bubbleberry

"At home in Belfast when you apply for a job you have to complete what is called an "equal opportunities monitoring form". This is completely confidential, but it lists you race, you age, sex, marital status etc.This is submitted to a monitoring officer, who has a duty to ensure that there is no inequality.In a small company with 10 employees it may mean nothing if 9 of them are white males.But if its a bigger company, and there are 90 white males and a few female and black workers, then something is wrong.Obviously the figures are adjusted to allow for demographics."

Thats how you deal with it.

Ginger,I am going to ignore the last idiot statement,.

For what its worth I spent some time reading your blog.And some of your other posts.

I have met a few people like you during my travels.People who for the most part did not fit in, socially,or emotionally with their peers, with their family, with their society.

People who have found it difficult to heal the mental scars caused by years of being ignored,years of being bullied.

I respect your decision to move to another country, a country where your accent gets you noticed, where your cocky British wit brings you short live friendships.

And I am truly sorry, for we both know, that while you are famous inside you own wee blog, you really cannot shake off that empty loneness that invades your soul, each time you ask your self , " why am I such a twat?".

elfman

umm... all that civil rights legislation, particularly that enacted in the 60s?
just an example off the top of my head

Roland Hulme

Ignoring your petty little comments...

You run a computer design company in Rolyville, USA and you need to employ a hundred people...

Two hundred people apply for the job. A hundred of them are black, a hundred of them are white.

Of the hundred most qualified candidates, ninety are black and ten are white. So you employ them. Now you have 90% black employees and 10% white.

Now imagine government interferring and telling you who you can and can't employ based on race.

If Rolyville had a 30% white population, you would be racist because you only employed ten white people. To 'comply' with the law, you would have to fire the twenty better qualified black candidates and hire twenty white ones, who can't do the job as well.

If Rolyville had a 90% white population, you could twist THOSE VERY SAME RULES and demand that eighty of your ninety black employees are fired and replaced with less qualified white candidates because then the spread would match the demographic. 90% white and 10% black.

Of course, that doesn't happen - since according to your stupid rules, you can only be racist in one direction.

In Carolina, 30% of the population is African American. By your ideas, that means every company in Carolina should employ no less than 30% African American employees.

That doesn't happen. Some have more than that 30%. Some have less. This might not be due to race at all. It might be due to the number of people with the appropriate skills.

EDIT: I said 'Carolina' because I can't remember whether it's north or south. Or possibly it could be mississipi.

Roland Hulme

Actually that's a 100% valid point.

Hold up my hands. Totally missed the wood for the trees. I was so busy getting absorbed with Bubbleboy's bollocks that I ignored the VERY REAL way govt. has helped combat racism.

Damn. Facts shooting down my argument again. Who's side are you on, Elfman???

bubbleberry

ohh Roland

CAN YOU NOT THINK FOR YOURSELF???

Are you so caught up in your own little world that it requires an axeman to clear your path to enlightenment?

For the third time "Obviously the figures are adjusted to allow for demographics". As I mentioned when you APPLY you fill out the monitoring form, and send it off.Obviously a company can only pick from it pool of applicants.

Here is text for an advertisment I ran not so long ago, when I was looking for staff recently.

Information - Equal Opportunities

This company supports the principal of equal opportunities in employment and opposes all forms of unlawful or unfair discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, nationality, religious belief or national origin, sex, being married or disability.

We believe that it is in the company's best interests, and those of all who work in it, to ensure that the human resource, talents and skills available throughout the community are considered when employment opportunities arise. To this end, within the framework of the law, we are committed, wherever practicable, to achieving and maintaining a workforce, which broadly reflects the local community in which we operate.

Every possible step will be taken to ensure that individuals are treated equally and fairly and that decisions on recruitment, selection, training, promotion and career management are based solely on objective and job related criteria.

All of the above principles and disciplines result in quality of service to both our clients and candidates.

############# Ltd complies with all applicable United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland statutes and regulations relating to racial, sex and disability discrimination and to equal opportunities and pay in order that all recruitment selected decisions are based on individual qualifications and experience


I will make it simple for you.

