Vote to end discrimination coming

This also addresses hiring by the state, as well as all subcontracting that goes on.

The "hand up" turned into a "hand out" that never helped the inner city poor that needed the help in the first place, which is why Detroit is on the verge of bankrupsy.

The fact that they re-elected a known thug who had been shown to be abusing his position and running up outragous bills that he illegally paid for through his office. Is this racist to say this? No, BOTH candidates were black, yet only one had been shown to have the city of Detroit paying to lease a brand new lincoln Navigator for HIS WIFES personal use as well as dinners and trips.

by montgomery gator Jan 12, 2006

Race and ethnicity should not be considered in any way. I would vote for the proposed amendment if I lived in Michigan. "Reverse Discrimination" is just as unjust as "old fashioned" discrimination against minorities. Just like the old saying goes, "two wrongs do not make a right".

that if a race was held back for no other reason than they are that race, they would not be as qualified to start entering into workforce.

The "HAND UP" idea is noble, but wasn't administered correctly and has gone on for too long.

It's time has passed.

by jkaras Jan 12, 2006

I think it has good intentions, but I think more effort needs to be waged on other things. Discrimmination is illegal in itself. The way I think I am interpreting this is that now everyone can get sue happy claiming their rejection was due to some bias and not acedemic. I can see it now; I got turned down because I am a bisexual-Asian-African-hippie-middle class-American with asthma.(if I left anyone out my apologies) There is enough people not going to college and it doesnt have to do with ethnicity, it's financial or a rediculous gpa score.

First off they need to control the price of education, then enhance it with better teaching methods. Right now our youth are being exploited through sports pushing them through the system and not teaching them. What is a good school nowadays? A good sports program, not acedemics. Government needs to step in to hold the Universities and colleges accountable with jail time not dismissal or fines. Boosters can replace any amount of fines levied. Its funny that a New York judge can hit a Teamster union to drive buses or pay 1 mil a day, but a college gets a small fine?

Second they need to re-evaluate the gpa standards. Kids are killing themselves over the pressure of not getting straight A's or college is out of the question. Let's be realistic and not go back til you were in the third grade. Most feel that their first year of High school dictates their chances not their overall duration and their senior year.

Lastly, college has the most discrimination through it's own students, when they get into their cliques. There are a lot of stuents that make very big mistakes just to be liked when their home is thousands of miles away.

There was over the last few years lawsuits because RACE was used as an admissions factor and would allow access to people with lower qualifications because they were a "minority" and the college was seeking "diversity" through discrimination.

The same happens now with state hiring, with quotas on having to hire based on "we need another of this ethnic group" instead of "we need someone that can do this job".

It has gotten out of hand, and gone on for way too long.

What it is saying is stop ALL discrimination.

I do not like affirmation Action.
However, there is still a basic need to help those who are still being discriminated against with a step up.

James touched on one. There is a need to balance any program with a socioeconomic status modifier. Race discrimination is less of a factor. Where anyone that comes from a lower socioeconomic status is often still discriminated against.

There is still a need of some sort of action for women. Their salary's still lag behind men. An example, my wife was hired by the state. She was offered $15,000 less than a male hired at the same time that actually had less experience and did the same job. In a recent WindowsITPro magazine survey (published in the December 2005 issue), Women are making about $6,000 less on average than Men.

In short, I like that affirmation action as it exists is coming under scrutiny. There is still a need of some form of Affirmation Action like program.

and that wouldn't change.

If this can be proven, then it is means for a lawsuit.

Now to show another side of the coin, I personally got hired in for a lot more than my female counter-part that was already here. Why? I turned down the job when I found out what the offered pay was. They came back a week later and offered me more so I took it.

Pay rates. If it is a set scale, it is easy to prove discrimination based on gender. But if it is based on what the people negotiate when they get hired, there is NO legal recourse. Looking at raises though would show a bias.

This legislation does is meant to stop ALL discrimination, and punish ANYONE who discriminates based on the set aspects.

Note: It will still be legal to discriminate against over weight people and smokers. These are not protected groups, although people have tried over the years to add the over weight classification.

So no, there is NEVER need for affirmative action as affirmative action says to make your decision based on discrimination instead of saying to treat everybody equal.

AS IMPLEMENTED, affirmation action discriminates. However, I stated I do not agree with Affirmation action as it is CURRENTLY implemented. I do believe, however, that there needs to be some sort of LEVELING program.

On average all things being equal, if a Male makes $50,000 for a job a female should be making the same. Same applies to Race or Religion or anything else. It should be illegal to pay someone with the same experience less for the same work on the basis that they belong to a protected group.

Even if it was illegal (which it is not), Proving it is another story all together. They were both brought in at the same pay level. He was paid the max and she was paid the min. Do you really believe that guy would risk his job and future jobs to rat his employer. (It would effect his future because the industry they worked in is very close knit and other employers would find out) Further, This was a state job with set pay scales. Pay rates are confidential. How do you prove it?

There needs to be some law to LEVEL the playing field.

by protiusx Jan 12, 2006

My personal experience with discrimination is interesting only in the fact that I am a white male and according to many incapable of being discriminated against. When I was 22 years old and I had applied for a job as a bank teller at a small town credit union. The manager I interviewed with was a white woman of middle age. The interview went very well but during the interview she asked me no less than three times why I was applying for this job as normally she only interviews and hires female applicants. I thought that was a very odd thing to say during an interview but at the conclusion she wanted to hire me. She told me she would call me the following Thursday to come in and fill out the necessary paperwork. She never called the following Thursday and so I called her back. She told me over the phone that they decided to hire a woman for the job. Hmmm.

Fast forward three years. I am in college and working as an EMT/Firefighter for a volunteer fire department. There was a civil service exam coming up for a local city fire department. Now if you don't know this Firefighting is a very competitive career field and most firefighters do it because it is a dream come true. So I am in class one day (with other volunteer as well as paid city firefighters) and we are talking about the upcoming test. One of the city firefighters advises me not to test. I asked him why and he said that they needed to fill the EEOC quota and I was the wrong color and the wrong sex. So was I discriminated against? I think so.

It is those experiences that have led me to adhere to a very rigid hiring policy when I hire people. It is this: The applicant who can perform the tasks to which they are applying the best wins. I don't care if you are a purple three eyed quadrosexual. If I need a programmer and you rock then your hired. If I need a technical writer and you rock your hired. For those of you who have read my postings in the past and find this incongruent with my conservatives please think again. Being conservative does not mean being bigoted. Any consideration other than those directly related to the job is discrimination. I say this because there are certain situations when you must discriminate. I am a large person and I think it is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against large people for jobs such as flight attendant. This job requires moving about in cramped conditions and this becomes difficult if not impossible if you are large. It is the fact of the matter. Likewise, the owner of a Religious book store would not and should not be compelled to hire someone who contradicts what that faith upholds as morally right.

