Should there be any protected working classes?

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Especially in a down economy, should any group of workers be considered "protected" over another class of worker?

[handyman2]

Well yes and no or maybe. Those providing emergency and vital medical serices.

[Value Buy]

Yes, there should be a protected worker working class.

Mine.

[Tennesseer]

Politically_Incorrect12 - before I vote, please define a protected working class or group. Be specific.

[Value Buy]

Jan 23, 2011 12:05:19 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Politically_Incorrect12 - before I vote, please define a protected working class or group. Be specific.

Tennesseer, I already said, mine should be.

[Tennesseer]

VB-are you Politically_Incorrect12? If so, pick one nick and I will delete the other.

[fairlycrazy23]

Generally no, but I could see cities and municipalities passing rules that favor supporting emergency services over other services, and that seems logical.
But if you mean in the private sector no.

[cronewitch]

Jan 23, 2011 8:23:41 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Especially in a down economy, should any group of workers be considered "protected" over another class of worker?

I think companies should have more leeway if they are tiny companies say under 10 employees. If the owner wants to hire mostly family but tries to make sure all are happy with each outside addition they should be able to select for compatibility. I did the books for one store that only seemed to hire people from Samoa like the owner. Many were family but I think the family was happier with others being more like them. If the store grew to a chain they should be forced to diversify to people from other groups but once in the trend others may not apply as much. People would still try to get friends and family jobs so it might always be overweighted to one group.

Also it is hard to prove if you discriminate or not. We are a union shop and hire whoever the union dispatches but have to prove we didn't discriminate. We were under represented in people from one country they wanted to know why. Another company got most of them because they all wanted to work together so had people in the other company ask for them by name.

We seem to have a glass ceiling for women but it isn't from anything we did. The high ranking men mostly were in the navy, navel engineers, port engineers or grandson of founder, or worked up from union trades like electrician that are mostly male.

Some jobs seem to be more appropriate based on gender like receptionist or preschool teacher or logger so most applicants will be the same gender proving you gave equal treatment would be hard.

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

<<< Especially in a down economy, should any group of workers be considered "protected" over another class of worker? >>>

...you mean like the govt. intervening and mandating that workers cannot be hired/fired according to the decisions of the employer?

...then no...

[Tennesseer]

Jan 23, 2011 13:59:10 GMT -5 cronewitch said:

Jan 23, 2011 8:23:41 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Especially in a down economy, should any group of workers be considered "protected" over another class of worker?

I think companies should have more leeway if they are tiny companies say under 10 employees.

Companies and businesses with less than 15 employees are not covered by EEO laws (other than equal pay and age discrimination (businesses with less than 20 employees)). EEO laws regarding national origin are a bit different:

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin by smaller employers (with 4 to 14 employees). Employers with 4 or more employees (and recruiters and referrers for a fee) are also prohibited from discriminating on the basis of citizenship status; discriminating in the employment eligibility verification process; and retaliating under IRCA.

www.eeoc.gov/employers/coverage.cfm

[safeharbor37]

"Politically_Incorrect12 - before I vote, please define a protected working class or group. Be specific."
Might be nice to define "protection" in this case as well. What sort of protection?
Nevertheless, I vote no.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

I meant more along the lines of race, age, gender, etc

[Tennesseer]

I knew exactly what you meant P_I12-and the answer is yes, especially because of a down economy.

Company seniority has nothing to do with being a protected class. P_I12's question has to do with EEO and OFCCP laws and regulations regarding the external hiring of employees based upon their race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 23, 2011 17:17:02 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I knew exactly what you meant P_I12-and the answer is yes, especially because of a down economy.

Company seniority has nothing to do with being a protected class. P_I12's question has to do with EEO and OFCCP laws and regulations regarding the external hiring of employees based upon their race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

I voted no since I don't believe anybody should be discriminated against (legally or illegally).

I don't know that I'll ever understand the mentality that people seem to believe that certain groups of people are incapable of succeeding on their own without the government forcing legal discrimination. I'll also never understand the mentality that people think legal discrimination is ok, as long as it helps them.

[Tennesseer]

P_I - Shouldn't your personal answer to your poll be 'Yes'? Because with a 'No' response, discrimination would simply explode around the country which would not have occurred (at least in the numbers greater than it does in today workforce) if there had been EEOC protected classes, laws and guidelines in place.

By your rationale, someone is going to believe they have been discriminated against. And without the EEOC and their laws and guidelines, who would make the determination of discrimination? A judge? A judge probably couldn't do it because there are no laws and guidelines to make a determination. Judges make determinations based upon existing law. Remember, in your scenario, the EEOC and their laws and guidelines were no longer needed.

By the way, I voted yes for the very reasons given above.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 23, 2011 18:16:14 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

P_I - Shouldn't your personal answer to your poll be 'Yes'? Because with a 'No' response, discrimination would simply explode around the country which would not have occurred (at least in the numbers greater than it does in today workforce) if there had been EEOC protected classes, laws and guidelines in place.

By your rationale, someone is going to believe they have been discriminated against. And without the EEOC and their laws and guidelines, who would make the determination of discrimination? A judge? A judge probably couldn't do it because there are no laws and guidelines to make a determination. Judges make determinations based upon existing law. Remember, in your scenario, the EEOC and their laws and guidelines were no longer needed.

