Racism as an excuse in the workplace now?

cincybearcat

Snakeduck wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

Snakeduck wrote:

Yeah, because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all Title VII employment laws are totally unneccessary... says the white people.

Who said that?

It was implied. You just said that HR folks are only interested in keeping the company out of court and not doing the right thing. I find that offensive; I take my role of doing the right thing very seriously.

NO it wasn't. If faced with this situation, HR looks to keep the company out of court #1 and then hopes to make it as fair and just for those that live with it.

How many times have you made a decision that lead to court?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Snakeduck wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

In the workplace, when you create categories that distinguish people from one another... make special considerations for various categories... and then provide a generous and perhaps unique acceptance for behaviours given one's category... the idea of everybody being the same is somewhat negated.

Can we still provide reasonable accomodations for the disabled/injured or should we toss ADA laws out as well while we are trying to treat everyone the same?

Of course we need to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled and injured. This was not something I was speaking about- this is another issue not linked to race.

Edit: And I never said toss any laws out. I said we need to move to a state where we don't need to have laws to regulate our behaviour while we strive for equity.

hedonist

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

At some point in time, the world will need to stop categorizing people by race if it ever truly hopes to keep racist attitudes from developing. At the moment, parts of the world are trying to right the wrongs of the past, but as admirable as this might be... the strategies need to change at some point in time.

In the workplace, when you create categories that distinguish people from one another... make special considerations for various categories... and then provide a generous and perhaps unique acceptance for behaviours given one's category... the idea of everybody being the same is somewhat negated.

Don't get me wrong... left unchecked... racial attitudes might flourish in certain areas; however, integration and inclusion laws are feel good band aid solutions to a much more profound problem. When children are raised to view some as inferior, those children grow into fully indoctrinated adults who's attitudes are strongly forged. Then they have children and the cycle perpetuates itself.

The long term solution lies with education and an intolerance of poor attitudes by all. Much easier said than done.

completely agree, and very well said.

Ditto that. Thank you.

And I'll say that I've been treated differently once some people have found out I'm half-Persian, or (born) Jewish.

(also, I love Pistachowitz! Reminds me of Donna Changstein :P )

Snakeduck

cincybearcat wrote:

NO it wasn't. If faced with this situation, HR looks to keep the company out of court #1 and then hopes to make it as fair and just for those that live with it.

How many times have you made a decision that lead to court?

How many HR professionals am I dealing with in this thread? I'm curious... Because what you have stated here is absolutely backasswards from how we operate.

Are you taling actual hearings or settlements?

cincybearcat

Snakeduck wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

NO it wasn't. If faced with this situation, HR looks to keep the company out of court #1 and then hopes to make it as fair and just for those that live with it.

How many times have you made a decision that lead to court?

How many HR professionals am I dealing with in this thread? I'm curious... Because what you have stated here is absolutely backasswards from how we operate.

Are you taling actual hearings or settlements?

I think you are taking offense where none is meant. Obviously, if it is serious enough, HR will do whatever it has to do. But, until there is significant amount of documentation, etc they can't do anything. And then when it gets to the point of termination, at least at large corporations, legal is heavily involved. So I guess, I should clarify that legal for corporations will suggest not taking action to keep the company out of court.

I do not specifically perform HR duties (well, not most of them), but my boss at each of my last several jobs is the HR manager and I am apart of site leadership discussions regarding employee issues as well. Again, a large corporation.

cincybearcat

Snakeduck wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

NO it wasn't. If faced with this situation, HR looks to keep the company out of court #1 and then hopes to make it as fair and just for those that live with it.

How many times have you made a decision that lead to court?

How many HR professionals am I dealing with in this thread? I'm curious... Because what you have stated here is absolutely backasswards from how we operate.

Are you taling actual hearings or settlements?

Oh, and I'm talking actual hearings. I'm assuming it's far more settlements.

Who Princess

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Snakeduck wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

In the workplace, when you create categories that distinguish people from one another... make special considerations for various categories... and then provide a generous and perhaps unique acceptance for behaviours given one's category... the idea of everybody being the same is somewhat negated.

Can we still provide reasonable accomodations for the disabled/injured or should we toss ADA laws out as well while we are trying to treat everyone the same?

Of course we need to make reasonable accommodations for the disabled and injured. This was not something I was speaking about- this is another issue not linked to race.

Edit: And I never said toss any laws out. I said we need to move to a state where we don't need to have laws to regulate our behaviour while we strive for equity.

Sorry, but we aren't all the same.

I'm not an HR professional but I can speak as a member of 2 of the so-called "protected classes": women and those over 55. I have encountered plenty of sexism during my professional career, mostly in salary, but I was unprepared for how much ageism there is in the workplace. People in my age group are regarded as dinosaurs who are afraid of technology. When we offer our experience, we are just living in the past. We're going to retire soon anyway, so why don't we hurry up and do it so we can make way for all the young folks. Plus, it's our fault that Social Security's going broke.

During my last job search, I was amazed at the attitudes I encountered and that I still hear everyday from people around me. The comment I heard most often at job interviews was a polite "You're overqualified" (translation: you're old, you may have health problems that will drive up insurance costs, you may retire in a couple of years, not worth our while, etc.). No surprise to me when I learned that people who are 55 and over who are laid off have the longest periods before finding new employment, and usually at a considerable pay cut. I was laid off last week, and I'm pretty depressed about going through the whole process again.

You can gripe about reverse discrimination all you want, but the protections are there for a reason. Contrary to what you might think, most people are not going to make use of them until the discrimination is pretty flagrant. Yeah, there will be a jerk here and there that knows how to work the system but I see that in any workplace. Most people would rather get out of a bad job situation than file a complaint.