Why would hiring the best qualified applicant for the job NOT be in line with being a conservative?

Smart business men know to surroung themselves with the best people possible, and you do not hurt your business because of a potential employee is the "wrong color" and/or the "wrong sex". This takes money OUT of your own pocket and THAT would be against conservative values.

Anyone remember the law suit because some guy thought he had a RIGHT to be hired as a Hooters waitress? Well, it turned out this dumba$$ DIDN'T have a RIGHT to be hired as a Hooters waitress after all! Sounded more like one more sue happy loser that was hoping for a pay off to get something for nothing.

I just know that I would NOT want to hire a hot young thing. Who needs that kind of trouble with all the sexual harrassment suits going on all the time, both justified AND unjustified. Again, too many people looking for a payout.

I would think that there already ARE law covering that, it is just up to you to prove it?

And the same thing happens between the same genders. Not everyone is paid the same, regardless if they are all the same gender or not.

My mother was an administrator for the academic side for IT at a local college. She was down sized out, and the man that was in charge of the administrative side of IT (staff vs students) was given BOTH sides even though he had less qualifications of less experience AND less education. 11 others, all women and/or minorities had similar things happen. After the law suit, it seems it is legal to do that. Go figure.

But hiring based on gender or race won't fix this. An audit of the books is what would be required and then PROVING that the differences are based on that gender or race.

Remember, innocent until proven guilty, and when you bring this case they don't have to prove why they did what they did, YOU have to prove why they did what they did. Burden of proof is a difficult thing to get.

I don't have an answer to the glass ceiling. I just know that discrimination isn't the answer.

What I am saying is that the thing that happened to your mother must be corrected. That is what Affirmative Action was intended to do. It was never Intended to be used the way it is now.

There must be some leveling device. If you don't like the term Affirmative Action, call it something diffrent. Right now there is none, even with affirmative action.

of affirmative action. It got lumped in to the mix, but it was to "level the playing field" for the black community and is primarily what it has been used for.

Alledged "affirmative action" was about putting people into positions, not to open the glass ceiling.

ANYTIME you give preference to one group, you are discriminating against everyone that is not a part of that group.

It is also not preferential treatment that is required to get pay equality, but enforcement of ANTI-discrimination laws. Completely different beast.

by jamesrl Jan 12, 2006

In my organization, a large worldwide company, there are pretty strict rules on pay scales. Every job grade has a range, and new employees are expected to start at roughly the same point in the scale (we bell curve the salary distribution and create quartiles). There can be some negotiations and adjustments to get someone in the door, but the system actually favours bigger raises for those lower on the scale so over time it evens out.

I know our HR team would not allow us to make blatant overpayments or allow such kinds of discrepencies. There is a corporate compensation group that would flag it.

James

And that is a good way of doing it. That is in the true spirit of what an "Affirmative Action" program should be.

How much is taken into concideration that some employees are BETTER than others, thus more valuable assests to the company, thus deserving more compansation?

While on the other hand, you get "adiquate" employees that are there all the time and do their job, but nothing great and never "above and beyond". These people are not someone you get rid of, but they are NOT deserving of the same compensation as the more productive workers. The "go getters".

Its a complicated mathamatical formula, but of course we give raises based on performance.

Lets see if we can draw the picture.

You have two employees - one at the first quartile (below the median salary for the grade) and one at the third quartile (above the median salary for the grade). When we do salary planning, we essentially are given numbers for the averages. We rate employees on a 4 point scale where 1 is on the way to being fired, 2 is below average, 3 is average and 4 is above average. We are given ranges of what the averages raises would be for each quartile - so we would get x% for Grade 1, 1st quartile, average performance, y for below average etc.

We do get to manually tweak up and down. Someone who has been in the job for a long time and can't be promoted does tend to get a smaller raise than someone who just started(if they are both equally competant and at the same grade), but if they are longer in the job, they are working at a higher salary to begin with.

Of course if you want real gains in salary, get a promotion.....

James

there must be a way for those who have been and STILL ARE being discriminated against to have a level playing field.

Your story about your mother is a classic example of discrimination that is still occuring on the basis of Sex or Race. When that stops then you can call for an end to Affirmative Action.

Again, the way Affirmative Action is applied is broken. The idea is still needed.

The alledged "affrimative action" does not help women get equal pay not equal treatment. That is what anti-discrimination laws are for!

Affrimative action is not an anti-discrimination act as it does NOTHING to stop discrimination against minorities of any kind. All it does is put quotas on hiring that you have your token minority regardless of their skills and qualifications. Doesn't do ANYTHING for equal pay or your wife wouldn't have the lower pay than her co-worker as affirmative action has been in place for a LONG time now.

Someone fed you a bill of goods.

On the way home tonight they were discussing this issue on a news channel out of Detroit.

The claim is that the signitures were gained fraudulently and through misrepresentation because they were asked to sign the patition to support Civil Rights.

Since when is the only definition of Civil Rights Affirmative action? Non-minorities have no civil rights?

Have people really gotten that stupid? Or are they assuming that everyone else is that stupid?

Too bad they didn't say it over the Internet, because I am offended!

Because of this lable refering to EVERYONES Civil Rights instead of a select fews preferential treatment, the ACLU and the NAACP are desparetly trying to get this pulled off of the ballot in order to continue to discriminate against everyone that isn't in their group.

This will be interesting to watch what happens, but from what I have found up to this point says that at this point there isn't anything they can do to take this off of the ballot.

Will also see how the people of Michigan vote on this. I bet it passes with a 60% approval vote.

You might find it hard to believe...but...I agree with the foundation of the legislation.

Law in the United States, which is supposed to be equal to all who fall under it, has been twisted and distorted to benefit minorities in *most* instances...being mostly only those discriminated previous to the 1980s. However, men in the United States and most countries around the world are a legal minority now consisting of less than half of the gender population. How come men can not get minority small business grants in our country? Because the law is not fair and balanced.

If law were fair and just in the United States, it would be illegal for a state or federal (PELL) education grant questionnaire to ask your race or sex. However (unless it's changed in the past several years), those education grant programs asked applicants for their race and gender. And, their rules for disbursement supported the granting of education funds in preference to those of racial minorities and the female gender.

Law, if truly equal, would never state specific right for a certain group. Law should apply to all.
If you want to marry another person...their gender or race should not matter. Only that you want to marry each other.

If you want to get a small business grant, your gender or race should not matter. Only that you have a solid business plan in an area with an active market for your product to sell.

If you want to go to college and you have excellent grades and need a grant, you should not be passed-over because you weren't a certain gender or race. You should be ranked according to your scholastics and your financial need for those funds.

But why is the law this way? Does discriminating against the past discriminators validate the discrimination of today?

My answer: No. Everyone should earn their education, job success and future based on their effort and results...so long as that result was earned legitimately. Any time someone applies for a loan, grant, job, etc., neither race...nor gender...nor sexual orientation...nor religious affiliation...should EVER be a consideration.

