General discussion

Locked

Vote to end discrimination coming

By jdclyde ·
Language of the ballot proposal:
http://www.michigancivilrights.org/ballot.htm

"A proposal to amend the constitution to prohibit The Universisty of Michgan, and other State Universities, The State, and all other state entities from descrimination or granting preferential treatment based on Race, Sex, Color, Ethnicity, or National Origin."

This was put on the ballot by the MCRI, Michigan Civil Rights Inititive. Required to get it on the ballot is 350,000 valid signitures. Over 500,000 signitures have been submitted and over 400,000 of them have been verified.

Controversy. The activits group BAMN, "By Any Means Necessary" is claiming fraud and misrepresentation, dispite having shown no proof of this.

Part of the claim is that people were confused by the "Civil rights" in the MCRI name to mean something that it isn't. MCRI is for Civil Rights for ALL citizens of Michigan.

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has forwarded the unfounded complaint on to the "Michigan Civil Rights Commission" for review dispite the fact that this board has been an outspoken opposition to the MCRI. She had also admitted in an interview that she didn't think there was anything the MCRC could do about this, as far as removing this proposal from the ballot.

Is this good legislation? After what point is reverse discrimination not a good thing anymore for a civilization? Because of past discriminations, how long should future discrimination continue?

When did "Civil rights" not apply to everybody equally, and when should it start?

NOTE: This does not remove anti-discrimination from the books, it just will make it apply to everyone INdiscriminately so NO ONE could be discriminated against based on WHAT they are.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

88 total posts (Page 3 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Evening out

by jdclyde In reply to Pay scales

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".

Collapse -

How it works

by JamesRL In reply to Evening out

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

Collapse -

A two edged sword

by ProtiusX In reply to Affirmation Action is bec ...

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.

Collapse -

I am confused

by jdclyde In reply to A two edged sword

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.

Collapse -

Your Discriminating!!!!!

by ProtiusX In reply to I am confused

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.

Collapse -

That wasn't the basis at all!

by jdclyde In reply to Your Discriminating!!!!!

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

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

Collapse -

When did "Civil Right" become "Black Rights"?

by jdclyde In reply to Vote to end discriminatio ...

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.

Collapse -

being a leftist nutwing

by jck In reply to When did "Civil Right" be ...

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.

Collapse -

Your only saying that because

by jdclyde In reply to being a leftist nutwing

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.

Collapse -

Apples and Oranges

by JamesRL In reply to Your only saying that bec ...

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

Back to Community Forum
88 total posts (Page 3 of 9)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums