Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community.
Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt.
Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot.
What statistical data or evidence can you point to that supports racist or bigoted hiring practices are going on in the NFL today?
It's not racism or bigotry the NFL is trying to defeat. It's preconceptions, prejudgements. Something we're all guilty of to one degree or another.
I know, and what better way then to require all teams to hire a token black guy. I bet that other guy that missed out on the position will have zero resentment.
People have been saying such things for 70 years. But we never get anywhere unless we challenge our preconceptions.
Let me give you an example. I hired a designer a couple years ago. 5 or 6 resumes were filtered through HR. I dismissed one without even looking at her book because, based on when she graduated college, I knew she was older. My unwitting assumption was that an older designer couldn't give me that fresh, edgy kind of design my team was looking for. I interviewed the others. Unimpressed, I brought her in. She blew me away, I hired her and she's been my best designer ever since.
What I did was bullshit. And wrong. It's why companies put measures in place to avoid this kind of discrimination. We all discriminate. All the time. Based on age, gender, race, religion, politics, disability, the minivan in the left lane with the Trump sticker....hell, even the sound of one's name. I'm for whatever measures can help us challenge our preconceptions and help us determine the best candidate regardless of those factors.
Good thing you hired her, otherwise she coulda sued your ass.
Why did you only have 5 or 6 to choose from? Did somebody pare down your choices by using preconceptions and judgements?
Why would you say that? HR obviously pared them down based on experience and qualifications for the position.
Your 2nd paragraph made me laugh out loud. Apparently, you think judging people based on race, religion, etc is no different than making a judgement about the temperature of the stove. I'm going to put that one in my notes! LOL.
and how were those qualifications established? arent those in themselves a bias towards somebody that doesnt have a certain degree, or has the degree but is lacking experience? sounds like bias to me.
Really? REALLY?! Sometimes, Jimmy, I'm at a loss to figure out what you're trying to say. Because what it SOUNDS like you're saying is just too ridiculous to believe. But you've surprised me before.
It sounds like you think eliminating a candidate based on their lack of certain educational benchmarks is unfair discrimination, no different than discriminating based on race, religion, et al. Is that pretty much it?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community.
Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt.
Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot.
What statistical data or evidence can you point to that supports racist or bigoted hiring practices are going on in the NFL today?
It's not racism or bigotry the NFL is trying to defeat. It's preconceptions, prejudgements. Something we're all guilty of to one degree or another.
I know, and what better way then to require all teams to hire a token black guy. I bet that other guy that missed out on the position will have zero resentment.
People have been saying such things for 70 years. But we never get anywhere unless we challenge our preconceptions.
Let me give you an example. I hired a designer a couple years ago. 5 or 6 resumes were filtered through HR. I dismissed one without even looking at her book because, based on when she graduated college, I knew she was older. My unwitting assumption was that an older designer couldn't give me that fresh, edgy kind of design my team was looking for. I interviewed the others. Unimpressed, I brought her in. She blew me away, I hired her and she's been my best designer ever since.
What I did was bullshit. And wrong. It's why companies put measures in place to avoid this kind of discrimination. We all discriminate. All the time. Based on age, gender, race, religion, politics, disability, the minivan in the left lane with the Trump sticker....hell, even the sound of one's name. I'm for whatever measures can help us challenge our preconceptions and help us determine the best candidate regardless of those factors.
Good thing you hired her, otherwise she coulda sued your ass.
Why did you only have 5 or 6 to choose from? Did somebody pare down your choices by using preconceptions and judgements?
Why would you say that? HR obviously pared them down based on experience and qualifications for the position.
Your 2nd paragraph made me laugh out loud. Apparently, you think judging people based on race, religion, etc is no different than making a judgement about the temperature of the stove. I'm going to put that one in my notes! LOL.
and how were those qualifications established? arent those in themselves a bias towards somebody that doesnt have a certain degree, or has the degree but is lacking experience? sounds like bias to me.
Really? REALLY?! Sometimes, Jimmy, I'm at a loss to figure out what you're trying to say. Because what it SOUNDS like you're saying is just too ridiculous to believe. But you've surprised me before.
It sounds like you think eliminating a candidate based on their lack of certain educational benchmarks is unfair discrimination, no different than discriminating based on race, religion, et al. Is that pretty much it?