But because government says we "owe" these groups who have been discriminated against some form of remuneration, people of non-minority ethnic backgrounds have been discriminated against for the past 20 years. Not only in the workplace, but in getting funding for their education or in trying to start up businesses.

I have never understood how someone could have everything given to them. I've worked since I was in elementary school, done housework for my mother since I was big enough to get on a stepstool to wash clothes and dishes and pick up after myself, and I've always been taught to do my best.

Hence, I don't think that because someone is of any particular group...that they should be handed things because they are a minority.

Like I heard someone say once...

"Give people a hand up...not a hand-out."

Anyways...that's my two cents. Doesn't buy much...but...it's something.

it is true... B-)

I am still amazed at just how far the far left has changed people expectations in life.

There once was a time when you were expected to earn your keep and pay your way.

Can you believe some people today think they should actually be ENTITLED to FREE medical? And just WHO would pay that Doctors wages?

Sorry, but this scheme called "affirmative action" is long past any hope of being useful and productive to the country. We have seen this over the last few decades.

Is applied is broken and messed up.

However If a company is in a city that has a population breakdown of 60% black, 30% White, and 10% other, then the employee pool should be somewhat representative of that demographic breakdown. In the county I am in, the breakdown is like that. Yet the employee breakdown is the reverse 70% white, 20% black and 10% Other.

I am not saying they have to be exact. But 50-50 would be a start.

Again, the current system is broke. But I still think there is a need of SOMETHING.

And you keep talking about those Anti-discrimination laws. How did they help your mom or my wife?

I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this one...after I read a post by ProtiusX in this discussion about not being hired.

How do you feel about the federal, state, and local governments, as well as some companies, giving "veterans' preference" to ex-/retired military?

I once took a United States Postal Service examination and scored a 92% on it and wanted to work at the local post office which had 1 position open.

However because a man (who was my youth league soccer coach as a child) took the test with me and was medically retired military, he was given 10 points extra to his score which gave him a 95% total.

Is it fair that someone who was less effective at performing the tested skills for the job was given that position simply because he was formerly a member of the United States military?

Does having been in the military make you any more qualified for the job?

I mean, I can understand if he'd been a postal clerk for the United States Army. But, he'd been a mechanic of some kind (my parents knew him for years). And, he actually performed worse on a test that tested his skill against mine for the job.

Was that a fair labor practice? Is that not discrimination as well, if he's hired on a test score where he was given preferential points?

I'm interested in hearing what you or anyone else has to say...I know it's not racial or religious or gender discrimination...but...is it any less wrong?

and an individual who is a back surgery away from being in the Navy right now...

I am torn. On one hand, I think veterns preference should be give to those individual that retired from service in the military. It is a small price to pay for those who put their lives a risk so we can debate if Affirmative Action is needed.

On the other hand, you are right that the way it is applied is F**cked. I would rather see it work this way. If you and him scored 95% then the preference should be given to him. (Given all else being equal.)

People that serve in the military and get their honorable discharge (john kerry anyone?) DOES DESERVE preferential treatment in recognition of what they have done for all of us.

Without the people in the military, there wouldn't BE a government job to apply for.

I don't know how much of a boost to give and wouldn't say give it to someone completely unqualified JUST because they were in the military, but at least a small boost.

Oh yeah, keep in mind how we keep hearing that the army is made up of the poor. This is one of the few programs that DOES lift people out of poverty and gives them a shot at a productive life.

This is consistant with my life philosophy of "Remember those that remember you".

Just my opinion. Take it as you will.

by dmambo Jan 13, 2006

Why should ex-military be given preference? Almost all working vets joined the service voluntarily, were paid for their time, and have outstanding pension programs to boot.

Should coal miners have hiring preferences? Thier jobs keep our nation going and are more dangerous historically (excluding combat situations) than the military.

The reason that vets have many of the benefits they do is because of the political power they weild.

BTW, my old man was a (drafted) disabled vet and I have a brother currently in the Navy and a sister who's a vet, so I'm not looking at this from a totally commie pinko perspective.

EDIT: My sister is a woman Vietnam-era vet. She has MAJOR hiring preferences. Her service never took her outside the U.S.

anti-discrimination laws still have "burden of proof", which is a hard thing to over come sometimes.

Affirmative action was meant to get minorities a foot in the door in schools and the work force. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for break down of the work force, are you telling me you work for a racist? Or are you telling me that the majority of qualified applicatants were not black? Which of those two is it? They either intentionally chose NOT to hire the local black workers OR the local black workers did not apply for a job there. I would feel uncomfortable working in a place that does the first option. As long as you do your job well, I am very color blind.

Note, there are NO black workers in my office, but I don't recall seeing any black people that even live in this small city. But even with that, many jobs are filled through "temp" organizations. Maybe it is the TEMP organization that is racist? Or again, you pick the top qualified from the people that APPLY for a job?

Do you really want to see an add in the paper saying "Black people wanted. Call 555-555-5555." What about that 10% "other" group? "wanted, 1 Korian, one hispanic, one martian and two females of any ethnic origin".

That is EXACTLY what "affirmative action" does, they just aren't HONEST enough to come out and say it because they KNOW how wrong that would be to do it in the first place! So the intentionally DISTORT and conceil what they are doing.

Until a company's demographics are consistent with the general population, GIVEN ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL between two applicants, then preference should be given to the applicant that is from a protected group.

If the applicant, who is in a protected group, is NOT qualified then they should NOT be given preference.

This same prinicipal should also apply when considering downsizing.

That is it. Nothing more.

If you disagree with that prinicipal, then I think we will have to agree to disagree. I will give you your right to be wrong. I hope you will give me my right to be wrong.

I still love you man! :)

actually made sence! :D

I will chalk up the rest of them as a communications breakdown. either you weren't clearly stating what you intended, or I didn't understand what you clearly stated. (I think it was the first one!!!! :^O )

There is a big difference between using this as a TIE BREAKER than to simply say because the black population is 60% then the work population HAS to be 60%.

I think both of our last posts really cleared up where we were both coming from, and I don't have an issue with tie breakers like that, in cases like that.

We agree more than we disagree on this. Better? Peace! B-)

The principle of Canadian Medicare is that while there are issues within ones control in terms of health, there are many conditions that are not within an individuals control - I can't pick my parents or genes. Agree or not, its not remotely related to affirmative action.

Affirmative action on the other hand is discrimination to fight discrimination.

I am all for helping the disadvantaged, even if it costs me some tax dollars, because I think it benefits the economy and society as a whole to move people from dependancy to self sufficieny. For example, in Canada, native students get free tuition. I don't mind that - but they still have to get accepted like anyone else, and more importantly, they don't necessarily displace anyone else, its just adding more students. What they do with that education is of course up to them.

