@wolfgang59 saidLet me guess: your a white comfortably off white guy like Phil.
This is the same misguided "positive discrimination" that was prevalent in
the 80s and 90s in sex equality. A company I worked for decided to favour
women over men to address their imbalance in the workforce. I'm totally against it.
All discrimination is bad discrimination.
@sonhouse saidHow the hell do you read what I wrote and conclude that?
@shavixmir
And just kick out people because they are too old even though they might have skills not around in the 30 yo set.
Just for your information, I am a genuine old fart, 78 years old, it excellent health and still employed working on very technically demanding equipment like ion etchers, sputtering machines, chemical vapor deposition, electron microscopes, ion impl ...[text shortened]... ally paid 200 dollars an hour.
So they rehired me and I save their asses every time I go to work.
Seriously. Read it again.
You could do what the UK civil service did and simply ‘offer’ an enhanced retirement package, including full service pension and a generous lump sum for people aged 45 +. Trust me so many will bite your arm that you’ll have to turn some down, I was one if the lucky ones and haven’t regretted it or got all bitter and twisted for a second.
Sorted.
@shavixmir saidKevcvs57@
That being said, “fire only white people” isn’t something anyone really wants to read.
First of all: it’s not racist. There is no such thing as race.
It is, however, discrimination. And if it was actually said (which I have to doubt... and I doubt even more that it is policy... but seeing it’s America... who knows... maybe people get thrown into the flat earth lava pit. ...[text shortened]... costs lots of money.
All situations which are not good for individuals, families or the community.
Said
“I was referring to positive discrimination in general in regard to education and hiring policy. I’m a life long union member I don’t agree with any individual losing their livelihood to facilitate a more diverse workforce of any kind.
The example your citing has not happened and I’m pretty sure it won’t, but if it does their union should sue the employers rear end off.
I’m not in the business of answering earl’s dog whistle bones that he’s dug up half the internet for.
The case your worrying about was never going to happen but their are reasonable alternatives for lowering the age of the work force and could be done for many reasons. Greater gender and racial diversity being one of them.“
@kevcvs57 saidIn the Netherlands bandwidth is a valid way of shrinking an organisation.
Kevcvs57@
Said
“I was referring to positive discrimination in general in regard to education and hiring policy. I’m a life long union member I don’t agree with any individual losing their livelihood to facilitate a more diverse workforce of any kind.
The example your citing has not happened and I’m pretty sure it won’t, but if it does their union should sue the employe ...[text shortened]... rk force and could be done for many reasons. Greater gender and racial diversity being one of them.“
And it’s generally not done to create more diversity.
Unions and worker councils have the job to make sure the system isn’t abused.
And everyone should attempt to keep as many people from becoming unemployed as possible.
1 edit
@shavixmir saidLike I say it was completely voluntary it was called V.E.R.S Voluntary Early Retirement Scheme and I think the motivation was to offload longer serving employees who were on more favourable contracts and pension schemes than new intakes.
In the Netherlands bandwidth is a valid way of shrinking an organisation.
And it’s generally not done to create more diversity.
Unions and worker councils have the job to make sure the system isn’t abused.
And everyone should attempt to keep as many people from becoming unemployed as possible.
This two tier system was fought by the unions when it was introduced but they lost because even union members can be quite selfish in a time of austerity.
But I certainly wouldn’t support an involuntary system of any sort.
@soothfast saidSoothfast, the article was not posted to show any laws that Seattle broke, it was
Okay, so this is the idea of a single city council member. It sounds like a lousy idea, but since it's not an idea that has actually been taken up and passed by the council, I would say it's not worth getting overly outraged about.
A better idea: get ahold of the records of each police officer on the force and study them. Do psychological reevaluations. Give some pap ...[text shortened]... rs know the proper procedures. By these means the chaff can be separated from the wheat, and fired.
posted to demonstrate, the way leftists think, and it is scary. These people VOTE.
