|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule.
Who decides who is the "best candidate" for your company?
I understand if the candidate who gets hired doesn't meet the requirements job ad and someone else does, but if that's not the case.
|
United States42803 Posts
On January 23 2025 15:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. Who decides who is the "best candidate" for your company? I understand if the candidate who gets hired doesn't meet the requirements job ad and someone else does, but if that's not the case.
The company does. You were basically in the clear previously as long as the hiring committee didn’t write an email stating “too black” and then email it with a rejection to the candidate. They didn’t have to provide a reason, they could pick who they thought was most qualified, the government wasn’t involved.
But that went too far for Trump and so they’re getting rid of the rule against discrimination.
The government was never in the business of telling companies who to hire, it was never about that. They were just saying which criteria you shouldn’t use to discriminate. You didn’t have to hire a woman for the position but you couldn’t refuse to interview any qualified women on the basis of their sex.
|
Northern Ireland25497 Posts
On January 23 2025 10:01 KwarK wrote:That one I’m a little okay with because they held him in solitary in a Supermax for a decade, despite him being basically harmless without a computer. It was a cruel, excessive, albeit not unusual punishment.
That aspect of it, yeah absolutely fine. But it’s not exactly the given rationale given for the pardon.
It’s also not amidst a backdrop of much wider talk of things like further drug law liberalisation or things in that domain. And indeed there’s plenty of rhetoric around the border and immigration that’s specifically talking about clamping down on the drugs trade.
I do of course realise the folly of expecting any vague consistency from Trump or his wider coalition.
|
On January 23 2025 16:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 15:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. Who decides who is the "best candidate" for your company? I understand if the candidate who gets hired doesn't meet the requirements job ad and someone else does, but if that's not the case. The company does. You were basically in the clear previously as long as the hiring committee didn’t write an email stating “too black” and then email it with a rejection to the candidate. They didn’t have to provide a reason, they could pick who they thought was most qualified, the government wasn’t involved. But that went too far for Trump and so they’re getting rid of the rule against discrimination.
So like does this now mean that a company could write back "you were not picked because you are too black"?
What company would ever do so regardless of if it is allowed or not?
EDIT:
The government was never in the business of telling companies who to hire, it was never about that. They were just saying which criteria you shouldn’t use to discriminate. You didn’t have to hire a woman for the position but you couldn’t refuse to interview any qualified women on the basis of their sex.
Is it so in USA that you can do something about it if you don't get into an interview?
I mean like if you apply for a position, and get an answer just like "sorry but the choice was not you this time" or something.. If there are like 100 applicants or so for a job, what can you do after, or prove you were discriminated, unless ofc you can show (on paper) that you were a better candidate than the one who got the job (on paper).
|
United States42803 Posts
On January 23 2025 16:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 16:03 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2025 15:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. Who decides who is the "best candidate" for your company? I understand if the candidate who gets hired doesn't meet the requirements job ad and someone else does, but if that's not the case. The company does. You were basically in the clear previously as long as the hiring committee didn’t write an email stating “too black” and then email it with a rejection to the candidate. They didn’t have to provide a reason, they could pick who they thought was most qualified, the government wasn’t involved. But that went too far for Trump and so they’re getting rid of the rule against discrimination. So like does this now mean that a company could write back "you were not picked because you are too black"? What company would ever do so regardless of if it is allowed or not?
Racists aren’t known for being smart. You’d be amazed what people will put in writing if they don’t expect their emails to be read aloud in court. The civil rights act, which they’re also trying to repeal, prohibits the “too black” example so there’s still protection there, albeit less than before.
