Sorry, AA says that you must hire the less qualified. If company A is not represented in their hiring compared to their area, find out why. If you find out they are not calling in minorities even though their qualifications are the same as whites, charge them. Make them go through training. Have those responsible removed if necessary. If you have to enact fines, go for it. All fine with me. To tell Company A that you have to hire X percent of minorities, period, is a racist program and one that should be discarded.No, I think you're mixing up the details. An equally qualified white gets 2.4 times as many interviews as an equally qualified black. On average, black applicants are less qualified, so the actual ratio of interviews given would be much higher. I am not arguing that anybody should hire a less qualified person. I am arguing that the goal needs to be for equally qualified people to have an equal chance regardless of their race.
Which shouldn't be difficult if similiar minority applications are being discarded two and a half times as often as for whites.Yeah, of course- nobody should be guilty until proven innocent. Although, FYI, in a civil trial it isn't about innocence or guilt and neither side has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is "preponderance of the evidence", which means whoever the jury thinks there is a 51% or more chance is right wins.
It shows you how easy it would be to determine their might be a problem.I really don't get what your argument is with the Wal-Marts. Can you explain in more detail what impact you think that has on our debate?
It can and is brought up. It's why charges are made many times.No, information about historical statistics about the races of people they hired is generally not admissible. Meaning they can't even bring it up. It sounds like you agree with me that that should change, right? If so, that's great. I think that would go a long ways towards fixing this stuff.
Abercrombie & Fitch has a well-documented mission of selling its idea of youthful physical perfection, from the Bruce Weber ad campaigns to the employees that fit its ideal of American beauty. The company conceded that that ideal didn't include black, Hispanic, and Asian employees in 2004 when it paid $40 million to employees and job applicants of those demographics to settle a class-action federal discrimination lawsuit. They had been accused of "engaging in recruiting and hiring practices that exclude minorities and adopting a virtually all-white marketing campaign."
$40 million based upon past hiring practices.
American Beauty: A Brief History Of Abercrombie's Hiring Practices
LOL, they only allow blacks to join. White? Not welcomes. Hispanic? Not welcomed. Asian? Not welcomed. That is racism. Not just racism but the most blatent disgusting form of racism. It just shows that your concerns are not about racism. If it's wrong, it's wrong, period.By "CBC" do you mean the black caucus in Congress? If so, they aren't an employer, so none of this would apply to them. Are you saying they're a racist organization? If so, that's some really crazy talk.