No, what i am saying is that the root of all bias in not evil, just because you eliminate certain candidates based on prejudged qualifications doesn't mean you are anti 'x', it may simply mean that you have previous experiences that have formulated those bias and they are supported by historical data.
As long as you started us off by being biased towards seniors lets keep kicking that can, let's say I have a physically demanding job. It requires certain physical traits that historically would decline with age, I get 100 applicants and don't have time to interview them all, is it somewhat safe to say that I won't find my best candidates by interviewing seniors? You talk about education as a benchmark, how do you know a candidate for a position didn't grow up in the industry and despite a lack of a piece of paper, would not be more than capable of fulfilling your positional needs through experience, but you missed out because you eliminated her due to a predetermined bias. Historically you would likely be right to eliminate her due to your bias created by your experience of working with uneducated people in your field.
You try so hard to find something to rail on everyone of my posts, who's the biased one now?
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community.
Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt.
Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot.
What statistical data or evidence can you point to that supports racist or bigoted hiring practices are going on in the NFL today?
It's not racism or bigotry the NFL is trying to defeat. It's preconceptions, prejudgements. Something we're all guilty of to one degree or another.
I know, and what better way then to require all teams to hire a token black guy. I bet that other guy that missed out on the position will have zero resentment.
People have been saying such things for 70 years. But we never get anywhere unless we challenge our preconceptions.
Let me give you an example. I hired a designer a couple years ago. 5 or 6 resumes were filtered through HR. I dismissed one without even looking at her book because, based on when she graduated college, I knew she was older. My unwitting assumption was that an older designer couldn't give me that fresh, edgy kind of design my team was looking for. I interviewed the others. Unimpressed, I brought her in. She blew me away, I hired her and she's been my best designer ever since.
What I did was bullshit. And wrong. It's why companies put measures in place to avoid this kind of discrimination. We all discriminate. All the time. Based on age, gender, race, religion, politics, disability, the minivan in the left lane with the Trump sticker....hell, even the sound of one's name. I'm for whatever measures can help us challenge our preconceptions and help us determine the best candidate regardless of those factors.
Good thing you hired her, otherwise she coulda sued your ass.
Why did you only have 5 or 6 to choose from? Did somebody pare down your choices by using preconceptions and judgements?
Why would you say that? HR obviously pared them down based on experience and qualifications for the position.
Your 2nd paragraph made me laugh out loud. Apparently, you think judging people based on race, religion, etc is no different than making a judgement about the temperature of the stove. I'm going to put that one in my notes! LOL.
and how were those qualifications established? arent those in themselves a bias towards somebody that doesnt have a certain degree, or has the degree but is lacking experience? sounds like bias to me.
Really? REALLY?! Sometimes, Jimmy, I'm at a loss to figure out what you're trying to say. Because what it SOUNDS like you're saying is just too ridiculous to believe. But you've surprised me before.
It sounds like you think eliminating a candidate based on their lack of certain educational benchmarks is unfair discrimination, no different than discriminating based on race, religion, et al. Is that pretty much it?
No, what i am saying is that the root of all bias in not evil, just because you eliminate certain candidates based on prejudged qualifications doesn't mean you are anti 'x', it may simply mean that you have previous experiences that have formulated those bias and they are supported by historical data.
As long as you started us off by being biased towards seniors lets keep kicking that can, let's say I have a physically demanding job. It requires certain physical traits that historically would decline with age, I get 100 applicants and don't have time to interview them all, is it somewhat safe to say that I won't find my best candidates by interviewing seniors? You talk about education as a benchmark, how do you know a candidate for a position didn't grow up in the industry and despite a lack of a piece of paper, would not be more than capable of fulfilling your positional needs through experience, but you missed out because you eliminated her due to a predetermined bias. Historically you would likely be right to eliminate her due to your bias created by your experience of working with uneducated people in your field.
You try so hard to find something to rail on everyone of my posts, who's the biased one now?
Because you may have had a previous bad experience with, say, an Asian person at one point in your life doesn't mean, as an employer, you can discriminate based on race. Or religion. Or gender. You can be a bigot all you want; you just can't do it in the workplace.