In any case, what sane administration would decide they need to legalize employment discrimination on the basis of race?
|
United States42803 Posts
On January 23 2025 16:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:EDIT: Show nested quote +The government was never in the business of telling companies who to hire, it was never about that. They were just saying which criteria you shouldn’t use to discriminate. You didn’t have to hire a woman for the position but you couldn’t refuse to interview any qualified women on the basis of their sex. Is it so in USA that you can do something about it if you don't get into an interview? I mean like if you apply for a position, and get an answer just like "sorry but the choice was not you this time" or something.. If there are like 100 applicants or so for a job, what can you do after, or prove you were discriminated, unless ofc you can show (on paper) that you were a better candidate than the one who got the job (on paper).
No, you can’t do something about it if you don’t get an interview. I feel like you’re grasping at straws to try to find some problem that existed where people were telling companies who to hire and that Trump fixed it. That problem didn’t exist. It doesn’t exist.
There’s basically nothing you can do if you feel you were discriminated against. They don’t have to offer you an interview. The government didn’t tell companies who to interview, the companies still had all the power.
The rule was just the lowest hurdle imaginable, if you get government contracts please don’t discriminate on the basis of race. That was too much for Trump.
|
I am not saying anyone should legalize employment discrimination on any basis, i am just unsure what that actually means. Because (especially) private companies want to make money, why the hell should someone care if your best worker (who makes you money) is black, or white, straight or gay or trans???
Racists in those positions in a company make damn sure the company does not last against competition, there is no need for any legalization against that imo. 
|
Northern Ireland25497 Posts
On January 23 2025 16:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 16:03 KwarK wrote:On January 23 2025 15:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. Who decides who is the "best candidate" for your company? I understand if the candidate who gets hired doesn't meet the requirements job ad and someone else does, but if that's not the case. The company does. You were basically in the clear previously as long as the hiring committee didn’t write an email stating “too black” and then email it with a rejection to the candidate. They didn’t have to provide a reason, they could pick who they thought was most qualified, the government wasn’t involved. But that went too far for Trump and so they’re getting rid of the rule against discrimination. So like does this now mean that a company could write back "you were not picked because you are too black"? What company would ever do so regardless of if it is allowed or not?
They generally obviously don’t do that, the whole point of such protections are if you can prove that you were discriminated against, you have legal recourse.
And isn’t just hiring practice, but for existing employees as well, women with their pesky ability to get pregnant are probably the category most likely to be let go and discriminated against by virtue of a characteristic than most others.
Ironically enough I also imagine this also allows companies to go ‘we’re doing affirmative action, fuck you white men’ and the latter have no recourse as this change has been made. Which would be quite funny really
Although I imagine various states will re-implement their own protections in due course, all that government efficiency in action.
|
United States42803 Posts
On January 23 2025 16:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:I am not saying anyone should legalize employment discrimination on any basis, i am just unsure what that actually means. Because (especially) private companies want to make money, why the hell should someone care if your best worker (who makes you money) is black, or white, straight or gay or trans??? Racists in those positions in a company make damn sure the company does not last against competition, there is no need for any legalization against that imo.
That’s not how the world works. Declaring that the invisible hand of the market will punish the inefficient companies that hire subpar employees for racist reasons and therefore no action is required is nonsense. You might as well declare that we don’t need laws against stealing because karma will get them.
People like you are akin to physicists who declare that they can predict the movements of objects so long as every object is a perfect sphere moving in a frictionless vacuum. They provide no intellectual contribution of any worth because they refuse to believe in observable reality, preferring their neat little models. Personally I think the lot of you belong in frictionless vacuums.
The world is filled with examples of companies that prospered with racists at the helm, Ford for example. Government intervention is required because your invisible hand is not just invisible, it’s also insubstantial.
|
On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule.
No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate.
It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it:
Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist.
|
On January 23 2025 16:18 WombaT wrote:
They generally obviously don’t do that, the whole point of such protections are if you can prove that you were discriminated against, you have legal recourse.