If people want to improve life for the black community, spend money to hire tutors to help them improve test scores so that they have a better shot at admissions. Even that is disrimination if its not offered to all. I'd be happy to have them offer it only to people below a certain income level. But I would never agree to discrimination in hiring based on any demographic. Two wrongs do not equal a right.

James

I often hear that people in inner cities like Detroit do not recieve as good of an education as people in places like Grosse Point, or other affluent cities. If this is the case (and I would believe it) then wouldn't EVERYONE that goes to that school have that disadvantage, not just the "minorityes"?

If you are "economically disadvantaged" there should be grants to help based on this income, but NOT on the gender or the color of your skin.

As for giving things away, the reason medical costs have shot up out of control is because of people that don't pay directly out of their pockets don't CARE how much something costs and have no way to comparison shop and no reason to either. (thi is insured and medicade people alike)

With the government and insurance companies controlling price, doctors do not compete like other professions do.

as for medical for the poor, that is just another myth that is used to get votes. If you are dead broke and something happens to you, you will be treated and the debt is "forgiven" and written off as a bad debt that will be covered by the other patients that DO pay for their services.

There is not some new crisis of people not having medical.

I don't want to have the same limits imposed on ME that you do for my medical. It is part of a benifits package I get from my employer. I can get into a doctor by just walking in the door. I have a very wide choice about who I see and when.

While your medical is better than what our uninsured have, it most definiately is not better than our insured medical. I will not sacrifice mine and my families medical for anyone else.

As for tutors, they CAN be made available again based on income and remove the race/gender as that isn't what MAKES you need the help.

The only justification of going off of race was if there is an arguement for one race being inferior to another and genetically not able to cope. I think that is stupid, but would be the only way I could see never-ending-affirmative-action going on.

The poor can obtain emergency medical. However, they have none or little access to minor medical. Therefore, until they are seriously ill they receive no care. So a minor sinus infection becomes pneumonia. Additionally, hospitals are only under the obligation to stabilize. So the hospitals ensure that the person is not going to die immediately and then let them go.

That being said, Socialized medicine is not the answer for all the problems we all know about.

The goal should be to ensure adequate health care is affordable for the working and accessible for the poor. The Health Care industry's profits are in the Billions (not revenue which is in the 10s of billions). I think that we should require Health Care companies to be Not-for-Profit, including Insurance and Pharmaceuticals. Therefore, there is billions in the health care system to pay for research, the poor, the salary's of health care workers, and probably have money left to reduce costs.

I know there would be a lot to work out and no I do not have all the answers. But I think this is the middle ground. It is not completely Pinko and has a lot of capitalist ideals as well.

I know we have had this discussion before.

I am not sacrificing anything for my family.

I can get into a doctor by walking in the door, I can see any doctor I like.

My mother in fact needs a hip replacement and she knew that a doctor in Toronto was one of the best in the world. She just called him up. She does of course have to pay to get to Toronto to see him.

My wife was a high risk pregnancy, and wanted the best team in the country, which happened to be in Toronto. She just called and asked.

From what I know of many HMOs, thats not an option for many many insured Americans. Their HMO dictates who they can see. The Canadian system does not work like an HMO. Doctors are independant contractors who bill the government, as opposed to an HMO.

As for bacnkruptcy, I hear many examples of poor people being hounded for medical bills in the US. Sure some of it is media hype. How about people at the mimimum wage, do they deserve worse care than anyone else? The fact is I dont think that ones economic status should impact care, and if you think it doesn't in the US, I can find lots of examples.

As for people asking for services that they don't need, here the doctors are in charge. They will do what they deem is necessary, not some HMO bureaucrat. The government will occasional take some medically questionable procedures off the payment list, which means people can get them if they pay out of pocket - like circumcisions, which used to be covered, but are not anymore.

I agree that skin colour should not be a factor in aid, I am all for economic strata being used to provide help. Many of our poor areas have quite a wide ethnic mix. I don't think we disagree here.

James

further vet benefits are being cut constantly.

Now I know officers get paid ok, but enlisted personell get paid squat. A coal miner makes $40,000 - $50,000 a year.

Military pay is great if you are single and can live on base. But don't have a family. A coal miner can raise a family on what he/she makes. I have vivid memories of eating pot pies and fish sticks, wearing second and third hand clothes, while my mother worked full time and my father worked another job while not on duty just to get by. This is with the assistance of Naval Housing.

I think the 10 points my father got for the USPS test is a small price to pay to say thanks for the service.

I don't know when you grew up in the military or where your dad was stationed, but most of the military I know...are living high on the hog...even married ones. Plus, they get:

Free base housing or housing compensation
Free medical
Free dental
Free vision care
Free family transportation on military transports

Sure, the cash pay isn't so great. But, they get better than $25k in free services a year.

Heck...the guy I bought the $2,000 guitar off of in Pensacola...U.S. Navy. Doing pretty good as military if you can shell out money for a guitar like that...plus, he was restoring a classic Firebird too and that's not cheap.

Plus if military gets sent into a hazard zone, they get extra money.

If a miner goes into a hazardous area...he probably has no idea it is and gets nothing extra for it.

Cops put their life on the line every day and are paid crap, have crap benefits, no housing allowance, and never are out of the combat zone unless they get off "the beat" and to a desk. And, most jobs don't give a preference to ex-law enforcement...unless it's a law enforcement job.

Now don't get me wrong.

I got nothing against military guys...my father is ex-Army (and my idol)...both his brothers retired from the military (Navy and USAF)...3 of the men that my dad's 5 sisters married are ex-military (one my 80-something uncle who I'm named after)...and I got friends in now. And yes, I appreciate what they do for this country.

However, I can say that if their service is the case of getting preference...then what about the labour and engineers who build and design the tanks, jets, armor, etc...that keep those soldiers safe and operational?

Is their service to country any less valuable to the safety of our country?

I wrote software for "customers" for a government contractor. I was actually a possible mark for foreign agents because I held clearances on certain projects. Should I get a point or 2 for that?

Hell...I even got a phone call once...went like this:

[i]Me: [b]Hello?[/b]
Caller: [b]Is Bob there?[/b]
Me: [b]Sorry, but I think you have the wrong number.[/b]
Caller: [b]Okay, thanks .[/b]
*click*[/i]

I kid you not. I was on the phone with corporate security within 30 seconds, then they called corporate DSS, and had 2 reps from "customers" meet with me the next Monday and got my phone records from Bellsouth. Talk about scary $hit.

Like someone else said...maybe it was you...I can see if I tied with the guy, giving him the preference. In fact, I'd have been all for that...no doubt.

But, I scored 7 percent higher. I obviously did a better, more thorough job on the test that involved skills needed in doing the job. Or...even if he'd done some kind of office work...it wouldn't have bothered me so much. I could see a couple points...but...a whole 10% of the possible score boosted??

And personally, I think it's part of why so many products and services have gone down in quality in this country. They give preference/special treatment to people who obviously weren't as talented and/or qualified as someone else who applied...for whatever reason... race... gender...military preference... looks...

And in this particular case, just think about the USPS...how much mail you've had lost in your lifetime...or gotten it damaged...or it took so long to get there (I've been waiting *6* weeks for a Christmas card from Holland right now so I could send one back).

I just think there's a lot of practices that are not only unfair...but...also affect the quality of services...and therefore, the quality of life...for all Americans.

Plus it's like my dad said about the guys over in Iraq now.

"It's their job. They signed up for it going in knowing what the military is, and they get paid to do it."

They do get told what they'll be paid going in and what they're doing.

Personally, I think that's kinda skewed... cause... I know 2 recruiters...and...they lie like shit to get kids to sign up. They paint it out to be bold, proud, fun...then those boys...meet Sgt. Ballkicker. hehehe

Anyways...I can't see giving overwhelming preference just because someone is ex-military. Maybe points based on years of service in a job with somewhat similar skills, but not just because you went into the service. I know guys that did nothing more than artillery. Did their service make them better at sorting mail?

Basically...my point is this:

Lots of people risk their lives in their work daily.

Lots of people do things that secure the safety of our nation.

Most of them don't get benefits and housing paid for doing their job.

Most don't get a free college education after they do it for only a few years and leave.

Most workers don't get a pension nowadays after only 20 years. (I'm government and I have to work at least 25 years, or until age 62.)

Military really don't have it that crappy...til they have to go get shot at...I can assure you.

And like I said...if you wanna see someone who has it worse, go see a street cop in Washington D.C. or south-central Los Angeles or north Miami.

Anyways...done spewing...for now.

buying everything they need on-base at a very reduced price.

Sure, if you look at the straight pay of the military they look like they are getting ripped, but the benifits for all the things they DON'T pay for would almost double their income.

And I don't have a problem with retired law enforcement having the same 10 points, as long as they weren't just a traffic cop with nothing better to do than worry about if someone is speeding instead of being in the neighborhoods to prevent crime by putting on a strong presence. Less traffic cops and more law enforcement please!

But then, catching a thief, rapist, or murderer doesn't bring in revenue like writting tickets does.

Because in '87 when my father retired that was the case. I know we didn't "Live high on the Hog". The families I know are not either.

Maybe the guy that you bought the guitar from bought it before he got in the navy. or didn't have a family, or bought it with a siging bonus, or was a high ranking NCO, or was an Officer, or any number of other ways he could have paid for it.

If you dont have a family and live on base you can live "high on the hog". But if you have a family, it just doesn't happen.

I know how I lived. I know that in 1980 an Admiral commissioned a study that showed that 80 percent of enlisted with more that 1 child were on food stamps. That was one of the reason you saw a Housing explosion for military families in the 80's.

I know they choose to join and there probably are others who do a great service for our country that mabey should get preference.

Now lets talk postal service. What error rate would you consider acceptable? 1%, 2%? Well, considering that the postal service handles billions of pieces daily, how many actual errors are those?

Thats what we have in Canada. Hospitals and doctors are not owned by the government, they are only funded (and only partially) by the government.

Employers pay the government a health care tax per employee - we even used to call it health insurance. The government/insurer pays the bills. Despite what some would say, it isn't socialized like you would see in a communist country. Doctors don't earn government salaries, many are very well paid - they are paid by the visit/procedure. Hospital administrators get paid far more than the prime minister.

I wouldn't go as far as you on pharmaseuticals. I think pharma companies need to be profit making, but i don't mind what we have which is free drugs for poor and seniors (the rest of us pay or have insurance through our employers).

James

Pharmaceutical companies have no incentive to create a cure. They have plenty incentives to create treatments. Create a treatment and The sick will keep paying or die. Create a cure and the sick only pay once. WHich is more profitable?

While I do think that Big pharma spends a lot of money on advertising and marketing to doctors (trips etc) that should be spent on research, I can't see the efficiencies in making them non-profit.

Typically doctors in universities and research hospitals come up with the ideas, and Big Pharma develops and tests them to bring them to market. I am not so cynical to think they don't want to cure cancer - they could charge $1000 a pill if they do. But I think they spend a lot of time of ED drugs etc.

James

because you're good at agreeing with me now :^O

to me...discrimination is discrimination.

If you are hiring for the best person to do a job...you hire the best at it and or the best qualified...

If you are giving admissions to a university, you give it to the students with the best grades and/or the best admissions scores...

If you're giving college tuition aid, you give it to those who have admission to a university or college and based on their grades/test scores and/or financial need...

easy as that...

And the country wonders why the Japanese and Koreans are taking over the car market...

cause the best people at building cars there...build cars...

...build many fine cars here in Ontario; Toyota builds the Corolla, Solara, Matrix, Lexus RX330 here, Honda builds the Civic, Pilot, Odyssey, Acura MDXand a few others...

The point is it isnt the workers or their ethnicity - its how they are managed. The one huge difference is that neither company has labour unions in their Ontario plants. But I can tell you that there is no shortage of people who want to work there, and if you gave someone the choice between those manufacturers and the North American plants nearby (GM Ford and Chrsyler) there is no question which they prefer.

James

It's the way they operate...especially in Japan.

In the educational system in Japan (at least it was the whole time I heard about it through college), you were placed in certain academic/industrial programs based on your skills and talents to pursue your future profession.

You didn't get to go to Japanese medical school if you weren't good at medical science.

It's not like this bull$hit in the United States where "every kid should be equal". Well, life is tough...and no one is the same as another person. That means...no kid is equal to any other kid. And therefore, you shouldn't hold back one kid to accomodate another.

Of course, you can't convince the blue-blood American aristocrats in Congress of that.

Fact is, the Japanese have surpassed American automotive manufacturing and design quality because of two principles:

1) Their plants have, by virtue of their educational system, the best people at building and assembling cars.

2) That the supervisory staff be responsible for operation of his section...down to the fact that if they are a man short on the line, that supervisor isn't just a tie-wearing person...he knows how to do anything and everything he oversees and must go work that line to fill in for someone.

That is...supervisors have to know what the hell their doing in Japanese automotive plants...not just tell their union guys "You gotta work harder to meet quota cause Bubba's out with a hip strain."

It never had anything to do with their ethnicity.

It had to do with the fact that they bring up the best people at a profession by virtue of their educational system promoting the best at something to pursue those things.

And, that their supervisory personnel know how to do more than sign a piece of paper or go to a meeting they scribbled in their day planner.

I'd say it's not how they are managed...but...how competent their managers are in the area they supervise.

BTW...I own a Korean car...and it's got almost 117,000 miles on it and never had a problem once with it running.

But anyway...don't think the Japanese just manage their employees better. They just have smarter and more trade-capable ones.