If a town has an 80% white population and a company has an employment ratio of 8 blacks for every 2 whites then I believe that company could be considered to be favoring Black applicants

To ensure that this is not the case all applications are filed, and all applicants qualifications, and experience noted.

If however they are found to be Ginger then common sense prevails. Application filed in TRASH.

Roland Hulme

Nice.

Actually, you were making a lot of sense until that point.

Kaffy Mintcake

What does the government do about it? I'll give Bubbleberry a hint ... starts with Title ... ends with VII.

Read Unlawful Employment Practices:

"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"

Source: The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html

This is a whole specialty in law for God's sake. Now does that mean no discrimination exists? Of course not. As Neil has indicated there's a lot of 'behind closed doors' racism in existence. But minorities ARE considered a protected class, so employers need to keep their noses clean. The law exists to protect minorities.

I'd like to see sexual orientation added to that list personally.

bubbleberry

KJ,

sorry, just because there is a law does not mean it is inforced.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the bases of race and color, as well as national origin, sex, and religion. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Equal employment opportunity cannot be denied any person because of his/her racial group or perceived racial group, his/her race-linked characteristics (e.g., hair texture, color, facial features), or because of his/her marriage to or association with someone of a particular race or color....

question 1

If there is no monitoring in place who ensures that EVERYONE has equal rights?

question 2

Do black low income black Americans feel that the legal system is there to support them.

question 3

How does a low income black female go about the legal process of claiming racial discrimination against a national company.

Yes there are laws in America, there is one in California that states "Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship." does anyone take any notice?

I am sure there is a law that requires the President to be honest and truthful to his people...blow jobs and weapons of mass destruction anyone???

The EEOC website indicates that in fiscal year 2004, it received approximately 27,696 charges of race discrimination and resolved 29,631 race charges in FY 2004, recovering $61.1 Million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals. Note that this amount does not include any monetary benefits that may have been obtained through litigation.

The EEOC has observed an increasing number of color discrimination charges, which have increased by 125% since the mid-1990s - from 413 in FY 1994 to 932 in FY 2004.

The majority of cases are brought about by mid level workers WITHIN an organization, who have been stepped over for promotion, or who have been harassed.

Try being a 23 year old single mom of two who is trying to get her life together, who lives in the projects, but who is honest and reliable, see what happens then.

oh, By the way harassment of those who are homosexual is included in the list.

another bloody yank

Moot point. In fifty years races as we know them today won't exist.

Kaffy Mintcake

Uh, not it's not. I speak of federal, not state law. Some states have decided to protect gay rights.

"Title VII does not prohibit harassment or discrimination because of sexual orientation."

Source: Managers and the Legal Environment: Strategies for the 21st Century, Fifth Edition. Authors: Constance E. Bagley and Diane W. Savage. Published 2006. Chapter 13, page 468.

It doesn't include homosexuals, but it should.

cindyabs

and then there's Mohammed the teddy bear.

Kaffy Mintcake

Found something else you might like Bubbleberry ... relates directly to your question of monitoring, particularly for lower level positions ...

"The EEOC has become more proactive in its approach to enforcing antidiscrimination laws. In early 1998, the EEOC began contracting with private organizations to use "testers" to identify employers that discriminate. In employment-discrimination testing, pairs of individuals who are equally qualified are sent to apply for entry-level positions in an effort to determine whether impermissible factors such as race, gender, national origin, or disability influence employment decisions. In 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that testers had standing to bring employment-discrimination cases under Title VII even though they had no real desire to work for the companies to which they applied."

Source - see previous book p. 464 ... or if you prefer ...

EEOC Contracts with Private Testers to Uncover Employers' Discriminatory Hiring, 66 U.S.L.W. 2391-92 (Jan. 8, 1998)

Kyles v. J.K. Guardian Sec. Servs., Inc., 222 F.3d 289 (7th Cir. 2000).

neil

I've made my contribution to that, the little black girl in my avatar.

neil

Discrimination based on gender is only in there by accident. It was proposed as an addition by someone who thought it would mean that it wouldn't pass into law if that was in there. That really backfired.

Kaffy Mintcake

Can't comment on that as I've never heard that. I did read however that Title VII was later amended to provide that discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.