🚀 go-pugleaf

Chuck Kelley <chuckkelley@internetMCI.COM> wrote:

>I think everyone understands that, however, that is not the practice in
>the US today.  Although the EEOC says it does not have quotas, if you
>are sued because of "discrimination", then what they look for is how many
>of the suspected class do you have.  If you do not have the number that
>is the "norm", then you are guilty.  Period.  I have been thru this many
>times.  Some of my previous companies would never let me get rid of 
>employees who never came to work, because they needed that "quota".  
>Also, when hiring, I was told that we need some members of the suspect 
>classes in the organization.  The problem was only white males were 
>applying.  I had to delay hiring someone for 9 months until we got a "ok" 
>suspect class and I watched 7 excellent candidates go by.  That is 
>discrimination.  That is what happens every day.  That is why so many 
>people are against "new" suspect classes.

>Chuck Kelley

Chuck, 

Didn't you realize that you were helping to propagate this
"discrimination" by actively participating in it and turning a blind
eye to other people (the "company")?  People are too willing to forego
their beliefs in order to not "rock the boat".  

Equal rights protection is not the problem here.  Quotas (and the
reasons why people feel they need quotas) are the problem.  Don't just
treat the symptoms, find the disease.

Don.