🚀 go-pugleaf

dave5@advtech.uswest.com (David Ensign) wrote:
>In article <4k61vq$j5a@news.internetmci.com>, Chuck Kelley <chuckkelley@internetMCI.COM> writes:
>> This is why that I think this is on topic.  When you add sexual 
>> preference to the list of other AA checklist that the government gets 
>> involved in making sure there is no discrimination, then it seems to me 
>> that you are asking to request AA for GLB folks.
>
>Anti-discrimination legislation absolutely does not add any group to an
>affirmative action check-list.  I really see no connection here at all.
>Can you give some concrete information on the connection between anti-
>discrimination laws and affirmative action checklists?  Or between enforcement
>of such laws and the EEOC, for that matter?
>

I will research if I can.

>If there is no affirmative action, there is no reason to keep statistics.
>Companies can defend themselves against lawsuits by keeping adequate
>documentation on employee performance to ensure reason for termination
>can be proven to be something other than sexual orientation.  Such documentation
>is crucial to running a business.  Without adequate documentation of reasons
>for dismissal, any number of lawsuits can be argued plausibly.
>

I agree.  One big problem is in the area of down-sizing when you have to 
get rid of x percentage of your staff.  You probably do not have such 
good records for termination, and you are open to lawsuits.  From what I 
have seen, the way to win, is to show that you have so-many of that class 
around.  Without those statistics, you can not do this so easily.

>Note:  There are several states and localalities in which anti-gay
>discrimination is currently illegal.  I have worked in two of these states, and
>one of these cities.  In *none* of these places have I seen evidence of
>employers going to any extreme means to avoid lawsuits.  In fact, they
>haven't had to change their procedures one bit, since documentation of
>worker performance has already been needed to avoid problems in so many other
>areas.

Maybe because they have *not* had a lawsuit against them yet.  At some 
point in time, they may.  It will interesting to see how this would get 
determined today.


David, it seems we basically (well maybe a bit of a stretch) agree except 
to the point of were anti-discrimination laws and AA play.  It is my 
belief that when anti-discrimination laws are enacted, the AA can pick 
them up to their checklist.  All that I can say is that everytime (at 
least to my recollection) a piece of anti-discrimination legislation is 
enacted by our government, we seem to have AA start working on them as 
part of their juridiction.  So while I agree that discrimination is NEVER 
good, I can't and don't like the current path.


chuck