Please tell me I'm not the only one who sees the contradiction

[smileyeagle1021]

Okay, so I, as many of you know, am looking for work. One of the places I applied was a junior accountant for the Walker River Paiute Reservation. On the bottom of the application they say "We are an equal opportunity employer. We provide Indian preference"

um...
....
.....
......
.......



How can you with a straight face claim to be equal opportunity when you just blatantly said you were going to give preference to one group over another.
Now, I'm not bothered by them having Indian preference, the job is located on tribal land, tribal laws apply, not federal laws, and like it or not, I have no say in those laws. But I am bothered by them trying to claim they are equal opportunity when they clearly aren't.

[Aethian]

I think equal opportunity in the case means that if the person is handicapped, mentally or physically, if they can do the job better then a able bodied person they will get the job. Not just the able bodied person because of their non handicapped state.

[Andara Bledin]

EOE in this usage just means that they're promising not to discriminate against you in ways that can get them sued.

It's pretty much a waste of ink. Everybody who doesn't want to get sued is an EOE.

Plus, "affirmative action" is baked into some of the regulations as well, so it means they can't discriminate against you, but they're actually required to discriminate for someone else.

^-.-^

[fireheart17]

Plus, "affirmative action" is baked into some of the regulations as well, so it means they can't discriminate against you, but they're actually required to discriminate for someone else.

^-.-^

I sort of see that as tokenism. If they tried that crap down here, they wouldn't get very far.

There are two kinds of discrimination laws down here: positive and negative.

Negative discrimination laws protect several categories, including, age, sex, gender identity, sexual identity, religion, carer responsibilities (so they can't discriminate BECAUSE you're a parent) and so on. (one of the more unique categories in my state is "identity of partner", which not only refers to whether you're gay or not, but also means that they can't discriminate against you because your partner's a cop/criminal/teacher/whatever.) The laws apply to not only hiring for jobs, but also for schools and the procurement of goods and services (i.e. hotel suites)

"positive" discrimination on the other hand refers to programs or services set up designed to address an issue in the community. The programs need to go through an exemption process however, so that the EOC knows that you are not just setting up the service because you feel like it. Generally those programs are things like employment services set up to cater to a particular group that's already disadvantaged. Alternately, it might be that a school needs to address the gender imbalance and wants to provide preference to girls.

[lordlundar]

It's relabeling Affirmative Action policies which have a very ugly (and justified) stigma upon them to Equal Opportunity policies which says "we're being the honorable ones here!"

The policies don't change, they're just as stupid as before, but EO policies is so much better marketing than AA policies.

[Andara Bledin]

Alternately, it might be that a school needs to address the gender imbalance and wants to provide preference to girls.

That's what affirmative action is. It's a recognition that the discrimination is so systemic that special measures must be taken to address that fact and try to make the discrimination the exception instead of the rule.

It doesn't really work the way it's supposed to, but I suspect that it's still better than doing nothing.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

To the extent that they are able, they give you an equal opportunity to anyone else to be Indian.

[insertNameHere]

Equal opportunity is pure bullshit, if they don't want to hire me as a white male, I can't claim racism even if the interviewer tells me, "Your a white male no fucking way". Why should anything other than being able to do the job matter? I'm not for giving bonus points for past struggles if you want true equality.

Of course we all know as long as the person doing the hiring doesn't make it obvious they hate you for X but give reasons Y and Z which are legally backed reasons to deny they can still discriminate

[Andara Bledin]

The "bonus points" of affirmative action specifically (not equal opportunity in general) is to adjust for ongoing struggles, not just past issues.

^-.-^

[lordlundar]

Equal opportunity is pure bullshit, if they don't want to hire me as a white male, I can't claim racism even if the interviewer tells me, "Your a white male no fucking way". Why should anything other than being able to do the job matter? I'm not for giving bonus points for past struggles if you want true equality.

Of course we all know as long as the person doing the hiring doesn't make it obvious they hate you for X but give reasons Y and Z which are legally backed reasons to deny they can still discriminate

What you want to see is the proper definition of Equal Opportunity. REAL Equal Opportunity is picking the best candidate regardless of minority factors.

What you're referring as Equal Opportunity is the relabelled Affirmative Action which is pure bullshit.

[daleduke17]

"Women and minorities are encouraged to apply" = "White Males need not apply".

When I was looking for a job earlier this year I would, after completing the "completely voluntary" federal form listing that I am a white non-veteran male or "prefer not to disclose" I would always say "I have just disqualified myself".

There is a town about an hour from here that had to do better of mirroring their police department ratios to the ratios of the citizens in town because the police department wasn't representative of the community. They went as far as holding testing sessions in Chicago (three hours away) in a neighborhood that has a higher percentage of black residents and in another town that had a higher percentage of Latino residents. They also gave multiple phone call reminders to minority applicants and only one (if any) to white applicants. Yet, that is supposedly legal because of "representation".

Also, it is bullshit when trying to apply for a police or fire department and finding on the physical test that females have a different levels for passing that is a lot less than the males (females only have to bench 52% of body weight, males 98%). Sorry, to me that is wrong. That guy high on meth is going to be 300 lbs for the female officer and the male officer. The fire department does not have different extrication tools for women and men.

Equal opportunity my ass.

[protege]

[QUOTE=lordlundar;126754]

What you're referring as Equal Opportunity is the relabelled Affirmative Action which is pure bullshit.

Exactly. Same shit, different label. In fact, it's always interesting to see supporters of Affirmative Action do all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify its existence and claims that it's not as racist as discrimination is/was in the past. Trust me, it's not "leveling the playing field" when one side has said field heavily tilted in its favor. A true level playing field would have no "check race here" boxes, and would run on one's merits.

[wolfie]

Also, it is bullshit when trying to apply for a police or fire department and finding on the physical test that females have a different levels for passing that is a lot less than the males (females only have to bench 52% of body weight, males 98%). Sorry, to me that is wrong.

It's even more wrong than it appears at first glance. Since, on average, women weigh less than men, women have to bench press 52% OF A LOWER WEIGHT than men have to bench press 98% of. Sorry, but if I'm incapacitated and in a burning building, what matters to me is whether the firefighter is strong enough to drag me out, not whether they take a leak standing up or sitting down.

[Andara Bledin]

What a person can bench is a a relatively poor indicator of whether they can drag your ass out of a burning building.

Regardless, IN Los Angeles, the exercises and requirements are identical, and while there have been accusations of pushing unqualified women through into the field, those identified as receiving preferential treatment usually wash out quickly.

Interestingly, we spend tens of thousands of dollars for every recruit put through training, most of whom wash out, and a number of whom get injured and get put on disability at the same rate as regular firefighters. Considering that most firefighters will never encounter anything close to the constant strain that they are forced to endure during training, I wouldn't be surprised if we paid out more for insurance and injuries (both as an absolute value and per capita) to people who never are hired by the LAFD than actual firefighters.

Here is an excellent article from 2008 on the fact that the politicos keep trying to find a social answer to what is, at heart, a physiological problem; women don't have the upper body strength that men do. Some women have enough, but most of the few who even try out never make it into training, and only a small fraction make it through the entire course to become firefighters. This is not actually a problem, but too many people are seeing it as one and trying to fix it. >_<

^-.-^