@kevcvs57 saidKev, kev, kev. Two removed posts in less than 24 hours?
You could do what the UK civil service did and simply ‘offer’ an enhanced retirement package, including full service pension and a generous lump sum for people aged 45 +. Trust me so many will bite your arm that you’ll have to turn some down, I was one if the lucky ones and haven’t regretted it or got all bitter and twisted for a second.
Sorted.
tsk tsk.
@earl-of-trumps saidA 2011 DOJ investigation of the Seattle Police Department found its officers to have consistently engaged in illegal use of force and raised serious concerns regarding discriminatory enforcement. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf
Institutional "legalized" racism by leftists.
Seattle City Council Member Suggests Firing White Officers in Massive Reduction of Police Department
[i]The Seattle City Council is facing something of a dilemma in its popular pledge to cut the police budget by 50 percent. To do so would require firing a significant number of police officers, which is also pop ...[text shortened]... eattle-city-council-member-suggests-firing-white-officers-in-massive-reduction-of-police-department/
IF there are to be police layoffs, retaining officers from before that date should be a low priority, not a requirement because of seniority rules. And any gains in diversity meant to, in part, address the concerns of the 2011 report should not be sacrificed.
That's not "racism", that's trying to address the problem of systemic racism.
@shavixmir saidThen I apologize, apparently I got a wire crossed somewhere.
That is absolutely not what I’m saying.
@no1marauder saidMy eyes popped out on this one.
A 2011 DOJ investigation of the Seattle Police Department found its officers to have consistently engaged in illegal use of force and raised serious concerns regarding discriminatory enforcement. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf
IF there are to be police layoffs, retaining officers from before that date shoul ...[text shortened]... not be sacrificed.
That's not "racism", that's trying to address the problem of systemic racism.
Our investigation finds a pattern or practice of constitutional violations regarding the use
of force that result from structural problems, as well as serious concerns about biased policing.
Resolution of our findings will require a written, court-enforceable agreement that sets forth
remedial measures to be taken within a fixed period of time. A disciplined remedial structure
will provide all interested parties with the greatest assurance that violations of constitutional
rights are corrected and will not reoccur.
This was all written and handed to the Mayor in 2011!! What the O#*$&#O*
It's plain to see rights were not restored and breaches of the law DID reoccur.
So, now, too, the DoJ can be thrown under the bus. Mayors, city councils, and police chiefs are damned and determined to go the "same old, same old". That - and the slackjaw DoJ for not following up are the real problems.
Like I have been saying all along, implementation is going to be a real task.
@earl-of-trumps saidI'm not sure what a "leftist" is. You got a rigorous definition in your vest pocket you can share? I'm probably a "leftist," but I don't agree with the proposal of the person in your article.
Soothfast, the article was not posted to show any laws that Seattle broke, it was
posted to demonstrate, the way leftists think, and it is scary. These people VOTE.
When you zoom in to the level of city council member, municipal alderman, or town dog catcher, you will, in a nation as large as the US, find all manner of nutty ideas on both the "right" and the "left" end of the political spectrum.
You found a juicy cherry, picked it, and now run amok in the streets, holding it aloft and screaming hysterically that "Soylent green is white people!!!!" What the hell have you really proved?
@soothfast saidNot sure what I have "proved" because I am sure people will disagree.
I'm not sure what a "leftist" is. You got a rigorous definition in your vest pocket you can share? I'm probably a "leftist," but I don't agree with the proposal of the person in your article.
When you zoom in to the level of city council member, municipal alderman, or town dog catcher, you will, in a nation as large as the US, find all manner of nutty ideas on both t ...[text shortened]... hysterically that "Soylent green is white people!!!!" What the hell have you really proved?
But clearly I have demonstrated that this type of racist thinking occurs
on the left. Nobody that is above racism can even think of such a measure
as being a solution to anything.
And I find it supremely hypocritical for these leftists to be throwing stones.
They live in a glass house.