lumps in initiation fees and retiree dues, so the real figure likely lies somewhere in the middle. That’s broadly in keeping with other estimates.

The median private-sector union member made $878 a week in 2011 compared to $716 for nonmembers, a nearly 23% premium. (The premium was somewhat smaller in the manufacturing sector: $836 per week for union members for $780 per week for nonmembers.) Such comparisons have limited value since there are numerous other variables that affect wages. But to the extent there is a union wage premium, the added cost of dues doesn’t appear to negate it.

Then there’s the question of benefits: 94% of private-sector union members have access to health-care benefits, versus 67% of nonunion members, according to BLS. And employers cover on average 83% of health insurance premiums for union members and their families versus 66% for nonunion members. Union members are also more likely to get paid vacation and sick time and retirement and life insurance benefits. BLS doesn’t put a dollar value on all those benefits, but worker benefits typically account for about 30% of employers’ compensation costs.

The right-to-work debate, of course, goes beyond the costs and benefits of union membership itself. Advocates for organized labor argue right-to-work rules lead to lower wages for all workers, even those who aren’t union members. Right-to-work advocates argue stricter labor laws lead to higher unemployment and lower job growth, ultimately hurting union members and nonmembers alike.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/12/17/closer-look-at-union-vs-nonunion-workers-wages/

Edited December 6, 2014 by ExExpat