By the way, I voted yes for the very reasons given above.

No, my personal answer is no...again I don't agree with discrimination of any group. I don't understand your logic that it's ok to discrimination against certain groups, which is essentially what you are doing when favoring one group of people over another based on traits that they have no control over (age, gender, race).

[Tennesseer]

I simply follow the law P_I12.

And isn't your certain groups (meaning group) you mention white males? Can you be honest and say that is true?

[ed1066]

Especially in a down economy, should any group of workers be considered "protected" over another class of worker?

Those who perform their jobs well should be given preferential treatment over those who don't...

[Tennesseer]

Ed-we are speaking of the unemployed and those seeking other/new employment here.

[workpublic]

Especially in a down economy, should any group of workers be considered "protected" over another class of worker?

yes. the millions on unemployment.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 23, 2011 18:53:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I simply follow the law P_I12.

And isn't your certain groups (meaning group) you mention white males? Can you be honest and say that is true?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking me, could you clarify? As far as white males, they seem to be the ONLY group not considered a "protected working class." I take that back, young heterosexual white males seem to be the only group not protected under the law.

If you are asking me if I think it should be wrong to discriminate against white males based on their skin color and gender, then yes...just like I think it should be wrong to discriminate against any other group. It is safe to assume that you are ok with a law that allows discrimination, as long as it is against the group I just mentioned?

[Tennesseer]

Jan 24, 2011 9:21:20 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 23, 2011 18:53:37 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I simply follow the law P_I12.

And isn't your certain groups (meaning group) you mention white males? Can you be honest and say that is true?

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking me, could you clarify? As far as white males, they seem to be the ONLY group not considered a "protected working class." I take that back, young heterosexual white males seem to be the only group not protected under the law. If you are asking me if I think it should be wrong to discriminate against white males based on their skin color and gender, then yes...just like I think it should be wrong to discriminate against any other group. It is safe to assume that you are ok with a law that allows discrimination, as long as it is against the group I just mentioned?

Why did I know it was white males you were hesitant to refer to until now.

Let me ask you this about this statement of yours:

I don't know that I'll ever understand the mentality that people seem to believe that certain groups of people are incapable of succeeding on their own without the government forcing legal discrimination.

How are "certain groups" going to succeed if they are not give the opportunity to succeed? How is an African-American male (for example) with a masters degree in chemical engineering going to succeed if the corporate doors are only open to white males with master degrees in chemical engineering?

[Tennesseer]

P_I12.

I take that back, young heterosexual white males seem to be the only group not protected under the law.

LOL. So that's the problem, eh? Why are you not including older heterosexual white males as not protected under the law?

Under federal EEO laws, homosexuals are not protected. Under some state and city EEO laws, they are.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 24, 2011 9:44:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

P_I12.

I take that back, young heterosexual white males seem to be the only group not protected under the law.

LOL. So that's the problem, eh? Why are you not including older heterosexual white males as not protected under the law?

Under federal EEO laws, homosexuals are not protected. Under some state and city EEO laws, they are.

Age discrimination becomes a factor after a certain age...

So are you ok with the law since it discriminates against the group I mentioned?

[Tennesseer]

Oh you kids.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Jan 24, 2011 10:07:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oh you kids.

So I am assuming the answer is yes then.

[jkapp]

Isn't having protected worker classes akin to having a company that is "too big to fail?" Whenever we create such things it always ends up coming back to bite us. Will these proctected classes take advantage of such a ruling? It's only human nature to do such a thing...

[Tennesseer]

Jan 24, 2011 10:14:52 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

Jan 24, 2011 10:07:40 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oh you kids.

So I am assuming the answer is yes then.

Yes. My answer is yes. Myself and other Baby Boomers worked through it (being under forty at one time and age protection). Generation X'ers can too.

[safeharbor37]

" How are "certain groups" going to succeed if they are not give the opportunity to succeed? How is an African-American male (for example) with a masters degree in chemical engineering going to succeed if the corporate doors are only open to white males with master degrees in chemical engineering? "
The same way that black athletes succeed. By showing that they can do the job in a superior fashion. Discrimination on bases not related to job performance is damaging to the economy [of the company and the nation], but "preference" [which is what is meant by "protection"] is likewise damaging to the company, the nation, and, believe it or not, to the "protected" Class.
The difference here is that some argue that "classes" should be protected in preference to "individuals." It's the old class warfare argument by the collectivists who pit one group of people [class] against another in order to push their political agenda.
Some of us argue that those who discriminate on a non-objective basis will suffer the economic consequences while those who discriminate on the bases of ability and performance will ultimately prevail to the benefit of all [classes and individuals].
P.S. "....if the corporate doors are only open to white males with master degrees in chemical engineering?" is just demagoguery. No one is suggesting that anyone be denied "equal access." The argument is that "certain" people should not get "preference" over "other" people. [We do not believe that, "some animals are more equal" than others.]

[Tennesseer]

"The same way that black athletes succeed. By showing that they can do the job in a superior fashion."

If no one will hire them because of their race, how will they show they can do a job in a superior fashion?