Oh...and...by the way:

The operational philosophy that is still pretty standard in Japanese manufacturing...of moving up people within an area to maintain operational knowledge at the supervisory level...

It was a philosophy taken to Japan...by an American who Ford, GM, and Chrysler wouldn't listen to. :)

by dmambo Jan 13, 2006

I have a buddy who is a cop. He tells me that the two scariest situations are: 1) pulling over a traffic violator at night (can't see well, don't know what's in the car, cops usually alone) and 2) domestic violence (people irrational). These are the duties that fall to the "just traffic cops".

And I like jck's point about the military support having as much to do with national security. I work for an electronics manufacturer producing parts which go to mil contractors. We're a single source. Without us, military planes would not fly. (Well, without us, someone else would have to be the single source, but you get my drift.) When you see the cruise missles rocketing toward the caves at Tora Bora, they have about 150 of our parts in them. Do I get a preference? No. Do I deserve hiring preference? No more than anyone else.

It seems that anyone that is in favor of equal rights for everyone is a racist. I had no idea.

"people against affirmative action are the new racists" and then blah blah blah "jim crow" blah blah blah.

So, how many of you are now racists according to the "honourable" Rev Sharpton?

Yeah, the ACLU is neck deep in this too. Will look for updates in the paper over the weekend. I would think this kind of thing makes racism WORSE, not better. But I admit I am new to this whold racist situation as I don't personally know or seem many minorities to see if anyone is treating them poorly? I do work with almost all women, and none of them seem too down trodden. Most are even college grads.

by Member 25348569 Jan 14, 2006

I quote from the Employers Handbook.

It is important to draw a distinction between positive action and positive discrimination. Positive action is where action is taken to assist members of a particular group to gain employment e.g. by providing training. However, positive discrimination is where members of a particular group are given preference over others for no other reason than their belonging to that group.

Both the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act do not permit positive discrimination.

However, under both Acts if at any time in the previous 12 months there were no persons of a particular gender or racial group doing particular work within an establishment's workforce, it is lawful to provide access to training or to encourage and help members of the under-represented group to undertake such work.

by jdclyde Jan 15, 2006

until that last paragraph. Kind of throws half of the ideas away doesn't it?

Positive discrimination is bad, unless it fits a time frame?

This really give an advantage to someone that goes into a traditionally gender specific job, doesn't it? If something is traditionally a womans job then based on this it would be much easier for a man to walk in than another woman, and the same for the other way around for a woman into a mans traditional job.

I wonder if I looked at the board of trustees, would I see this same focus, or is that only amung the file and ranks?

It IS good to see someone being honest enought to break it down like that though. We don't see enough of it in the US, because the moment you say anything that isn't FOR minoritys you are labled a biggot. Really pathetic the way it is handled here.

by jck Jan 17, 2006

it's legal to give someone an occupational hand-up...but...not an occupational hand-out.

Dad...I'm ready to move over and be your computer guru son. GET ME THE DAMN ADOPTION PAPERS NOW! :^O

Your sonny boy

by faradhi Jan 14, 2006

Further, they also provide money in the form of grants to universities.

However, they provide less that 20% of their Gross Revenue to research. Additionally, the industry PROFITS are in the BILLIONS. Yet, they charge $30 A PILL for some medicines that have been out for several years. Call me senical but that does not instill in me a trust that they will do what is not in the best interest to their bottom line.

by jdclyde Jan 15, 2006

if there is a desease that needs a cute, do you thing someone that will make a profit will find the cure or someone living off of a grant?

Like in all other aspects of life, inavations come when there is a vested interest in doing so.

making a profit is not a dirty thing. It gets fuzzy when people try to say things about how much someone else should make for doing something.

Just like about a year ago, so people were stupid enough to suggest that there should be a limit on how much money Bill Gates should be able to make.

by faradhi Jan 15, 2006

Nor do I think anyone should regulate how much a for-profit company should make. I believe that all medical companies should be non-profit. This would still allow for competition and ensure that the money that goes into medical goes to improving the care given and not the living of corporate investors. (No I do not have a problem with corporate investors either.)

A treatment has the potential of longer sustained profits than a cure. Thereby, removing the vested interest for a for-profit business to create a cure.

I am not naive enough to believe that if given the option to make 100 million off a cure or 1 billion off a treatment that the pharmaceutical companies are not going to select the treatment.

by montgomery gator Jan 16, 2006

If we make health care companies not for profit, then there will be no incentive to develop new medical advances, and competition would be eliminated, reducing medical choice. Whenever competition is eliminated, a monopoly situation occurs, and prices go up and/or quality goes down. One good example I can give is the state of public education. Since free public education is a monopoly in most areas in the USA, they have no incentive to improve quality and lower costs, since the taxpayers pay for it all.

However, a voucher system to pay for private schools would increase competition, improve educational quality, and lower costs. A good example is how the parochial school system sponsored by the Roman Catholic church in many cities do a better job of educating the students for approximately half the cost per student that the taxpayers are paying for public education.

If we are to have a system of government paid health care, a voucher system that pays for private medical insurance competing on the open market, with the current system of health care and pharmaceutical corporations competing in the free enterprise system would be much better than government control and/or non-profits. The economic incentives in the free market system with competition and consumer choice would result in lower costs and higher quality.

However, I am not necessarily advocating that the government should be involved in health care at all. I would rather the government get out of the way. Before government sponsored health care, charities and church sponsored hospitals took care of those in need.

by faradhi Jan 16, 2006

I disagree that non profit companies remove completion. You have obviously not worked for or with a non profit company. They are very competitive. You see it especially in hospitals. Many are non profit and kicking butt over some of the for profit companies. A good example of this is St. Jude Children's Hospitals. They are the world leaders in medical advances for childhood illnesses and cancer treatments. Further they are NONPROFIT.

Oh, and catholic schools have always been superior to public schools. Catholic Schools are again another example of competitive nonprofit institutions.

A little history here. Catholic Schools are the second largest school system in the nation. (Public schools are the largest of course.) Catholic Schools came into existence because when the Irish came to the states, they were often prohibited from attending public schools. That is why in the northeast, the schools have remained affordable. This is not in the case of the South where many of the schools were started by more affluent parishes.

by jdclyde Jan 16, 2006

Your example of the SECOND largest school system being an example of non-profit vs profit is not valid as the PUBLIC education is so bad because it is GOVERNMENT, not non-profit. The Catholic Schools are a success because the focus is raising well educated Christians, not to pump out as many kids as you can so you get more federal funding thrown at you. Quality is NOT a concern for public schools, which is why you hear all the lies about the "No Child Left Behind" act. The corrupt teachers union just didn't want to HAVE to be held accountable for doing their jobs like any working professional in any other field is, and they didn't want to HAVE to adher to higher standards for hiring teachers. The lie that it was underfunded while Federal spending on Educations was at an all time high shows what the Democratic party is really concerned with.