So what happens then, you fight in court and in the end you go work in the company that doesn't want you and you probably don't wanna work there anymore either? :D
|
On January 23 2025 16:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 16:18 raynpelikoneet wrote:I am not saying anyone should legalize employment discrimination on any basis, i am just unsure what that actually means. Because (especially) private companies want to make money, why the hell should someone care if your best worker (who makes you money) is black, or white, straight or gay or trans??? Racists in those positions in a company make damn sure the company does not last against competition, there is no need for any legalization against that imo. That’s not how the world works. Declaring that the invisible hand of the market will punish the inefficient companies that hire subpar employees for racist reasons and therefore no action is required is nonsense. You might as well declare that we don’t need laws against stealing because karma will get them. People like you are akin to physicists who declare that they can predict the movements of objects so long as every object is a perfect sphere moving in a frictionless vacuum. They provide no intellectual contribution of any worth because they refuse to believe in observable reality, preferring their neat little models. Personally I think the lot of you belong in frictionless vacuums. The world is filled with examples of companies that prospered with racists at the helm, Ford for example. Government intervention is required because your invisible hand is not just invisible, it’s also insubstantial.
You speak very nice of me, thank you.
I originally was questioning the stuff because the executive order at quick glance also says stuff like;
"The executive order also required contractors with 51 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more to implement affirmative action plans to increase the participation of minorities and women in the workplace if a workforce analysis demonstrates their under-representation, meaning that there are fewer minorities and women than would be expected given the numbers of minorities and women qualified to hold the positions available. Federal regulations require affirmative action plans to include an equal opportunity policy statement, an analysis of the current work force, identification of under-represented areas, the establishment of reasonable, flexible goals and timetables for increasing employment opportunities, specific action-oriented programs to address problem areas, support for community action programs, and the establishment of an internal audit and reporting system."
That, to me, sounds a lot like positive discrimination, which i am also against as well as any discrimination.
Also yeah, that's exactly how the world works...
|
United States42803 Posts
Looking into why your workforce may be non representative of the population doesn’t mean refusing to hire white men or being forced to hire unqualified gay black Mexican women. If the qualified candidate pool is skewed then the workforce can be skewed. If schools are encouraging women not to go into engineering then there’s fuck all you can do as an engineering firm when all the graduates are men. The EO just says you have to consider all qualified applicants.
The text of the EO is here and it’s not that long.
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/11246.html
Read it.
On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate. It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Show nested quote +Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist.
I have no idea where you’re getting your information from because you seem to be talking about a completely different EO. The one linked was contemporaneous with the civil rights act and movement. The EO was 1965. It’s clearly intended to be a part of the same civil rights package, it’s not some crazy Biden DEI thing and absolutely nothing contained within is unreasonable. It gives the government in 1965 another lever to pull to deny Federal dollars to companies that wouldn’t desegregate. Trump repealed it, not because it was unnecessary given the civil rights act, but because he could. He couldn’t repeal the civil rights act as easily. If the EO was unnecessary given the civil rights act then the president who passed the civil rights act wouldn’t have written the EO at the same time. They’re clearly intended to work together.
There’s also nothing in it that I could see about affirmative action or quotas. But it’s not that long, feel free to quote the bits that are about that if I’m missing them.
I’ll believe that some companies want to try to mirror their demographics to the candidate pool in order to create the impression that their recruiting practices are above board. But the affirmative action moral panic is a rehashing of the same tired notes as Reagan era handwringing over black welfare queens living the good life on the public dime. There’s always some grievance for the hard working white Christian conservative man and it’s always a minority on the other end, it’s a very old trick, they manufacture this shit because people eat it up.
It’s not a real problem, if you’re a white man struggling to get a good job it’s not because they gave your job to a Latina because Biden made them. At my last job out of the senior management we had 7/8 white straight men, with our token white woman being HR because it’s always HR. We’re doing fine.