Education, related experience and physical characteristics required to perform job duties is not the same thing. Obviously. That's why they're in all job descriptions.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
Because you may have had a previous bad experience with, say, an Asian person at one point in your life doesn't mean, as an employer, you can discriminate based on race. Or religion. Or gender. You can be a bigot all you want; you just can't do it in the workplace.
Education, related experience and physical characteristics required to perform job duties is not the same thing. Obviously. That's why they're in all job descriptions.
This is going to sound shitty but you absolutely CAN discriminate if you're under 15 employees. Race, religion etc don't count on small businesses. You can also discriminate with more then 15 employees you just have to be much more careful about how you do it.
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-bus...quirements
It depends on how many employees your business has:
If you have at least one employee: You are covered by the law that requires employers to provide equal pay for equal work to male and female employees.
If you have 15 to 19 employees: You are covered by the laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, disability and genetic information
(including family medical history). You are also covered by the law
that requires employers to provide equal pay for equal work.
If you have 20 or more employees:
You are covered by the laws that prohibit discrimination based on race,
color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age
(40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family
medical history). You are also covered by the law that requires
employers to provide equal pay for equal work.
State and/or
local employment discrimination laws may also apply to your business.
State and local government websites may have information about these
laws.
Yeah I suppose having laws are what keep things right, too bad folks just can't do the right thing with out them. So much for quality of character and having a good cultural values.
Quote:
In all cases, you're still drawing artificial lines. Just because a person isn't educated doesn't mean they can't learn, so why is that enforceable? It's because there was a line drawn. I'm not going to argue that it shouldn't be drawn as I don't think it's a company's responsibility to pay for the education of someone who didn't show the initiative to do it on their own. If you hire a slightly less qualified candidate on any dimension because of a "quota", you're not hiring the best candidate, bottom line. A good team almost always has diversity. The best process is an inclusionary interview process with input from many levels. It prevents the kinda shit you pulled in not hiring a person just because they were slightly older.
To some of your other points, it's just a fact that women or 70 year olds CANNOT do what young men are required to do physically in combat, in police work, as a firefighter, or in many other areas, yet there is creep into those areas where men are being put at greater risk or not being hired because of a so-called "equality" agenda. Sure, there are some monster women out there who can outperform the worst guy, but on average there should be criteria for a job that are either met or not met, and that's not how these laws evolve. There are separate hurdles for men and women. I know people being adversely affected either in their job safety or in applying for positions in all of these areas, but it's just the "right thing to do". lol Should a woman and could a woman be a good football coach? Sure, but they're starting with a disadvantage in a sport only men really play at any advanced level. That should be taken into account, and there's no real argument or law that needs to be passed to make it so.
You evidently had issues with an older person in your past that YOU decided to draw a personal line. I agree that was total BS, and you probably should have been let go for that, but it is what it is. THAT was discrimination, and it kinda makes you the wrong person to be making the argument for legislation to make things more "inclusive". lol
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community.
Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt.
Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot.
What statistical data or evidence can you point to that supports racist or bigoted hiring practices are going on in the NFL today?
It's not racism or bigotry the NFL is trying to defeat. It's preconceptions, prejudgements. Something we're all guilty of to one degree or another.
I know, and what better way then to require all teams to hire a token black guy. I bet that other guy that missed out on the position will have zero resentment.
People have been saying such things for 70 years. But we never get anywhere unless we challenge our preconceptions.
Let me give you an example. I hired a designer a couple years ago. 5 or 6 resumes were filtered through HR. I dismissed one without even looking at her book because, based on when she graduated college, I knew she was older. My unwitting assumption was that an older designer couldn't give me that fresh, edgy kind of design my team was looking for. I interviewed the others. Unimpressed, I brought her in. She blew me away, I hired her and she's been my best designer ever since.
What I did was bullshit. And wrong. It's why companies put measures in place to avoid this kind of discrimination. We all discriminate. All the time. Based on age, gender, race, religion, politics, disability, the minivan in the left lane with the Trump sticker....hell, even the sound of one's name. I'm for whatever measures can help us challenge our preconceptions and help us determine the best candidate regardless of those factors.
Good thing you hired her, otherwise she coulda sued your ass.
That's what you took from MB's example? SMH.
Yes, because bragging about doing something illegal on the internet means it is true.
Or bullshit. Or stupid.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community.
Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt.
Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot.
What statistical data or evidence can you point to that supports racist or bigoted hiring practices are going on in the NFL today?
It's not racism or bigotry the NFL is trying to defeat. It's preconceptions, prejudgements. Something we're all guilty of to one degree or another.
I know, and what better way then to require all teams to hire a token black guy. I bet that other guy that missed out on the position will have zero resentment.
People have been saying such things for 70 years. But we never get anywhere unless we challenge our preconceptions.
Let me give you an example. I hired a designer a couple years ago. 5 or 6 resumes were filtered through HR. I dismissed one without even looking at her book because, based on when she graduated college, I knew she was older. My unwitting assumption was that an older designer couldn't give me that fresh, edgy kind of design my team was looking for. I interviewed the others. Unimpressed, I brought her in. She blew me away, I hired her and she's been my best designer ever since.
What I did was bullshit. And wrong. It's why companies put measures in place to avoid this kind of discrimination. We all discriminate. All the time. Based on age, gender, race, religion, politics, disability, the minivan in the left lane with the Trump sticker....hell, even the sound of one's name. I'm for whatever measures can help us challenge our preconceptions and help us determine the best candidate regardless of those factors.
Good thing you hired her, otherwise she coulda sued your ass.
That's what you took from MB's example? SMH.
Yes, because bragging about doing something illegal on the internet means it is true.
Or bullshit. Or stupid.
Well, yes. That does cover the possibilities. But I didn't get that he was 'bragging' about it, but just meaning that its easy to discriminate and that it can be almost subconsciously done.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
@ greediron said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ greediron said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ supafreak84 said:
@ StickyBun said:
@ supafreak84 said:
Whatever happened to just hiring the best person for the job (regardless of anything) without having to worry about being branded as a racist or bigot? The NFL is now telling teams they MUST hire a female or minority candidate to work a coaching position that works closely with the head coach. I'm sure that will go over great in the coaching community.
Because you can't trust corporations/teams to do that. You act like its common sense and is happening. It isn't. Bias comes into play. So you have horseshit rules like this one. Yes, I don't agree with forcing anyone to do anything like this in principle. But its been proven time and again certain peoples will be prejudiced against time and again if you don't enact these kinds of rules. How do you explain women doing exactly the same job as men and getting paid less? The explanation is because there is inherent bias. And who gives a shit what the coaching community thinks? They'll adapt.
Again, I don't like rules like this. Because IMO for sure some women that don't necessarily deserve it will get hired to fill the quota. But if you don't think that some white men that get these opportunities also don't deserve it over black candidates, you're fooling yourself. So now they enact rules that I hate because of this. Give them a shot.
What statistical data or evidence can you point to that supports racist or bigoted hiring practices are going on in the NFL today?
It's not racism or bigotry the NFL is trying to defeat. It's preconceptions, prejudgements. Something we're all guilty of to one degree or another.
I know, and what better way then to require all teams to hire a token black guy. I bet that other guy that missed out on the position will have zero resentment.
People have been saying such things for 70 years. But we never get anywhere unless we challenge our preconceptions.
Let me give you an example. I hired a designer a couple years ago. 5 or 6 resumes were filtered through HR. I dismissed one without even looking at her book because, based on when she graduated college, I knew she was older. My unwitting assumption was that an older designer couldn't give me that fresh, edgy kind of design my team was looking for. I interviewed the others. Unimpressed, I brought her in. She blew me away, I hired her and she's been my best designer ever since.
What I did was bullshit. And wrong. It's why companies put measures in place to avoid this kind of discrimination. We all discriminate. All the time. Based on age, gender, race, religion, politics, disability, the minivan in the left lane with the Trump sticker....hell, even the sound of one's name. I'm for whatever measures can help us challenge our preconceptions and help us determine the best candidate regardless of those factors.
Good thing you hired her, otherwise she coulda sued your ass.
That's what you took from MB's example? SMH.
Yes, because bragging about doing something illegal on the internet means it is true.
Or bullshit. Or stupid.
Well, yes. That does cover the possibilities. But I didn't get that he was 'bragging' about it, but just meaning that its easy to discriminate and that it can be almost subconsciously done.
By someone who has those tendencies to begin with maybe. He should have been fired.
|