Childrens hospital. weren't you the one talking about the difference between cures and treatments?

And being non-profit isn't what makes anyone competative. It only gives them an advantage over for-profits as they don't have to bring in as much money to cover costs as there aren't stockholders expecting a return.

That is why credit unions give better rates than a traditional bank. No stockholders. Lower overhead, better return.

by faradhi Jan 16, 2006

"If we make health care companies not for profit, then there will be no incentive to develop new medical advances, and competition would be eliminated, reducing medical choice." The fact is that making an industry nonprofit will not make it less competitive.

I am not saying that making medical companies non-profit will make companies more competive. I am saying that it will remove the incentive to create treatments over cures.

The rest of the stuff about the schools I am not debating. I just brought that up as another example of a nonprofit organization remaining competitive. Your statement about credit unions only strengthens my point that nonprofits will remain competitive.

Further, St. Jude alone has developed more CURES than any for-profit company. Again proving that nonprofit companies will remain competitive and develop medical advances.

by jdclyde Jan 16, 2006

that non-profit is good, as long as it isn't GOVERNMENT run. Very few things turned over to the government run well, and it isn't the job of the government to supply medical to people. Look how badly Medicade is run. I sure don't want that to be a model for "national health care".

Now if we can just get more non-profit schools.....

by faradhi Jan 16, 2006

I have never argued for socialized healthcare.

I do not forsee me ever arguing for socialized healthcare.

by jdclyde Jan 16, 2006

then you MUST be right! What an intellegent thing to do! B-)

I do think that was the main stumbling block of clarifying that anything the Government runs is a clusterfuk and school vouchers would FORCE public schools to TRY to be competative and provice a better service than they do now for less money.

Although, the more different fingers are in the pie for medical research, ALSO impacts competition. There is always the rush to market and be the first to discover that cure. I see room for profit and non-profit side by side. They keep each other honest.

by protiusx Jan 17, 2006

See? You are biased against hiring hot young "things" because you are afraid of a lawsuit. You're generalizing and saying all hot young things will sue. Now, I can assure you that I am neither HOT nor young but I must confess I am somewhat of a thing.

by jdclyde Jan 17, 2006

It wasn't that I think hot young things WILL sue, it is that [b]I[/b] would be giving them REASON to sue! ]:)

Can't eat cake if I don't have cake in the house! :D

by jdclyde Jan 17, 2006

And the best definition of all of this "Affirmative action" I have ever heard.

Affirmative action shouldn't be the lowering of standards to allow minorities to compete, but to ensure that at the K through 12th grade they are better prepared than has traditionally been done to allow minorites to compete fairly for college enterence as well as applying for that job.

Lowering of standards to hire under-qualified people is NOT the solution. Fixing the inner city school system IS the solution. I thought this was all covered under getting rid of "Separate but equal"?

This puts the blame directly on cities like Detroit AND the teachers union for failing the people that live there.

It is kind of insulting to say though that it is only the minorites that go to the bad school systems are the only ones hurt and thus the only ones to alledgedly get help?

Everyone knows that the minorites that live in affluent neighborhoods that GET the good grades are mainly the people that benifit from affirmative action, not the poorist of the poor.

How do we fix this?

Do YOU know anyone personally that was helped getting their current job because of affirmative action? How are they treated by the co-workers?

by jck Jan 17, 2006

Most of the guys I know that are in the service or went in...didn't go in married. They got married after their enlistment/after their commission.

I don't know about when you were a kid, but my uncle who retired USN lived pretty darn good and he was stationed at Ft. Walton Beach, FL back in the 1950s and he didn't enter as an officer. He left the service in the early 60s and went to work for the US Mint starting at the bottom...he got no preference...and, he had 3 kids.

Of what I seen:

Most people in the military who are married made the choice to get married...have kids...and knew what their income was.

They (the guys) made the choice to pull out their penis and ended up getting a woman pregnant and were coerced into marriage.

Either way, they made a choice to do something.

The guy I bought the guitar from?

He wasn't high-ranking, I guarantee you. He was some kind of instructor on base. He didn't live in the fanciest apartments. But, it was clean and nice. And, he had bought the guitar about a year previous and was selling it to get the cash for some original restoration parts for that Firebird he'd ordered and he didn't want to be strapped for cash til the next payday.

As for what rate would be acceptable by USPS?

Well when I worked at the last job, we were expected to have 99.995% up-time on all software systems and servers under our control.

In time equivalence...that meant we could have no more than 4.5 hours of downtime total for everything.

And being the contractor, I was told by the other guys who were staff...that I needed to write a quick recovery plan so that my software could be reloaded and restarted within 15 minutes and not eat up the time they had.

The VAX admin got the bulk of the time because if the main drive system locked up and he had to debug...he usually used 30-60 minutes to troubleshoot and restart.

Anyways...if it comes down to it, I'd say that they should do far less than 1% for sure...maybe .0002%? especially considering how many millions of pieces they handle per day (some 650,000,000). So...2 pieces out of 1,000,000? But, they'll probably never hit that...downfall of using machines...by the time the high-speed belt sensor detects the impedance in the system, several pieces have already been chewed over usually.

I know that I get at least 1 piece of damaged mail per year (personal mail...not junk). So, I have to wonder now how many pieces of personal mail I don't get per year that I should.

Nonetheless...it matters not...they'll never make the USPS as efficient as it can be.

But, that's cause humans are involved. Perfection or 100 percent optimization should never be expected when humans are involved. We are imperfect.

Well...ok...jdclyde will tell you different...but...that's another story :^O

DMambo makes some good points in his post above...have to say that.

I can't see giving preference just because of military service. It seems, although not racial, like bias.

I can see treating their area of specialization while in the service like a Master's degree or years of experience or points when applying for a job that is related.

But anywho, I don't think you could ever convince me that a retired US Army captain who got commissioned with a BS in Phys Ed after college and taught personal health and hygiene for 20 years would be any more qualified to do a postal job than myself just because his work was wearing a military uniform...and mine was wearing a pocket protector. :^O

oh well...back to server configuring I go!!

by jck Jan 17, 2006

this was the same as the one above...page could not be found...hahaha

by faradhi Jan 17, 2006

I removed the post because I had second thoughts about it.

by jdclyde Jan 17, 2006

don't let jck determine what you thing, feel, or know! Get a back bone!

The thing to remember is that while you grew up not exactly in the land of plenty, with benifits the average military family is far from the soup line. Like anything else, it is possible to try to live beyond your means, leaving money stretched in other places.

I can't say as I wasn't there when you grew up. I do know from my bro that while the pay isn't great, your perks are equal in value to how much you make.

so the equivilante of us making 40 to 50 k.

so tell jck to stuff it! :D I do all the time! hee hee! Don't take all this so seriously, and don't be afraid to say what you think.

by faradhi Jan 17, 2006

And I will grant that it may have improved.