I’ve tried to get a job as a white straight man and I’m pretty sure I’m still a net beneficiary of discrimination. On the one hand there might possibly be someone in HR saying it’d be great if they could find a qualified Pacific Islander or something to complete their set but that doesn’t come close to the benefit I get from being “normal”. They don’t get any diversity points for me because I’m the baseline, I’m who they’d hire if Biden wasn’t making them hire someone else, I’m the guy they had in mind, I’m not one of those weird groups like women or whatever. When they put up the job listing they were picturing me. I’m not discriminated against when they say “before we just give the job to KwarK should we consider if there are any minorities”, they still give the job to me after noting that they considered a black guy.
But all of this is beside the point, you’re raging against an affirmative action EO that, as far as I can tell, simply doesn’t exist. And you’re cheering the repeal of a piece of the civil rights desegregation framework because you think it’s some Biden era woke DEI thing. Unless I’m missing something I think you’ve been had by the culture war. They’re undoing desegregation and telling you some story about DEI in the hope that you won’t read the actual text of it or understand the context of a 1965 regulation.
|
Yeah the text in the actual EO seems pretty fine, no idea what is the point of overturning that.
|
On January 23 2025 16:35 KwarK wrote:
But all of this is beside the point, you’re raging against an affirmative action EO that, as far as I can tell, simply doesn’t exist. And you’re cheering the repeal of a piece of the civil rights desegregation framework because you think it’s some Biden era woke DEI thing. Unless I’m missing something I think you’ve been had by the culture war. They’re undoing desegregation and telling you some story about DEI in the hope that you won’t read the actual text of it or understand the context of a 1965 regulation.
I'd say I was simply rectifying your incorrect framing that Trump's EO permits racist employers to pass over black candidates for being black. Trump's EO does no such thing and it even calls the civil rights protections against discrimination a "bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans."
If I passed an executive order that says "All gay men should have equal rights as straight men. Also they should get to run a train on Kwark" it would be incredibly disingenuous to say Kwark wants to overturn an executive order that says "all gay men should have equal rights as straight men" because Kwark is a bigot who doesn't think gay men should have equal rights.
Trump's EO address several other executive orders and you and DPB have quotemined one line from one of those executive orders to phrase it as "Trump wants to overturn civil rights protections against discrimination so that racists can racist." I didn't bring this to the thread. You guys are the ones raging about it. You're the one being taken in by the culture war.
|
United States42803 Posts
On January 23 2025 18:12 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 16:35 KwarK wrote:
But all of this is beside the point, you’re raging against an affirmative action EO that, as far as I can tell, simply doesn’t exist. And you’re cheering the repeal of a piece of the civil rights desegregation framework because you think it’s some Biden era woke DEI thing. Unless I’m missing something I think you’ve been had by the culture war. They’re undoing desegregation and telling you some story about DEI in the hope that you won’t read the actual text of it or understand the context of a 1965 regulation. I'd say I was simply rectifying your incorrect framing that Trump's EO permits racist employers to pass over black candidates for being black. Trump's EO does no such thing and it even calls the civil rights protections against discrimination a "bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans." If I passed an executive order that says "All gay men should have equal rights as straight men. Also they should get to run a train on Kwark" it would be incredibly disingenuous to say Kwark wants to overturn an executive order that says "all gay men should have equal rights as straight men" because Kwark is a bigot who doesn't think gay men should have equal rights. Trump's EO address several other executive orders and you and DPB have quotemined one line from one of those executive orders to phrase it as "Trump wants to overturn civil rights protections against discrimination so that racists can racist." I didn't bring this to the thread. You guys are the ones raging about it. You're the one being taken in by the culture war.
What text from the civil rights era EO was causing issues that required it to be undone?
I'm a little confused by your quotemining accusation. I gave a link to the entire text of the EO and invited you to read it for yourself. I quoted zero lines of it. Is quotemining when you don't quote something and instead provide information about how to obtain the original source? Am I using that right?
The purpose of the EO was to give the Federal government a tool to boycott segregated workplaces by denying them contracts. The civil rights act is the law, the EO is one of the enforcement mechanisms. They were written at the same time by the same people to be part of the solution to the same problem.
