NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/peeves/19393

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 5.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!nigel.msen.com!fmsrl7!lynx.unm.edu!mimbres.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxrbk!russ
From: russ@bbxrbk (Russ Kepler)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Orientals . . .
Message-ID: <1993Jan21.001948.11789@bbxrbk>
Date: 21 Jan 93 00:19:48 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <1993Jan20.030809.13484@bbxrbk> <[e-mail]>
Organization: russ at home in Albuquerque New Mexico
Lines: 99

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Don Baldwin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.030809.13484@bbxrbk> russ@bbxrbk (Russ Kepler) writes:
>>Affirmative action is simply reverse bigotry.
>
>Oh, I agree.  I don't think we should have affirmative action, although
>it may have been a necessary evil in the beginning.  However, I do think
>that some protection is necessary, so that people can be hired/fired
>based on their abilities, instead of their race or whatever.

As long as there's a government agency that counts up the "protected"
groups and has the ability to asess a fine based on their numbers
there's going to be bigotry in hiring.

Let me tell you something (no, this isn't a "no shit" story, you know
the kind - they always start: "no shit, there I was with 155mm ripping
overhead....") - I worked for a fairly large employer (20,000+
employees) as a manager with 18 or so employees.  The company was
quite sensitive the EEOC concerns, having been through EEOC audits in
the past.  I had an applicant that came in on merit, but was a prime
EEOC catch.  She was black.  The key words there were "she" and
"black" - those alone were enough to hire her.  If she'd been a
disabled vet I would've come in my pants.  You see: the EEOC counts
*each* *category* and compares them to the total employee population,
so I can get way ahead when I hire someone that has a double whammy.
It really wouldn't have mattered what skills the ideal applicant
had - if it was female, black, vet and disabled it would have been
hired to count the paperclips if necessary *because it helped the
numbers*.

On the other hand, I hired a fellow a few years ago, and was talking
to him later about this issue.  He's from northern New Mexico, born
and raised there.  His father was born and raised in Santa Fe, his
father was as well, the whole family goes back to the time NM became a
US territory.  His mother's family goes a bit further back than that,
tracing it's roots to the second Spanish conquest in the 1600's.  He
could get financial assistance, nor is covered by any EEOC programs,
while his cousins are, simply because he took his father's name and
not his mother's name.  Where is the justice here?  Someone gets
advantaged because of their name?

There's another little problem: I'm not allowed to note the sex, race,
etc. of applicants.  OK, I don't - until the final interview where
some of these things can't help but be noticed.  My initial selection
is always done blind - I ask that any personal details such as name
and other info be removed from resumes, so I *can't* notice it.  But
the EEOC wants to know if my hiring is based on any factors other than
skill, in particular, I'm required in some cases to hire the AA
applicant that has the minimum skills that I asked for in the
advertisment.  You see the catch 22?  I can't ask for it, I'm not
going to interview every applicant that barely makes it over the
minimum I asked for, and I'll damn well hire the most qualified
applicant I can (modulo price).

So I'm pretty well fucked here - if I hire on the best business
grounds I can be screwed by EEOC, if I hire less effective I'll
eventually lose as a business.  There's a final on which I'll be
graded, but I'm not allowed to study and they're not telling me the
questions in advance.

I feel sorry for someone covered by EEOC stuff - they can't completely
be sure that they're being hired based on skill or because of their
"qualifications".

I see the Clinton administration screwing things up for my employees
as well.  I currently offer a pretty liberal education program in which
we pay tuition and books and give 'em time off from work to take
classes that are at least somewhat related to what they do at the
office.  If some of the Clinton admin get their way I'll have to pay
some % (I've heard 1.5%) of my payroll to pay for some retraining of
people laid off, presumably by me and others.  Shit, if I have to
start eating that I'll just fire the fuckers when they're of no use to
me instead of continually retraining 'em - make that 1.5% do
*something* and let the "government" handle the problem.  Right now
I make an employee useful in more than one area at my cost - if my
cost increases it just won't be worth it anymore.

Same thing in health insurance.  'Ol Clint the Waffler is now talking
about taxing medical insurance provided by the employer, and making
the employee pay income taxes on the cost of the insurance (talk about
an income tax increase to the middle class - estimates place this
"tax" as about an $800 hit to the middle class).  If this happens
we'll be forced to either decrease the coverage (we've alread had to
start using *ack* Blue Cross/Blue Shield) or increase the employee pay
to partially cover the tax hit... guess which we'll do?  At least I'll
be able to blame it on the waffler.

It's not a lot of fun doing business in the US anymore.  We've got
about 40 people, and 2 of them basically handle government regulations
and filings, and don't do a lot more.  That's a 5% cost increase.  One
of these fucking days I'm going to move the programming operations
offshore just to get the fucking government out of my hair.

And don't get me started on *state* government crap...

ObPeeve: long winded peeves about she that no one really cares about...

--
Russ Kepler, posting from home   [e-mail], bbxrbk![e-mail]
"It's better to be quotable than to be honest" - Tom Stoppard