I don't usually argue politics. In this case I just wasn't sure how to respond. I found my initial post to be reactionary. I prefer to deal in facts.

At any rate, there comes a time in a conversation that I just have to give him his right to be wrong. I am sure he will do the same for me.

None of us were there but you.

Your family could have been stationed somewhere with a huge housing boom and housing costs were outrageous and the military supplement wasn't sufficient to compensate.

I know all about that. Where I live in FL, my home has doubled in value in 3.5 years. In fact, I may sell and move into an apartment and wait for the housing market to tank...then go back and buy a home cheaper due to market factors, or off a reposession from a bank.

I know all about the low cost-of-living pay though that the government often sets up.

My father, after leaving the US Army, went to work for the US Dept. of the Interior. When he'd get located in a high-cost area, the per diem difference often wasn't enough to compensate. The biggest example I could give is when I was a teen is when the DOI put him in North Brunswick, NJ.

The per diem increase over his standard was nowhere near what the price difference was for housing and utilities compared to normally priced places. Rather than having his own housing where he could setup his work desk and what not to do his work, he ended up having to room with another DOI employee, share time on one workdesk (the apartment was that small), etc.

I can understand that situation, because the government is notorious for setting "standard" levels...and it doesn't accomodate for current economic conditions.

I never said you were wrong. I understand that there are and have been people who had hard times in the military or who worked for the government. My family even had hard times whenever Congress didn't pass funding. That meant, our family had to live off one paycheck.

But whenever I go to military bases, I rarely see people driving 1970s and 1980s cars back and forth, like I do when I come to work (btw...I work for a government). And usually if they are older, they are in excellent condition and have been restored (as was the case with the guy I bought the guitar from...in fact...it was his second car).

Nonetheless...I don't doubt there is poverty in the military...there's poverty in every sector of this country.

It's one of the reasons why I am so disgusted with the government dropping $200B into rebuilding Iraq when we have homeless and hungry people in this country...and people whose homes have no running water or electricity or plumbing still.

Given the poverty in the United States is not as widespread as Iraq, but...we didn't have a say-so in how Iraq ended up.

We have a say-so in how our own people exist in this country.

So...you're not wrong. Like jdclyde said...you were there...we weren't.

I just know I haven't seen a lot of people driving around on bases in a 1989 Toyota pickup in my recent visit to places like MacDill AFB and a few years ago to Kelly AFB in San Antonio.

BTW, I'm sorry you had to live through hard times like that. I've been there, as my family didn't always have easy times either. It does suck living from paycheck to paycheck.

I am used to it!

That is the problem that we all have (not about me being right) where we SEE for our selves something and KNOW it to be true IN THIS CASE and that sets our mind set on how we think it is everywhere.

We forget that there are many out side factors that make up each situation.

Perfect example is the welfare system. We have all seen the people living on welfare with GREAT cars pulling up to the welfare office for something or another. We get outraged and want to cut the system instead of just monitoring it better.

Growing up, we were getting welfare (not that I knew that as a kid) but after the parents divorced when I was four, things were tough for a long time. Today, thanks to the systems in place, my mom has her Masters degree in Computer Science and has been head of IT for several colleges and medical faculties over the years.

Welfare ISN'T a dead end if your not a dead beat.

My sister-in-law didn't realize or appreciate just how much of a benift buying your groceries on-base at a greatly reduced price really was until my bro retired.

Give and take, good and bad. jd is right and jck is wrong. :D (I crack myself up so bad!)

Point is, even if your wrong, you still have the right to be wrong. By the way, you owe me a nickel for using MY saying! Copyrighted, dontchaknow? Send via TR for each useage! ;\

by faradhi Jan 18, 2006

I just realized that the conversation was moving away from the topic of preference going to certain groups. (Namely vets) I did not think we were going to come to an agreement on that topic.

And I know that some people live very well in the military. I am also glad to hear that families in the military are living better.

And you will have to trust me that I have a backbone and I am sure that you will see it in the future.

at least you crack someone up... ;)

jck, You KNOW I crack you up too! :D

Faradhi, and backbone. I am sure you will have plenty of chances to show what your all about!

Are you a dude or dudette?

but remember...

I'm not laughing with you...

I'm laughing at you... ;)

is that now what they call Democrats?

I would say many of the things your complaining about in the US auto industry are directly the fault of Dems.

The idea that you have to dumb down things so the dumb people don't feel badly about being dumb.

The supervisor CAN'T step up and fill in because it is a UNION job and the union will file a grevance if a non-union person does a union persons job. The union guy doesn't care about anything but when their next break is, where the Japanise workers DO have something long missing in all union jobs called WORK ETHICS.

Ethics DO come into it when you have unqualified people hired and promoted based on filling quotas instead of the best person for the job. Another by-product of "affrimative action", the lowering of standards in hiring and promoting to keep from getting extorted by shakedown artists like J. Jackson.

So yes, race and ethnicity does play a role when we worry about placing unqualified minorities instead of worrying about MAKING the minorites qualified so they can compete in the job market. Anytime you use ANYTHING other than skills for hiring and promoting, you are hurting the company, and the country.

Would you really support denying someone entrance to a trade school based on how they test, or would you say that is discriminating?

[i]I would say many of the things your complaining about in the US auto industry are directly the fault of Dems.[/i]

Kinda funny to me...I seem to remember...people starting unions...not the Democratic party.

and besides that...I guess these kind of people would be so bad to be affiliated with:

[i]"The UAW has been actively involved in every civil rights legislative battle since the 1950s, including the campaigns to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 and legislation to prohibit discrimination against women, the elderly and people with disabilities."[/i]

Guess you would rather have your affiliation based with a party full of prestigioous men like Strom Thurmond, Jessie Helms, David Duke and George Wallace...the good ole boys...yep.

Needless to say...the Democratic Party didn't form the union at Ford, GM, Chrysler or any other place.

And, the Democratic party didn't make any employer cave into their union's contract demands.

Hence...your basis for making this a political argument is without base.

The Democrats didn't form the unions. Americans did.

Thanks for your input though, jd...spoken like a true Bush fanatic. ;)

Now...like someone else said in another thread...get back to work...the rest of us have to :^O

by faradhi Jan 18, 2006

I am a dude. B-) Backbone and front bone. :O

by jamesrl Jan 18, 2006

The fact that by their own admission, many of the Japanese owned plants in North America produce cars that are of the same quality as Japan's. I've seen the analysis. And the workers in these plants were educated in North America.

As for the philosophy taken to Japan, it has its roots in work that Ford did - look up Frank Gilbreth (read Cheaper by the Dozen) or Frederick Winslow Taylor on Scientific Management. Demming built on that work in the US, and as part of the reconstruction of Japanese industry (paid for by the US) went to Japan to teach it, where it was enthusiastically adopted. If it weren't for Ford, you wouldn't have Demming.

James