Trump's argument runs as follows:
1. There is a law against segregated workplaces.
2. Therefore segregated workplaces won't happen because it's illegal.
3. So the Federal government shouldn't be barred from issuing contracts to segregated workplaces.
The argument fails on the surface because making a law and enforcing a law are two different things and arguing that the very existence of a law makes enforcing it unnecessary is absurd. But it's also a very strange thing to overturn because the restriction on contracts with segregated workplaces isn't presumably a burden, especially in the context of Trump's opening assertion that there are no segregated workplaces. So what problem is being fixed here and how does issuing contracts to segregated workplaces fix it?
|
On January 23 2025 18:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 18:12 BlackJack wrote:On January 23 2025 16:35 KwarK wrote:
But all of this is beside the point, you’re raging against an affirmative action EO that, as far as I can tell, simply doesn’t exist. And you’re cheering the repeal of a piece of the civil rights desegregation framework because you think it’s some Biden era woke DEI thing. Unless I’m missing something I think you’ve been had by the culture war. They’re undoing desegregation and telling you some story about DEI in the hope that you won’t read the actual text of it or understand the context of a 1965 regulation. I'd say I was simply rectifying your incorrect framing that Trump's EO permits racist employers to pass over black candidates for being black. Trump's EO does no such thing and it even calls the civil rights protections against discrimination a "bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans." If I passed an executive order that says "All gay men should have equal rights as straight men. Also they should get to run a train on Kwark" it would be incredibly disingenuous to say Kwark wants to overturn an executive order that says "all gay men should have equal rights as straight men" because Kwark is a bigot who doesn't think gay men should have equal rights. Trump's EO address several other executive orders and you and DPB have quotemined one line from one of those executive orders to phrase it as "Trump wants to overturn civil rights protections against discrimination so that racists can racist." I didn't bring this to the thread. You guys are the ones raging about it. You're the one being taken in by the culture war. What text from the civil rights era EO was causing issues that required it to be undone? I'm a little confused by your quotemining accusation. I gave a link to the entire text of the EO and invited you to read it for yourself. I quoted zero lines of it. Is quotemining when you don't quote something and instead provide information about how to obtain the original source? Am I using that right? The purpose of the EO was to give the Federal government a tool to boycott segregated workplaces by denying them contracts. The civil rights act is the law, the EO is one of the enforcement mechanisms. They were written at the same time by the same people to be part of the solution to the same problem. Trump's argument runs as follows: 1. There is a law against segregated workplaces. 2. Therefore segregated workplaces won't happen because it's illegal. 3. So the Federal government shouldn't be barred from issuing contracts to segregated workplaces. The argument fails on the surface because making a law and enforcing a law are two different things and arguing that the very existence of a law makes enforcing it unnecessary is absurd. But it's also a very strange thing to overturn because the restriction on contracts with segregated workplaces isn't presumably a burden, especially in the context of Trump's opening assertion that there are no segregated workplaces. So what problem is being fixed here and how does issuing contracts to segregated workplaces fix it?
Trump's Executive order that he wrote yesterday revoked the following executive orders
Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations);
Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011 (Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce);
Executive Order 13672 of July 21, 2014 (Further Amendments to Executive Order 11478, Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government, and Executive Order 11246, Equal Employment Opportunity);
The Presidential Memorandum of October 5, 2016 (Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in the National Security Workforce).
Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965 (Equal Employment Opportunity)
The last one is the only one you keep talking about. Trump included the last one because it mandates federal contractors to take affirmative actions to improve diversity in their companies and he's pushing an anti-DEI agenda. You keep talking about the last one because somewhere in the text it says federal contractors should not discriminate and that one line allows them to sell it to you as "Trump overturns protections against discrimination so that racist employers can skip over African American candidates." That's what I mean by quotemining. There's already laws prohibiting discrimination and there's already enforcement arms for those laws. You're talking about segregation as if there's any companies in 2025 that are segregated. Trump's EO doesn't allow employers to discriminate on the basis of race. It doesn't allow for the federal government to do business with these segregated companies that don't actually exist and haven't existed in your lifetime. You're mad about the least relevant portion of this whole ordeal because that's what you've been told to be mad about.
|
Northern Ireland25497 Posts
On January 23 2025 16:27 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 16:18 WombaT wrote:
They generally obviously don’t do that, the whole point of such protections are if you can prove that you were discriminated against, you have legal recourse. So what happens then, you fight in court and in the end you go work in the company that doesn't want you and you probably don't wanna work there anymore either? :D
Money is quite nice, and it’s that which you’re going after in court.
As I said such protections don’t just deal with hirings, but firings as well. The latter being far more common in terms of discrimination suits actually being brought, least to my knowledge.
|
Germany switched to digital doctors notes to employers about their employees not able to work.
These notes are transfered to the place of work, and the insurance (Because Sick leave is paid by the employer for 6 weeks, and then continiued at 67% by the health insurance).
Analog, written notes of the past likely at large never reached the insurances, never made it into the statistics.
So now it's digital, and the data is more accurate.
And it shows a sudden spike of sickdays in the workforce. Sickdays that were there before.. just not in the insurance companies statistics.
Businessowners, managers, thinktanks, conservatives and rightwing populists of course immediately brushed aside any effect of the new data base, and rushed to the conclusion that the workforce must have reached peak laziness and is to be whipped harder!
They only use the talking point "Spike in Sickdays!" and repeat it to no end.
They ask for:
No pay on sick leave! Limited sick days! Police investigating people on sick leave!
Further data shows that people who are happy in their job, get sick much less.
Especially people that say their workload is adequate for the number of employees.
Employees who feel "understaffed" suffer from more sickdays, causing understaffing to be more severe.. and so on.
I hate dumb vile people shoving data under the rug that even tells them how they'd be able to save god damn money, and even make more.. but it just doesn't fit their narrative.
Conservatives tend to use every chance to rip away workers rights they get. They are like feral dogs overeating on any chance, because there might not be another soon.
|
On January 23 2025 16:26 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2025 15:46 KwarK wrote:
You didn’t. The previous state was you can hire the best candidate, but you can’t hire the second best candidate because the best candidate was African American and you’re a racist. He got rid of that rule. No, the executive order that Trump overturned says that if your company has too many whites but not enough X race then you need to take affirmative action to remedy this "problem" instead of simply hiring the best candidate. It's still illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin as set forth in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act so no, Trump did not "get rid of that rule." In fact the first sentence of his executive order acknowledges it: Show nested quote +Section 1. Purpose. Longstanding Federal civil-rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. These civil-rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As President, I have a solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans.
It's obvious the target of this executive order was affirmative action / DEI but the propagandists that DPB listens to pretend this was really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist.
I understand that you hate diversity, you loathe equity, and the very notion of inclusion makes you break into a cold sweat, but not everyone feels the same way as you, when it comes to considering qualified non-white non-male candidates.
Also, hand-waving the Wikipedia article explaining Executive Order 11246 as nothing more than "propaganda" is disingenuous, especially when you don't see the intrinsic contradiction in saying that Trump's agenda attacks DEI but doesn't help perpetuate discrimination.
When you say this wasn't "really about overturning civil rights protections so that racists can racist", you seem to be more focused on the motivation for why Trump is overturning civil rights protections, rather than the fact that he's actually overturning civil rights protections. It's not like Trump is willing to have his mind changed over a healthy and spirited discussion of ideas; at the end of the day, he's still rescinding a guard rail that protected against discriminatory employment practices. That's why I wrote what I did, while qualifying that statement with "fortunately there are other rules and laws in place to protect employees from discrimination. Hopefully Trump and his Republican Congress don't repeal them all."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
