 |
|
Having the government decide such things is pretty bad.
Posted on: July 10, 2024 at 20:11:05 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
69597
Member For:
20.85 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
An insurance agent that I know told me about an incident one of his insured's had. His client called his company regarding a claim or a bill or something and was treated exceptionally rudely by the customer service representative. His client called him and told him about it. He in turn told his marketing rep with the company.
They looked into it and the marketing rep asked the client if he would file a formal complaint. He told the agent that that customer service rep had a huge file of complaints but they were afraid to fire her because she was black. They needed to have a rock solid case and a LOT of evidence to demonstrate that she was rude and obnoxious and was not doing her job. They had been compiling that evidence for some time, but wanted to be absolutely sure before firing her. Reviews with her manager were apparently not helping her to modify her rude behavior.
Some months later they finally fired her. She sued the company for discrimination. The company went to court to prove that she had been fired for insubordination, for rude behavior to clients & coworkers and they had files of evidence to back that up, including signed statements from customers and other employees.
The EEOC hammered the company for discrimination. They forced them to hire her back with back pay, and to keep all of her seniority and rights.
This agent said that the moral of the story from his point of view was that he would never hire a black person as an employee. He was small enough that he wasn't under their purview and he said that if he hired one he would never be able to fire them no matter how horrible they were.
---
A brother-in-law did some hiring for TWA. He said that whenever there were choices of candidates for jobs he would always choose the black or female candidates over white or male candidates if their resumes were even close to similar. He could never get in trouble for hiring a minority, but there could be problems if he didn't. It was a no brainer for him. Aptitude for the job wasn't irrelevant, of course, but he blatantly discriminated based upon race or sex in favor of protected classes every single time that he could.
That is pretty much the definition of unequal treatment, mandated by the federal government.
So much for equal under the law.
This is just anecdotal evidence, of course, but there are many stories online that document it and of universities and so on admitting it and refusing to change their standards unless forced to by law. They discriminate based upon race, and sex and sexual preferences and are proud of it.
They looked into it and the marketing rep asked the client if he would file a formal complaint. He told the agent that that customer service rep had a huge file of complaints but they were afraid to fire her because she was black. They needed to have a rock solid case and a LOT of evidence to demonstrate that she was rude and obnoxious and was not doing her job. They had been compiling that evidence for some time, but wanted to be absolutely sure before firing her. Reviews with her manager were apparently not helping her to modify her rude behavior.
Some months later they finally fired her. She sued the company for discrimination. The company went to court to prove that she had been fired for insubordination, for rude behavior to clients & coworkers and they had files of evidence to back that up, including signed statements from customers and other employees.
The EEOC hammered the company for discrimination. They forced them to hire her back with back pay, and to keep all of her seniority and rights.
This agent said that the moral of the story from his point of view was that he would never hire a black person as an employee. He was small enough that he wasn't under their purview and he said that if he hired one he would never be able to fire them no matter how horrible they were.
---
A brother-in-law did some hiring for TWA. He said that whenever there were choices of candidates for jobs he would always choose the black or female candidates over white or male candidates if their resumes were even close to similar. He could never get in trouble for hiring a minority, but there could be problems if he didn't. It was a no brainer for him. Aptitude for the job wasn't irrelevant, of course, but he blatantly discriminated based upon race or sex in favor of protected classes every single time that he could.
That is pretty much the definition of unequal treatment, mandated by the federal government.
So much for equal under the law.
This is just anecdotal evidence, of course, but there are many stories online that document it and of universities and so on admitting it and refusing to change their standards unless forced to by law. They discriminate based upon race, and sex and sexual preferences and are proud of it.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Having the government decide such things is pretty bad. - JeffB MU - 7/10 20:11:05