If your boss is an asshole, then tell management or HR to quit worrying about his culture and do something about his management style. Assholes are not exclusive to Asians, Caucasians, Martians or anybody else. Also, that whole "culture" label may have more to do with English being a second language. I've encountered that with co-workers before.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Who Princess wrote:

You can gripe about reverse discrimination all you want, but the protections are there for a reason. Contrary to what you might think, most people are not going to make use of them until the discrimination is pretty flagrant. Yeah, there will be a jerk here and there that knows how to work the system but I see that in any workplace. Most people would rather get out of a bad job situation than file a complaint.

If your boss is an asshole, then tell management or HR to quit worrying about his culture and do something about his management style. Assholes are not exclusive to Asians, Caucasians, Martians or anybody else. Also, that whole "culture" label may have more to do with English being a second language. I've encountered that with co-workers before.

no one said any one race or culture were assholes.

and no, in my experience as of late, the "culture" thing has nothing to do with his language skills. and he's not the one making excuses using his race; my MANAGER and other COWORKERS are. that's the problem I'm talking about. that people are willing to toss aside idiocy and inappropriateness in the workplace and dismiss it as a culture thing. I find that unacceptable. As unacceptable as if someone's good qualities were tossed aside for the same reason.

and the filipino ass I also mentioned speaks very good english. he just spouts anger when he does.

like it or not, in many cases, my corporation it seems specifically, that white males are actually the minority now. there is no protection because we have been cast as the villian for decades. we suffer because society seems to need to "make it right". the only "right" is dealing with everything and everyone on a case by case basis, not a blanket "he doesn't know better becuase he's from (insert country here)".

on the flip side, I will acknowledge that there are many people in my workplace that seem quite racist, I've heard comments like "we're not in china anymore" and "you're in canada now, buddy" said behind his/their backs, and I speak up and tell them that's racist and they shouldn't say shit like that.

I don't tolerate it on either side of the issue.

Snakeduck

Who Princess wrote:

Sorry, but we aren't all the same.

And this is exactly the heart of the matter. Without the protected classes and the ability to track AA/EEO data, employers would never be held accountable for fair hiring practices. The processes to deal with assholes once they are employed, regardless of race, religion, age, sex, etc., are already established in the workplace. As Cincy indicated, it's really a matter of their supervisor being willing to document their performance issues so we as HR and Legal people can focus on that rather than any perceived bias. As long as the documentation is in place, my HR shop will always act and we don't care about demographics.

When someone accuses the Idaho State Police of only hiring white males, or only giving them raises, how can we even approach that conversation if we aren't tracking those statistics?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Who Princess wrote:

..... but I was unprepared for how much ageism there is in the workplace. People in my age group are regarded as dinosaurs who are afraid of technology. When we offer our experience, we are just living in the past.

I want to address this quote specifically, because I'm 39. Most people in my office are significantly older than I am. I cannot tell you how many times per day I hear people of the older generation talking about current procedures and changes and inevitibly you always hear the phrase "back in the old days...we did it like (this)".

it is so frustrating to constantly hear about how things were done back in the day. Just accept how it's done now, or talk to the person responsible for changing it, because, as you said, the perception is driven that older people can't accept change and if they can't adapt then they should leave. I hear the "back in the day" quote from more people of that age group than not.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Snakeduck wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

Sorry, but we aren't all the same.

And this is exactly the heart of the matter. Without the protected classes and the ability to track AA/EEO data, employers would never be held accountable for fair hiring practices. The processes to deal with assholes once they are employed, regardless of race, religion, age, sex, etc., are already established in the workplace. As Cincy indicated, it's really a matter of their supervisor being willing to document their performance issues so we as HR and Legal people can focus on that rather than any perceived bias. As long as the documentation is in place, my HR shop will always act and we don't care about demographics.

When someone accuses the Idaho State Police of only hiring white males, or only giving them raises, how can we even approach that conversation if we aren't tracking those statistics?

I don't think anyone is suggesting we stop tracking statistics or keeping employment equity alive and well. the purpose I had in making this thread to exactly that, to keep shit fair!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

..... but I was unprepared for how much ageism there is in the workplace. People in my age group are regarded as dinosaurs who are afraid of technology. When we offer our experience, we are just living in the past.

I want to address this quote specifically, because I'm 39. Most people in my office are significantly older than I am. I cannot tell you how many times per day I hear people of the older generation talking about current procedures and changes and inevitibly you always hear the phrase "back in the old days...we did it like (this)".

it is so frustrating to constantly hear about how things were done back in the day. Just accept how it's done now, or talk to the person responsible for changing it, because, as you said, the perception is driven that older people can't accept change and if they can't adapt then they should leave. I hear the "back in the day" quote from more people of that age group than not.

Eye surgeries 20 years ago are quite different from the laser surgeries of today.

One needs to continue to grow within their practice and if they do not keep up... then that is their problem. One shouldn't expect the work force to just accept the fact that some people are older and incapable of embracing technology.

Snakeduck

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

..... but I was unprepared for how much ageism there is in the workplace. People in my age group are regarded as dinosaurs who are afraid of technology. When we offer our experience, we are just living in the past.

I want to address this quote specifically, because I'm 39. Most people in my office are significantly older than I am. I cannot tell you how many times per day I hear people of the older generation talking about current procedures and changes and inevitibly you always hear the phrase "back in the old days...we did it like (this)".

it is so frustrating to constantly hear about how things were done back in the day. Just accept how it's done now, or talk to the person responsible for changing it, because, as you said, the perception is driven that older people can't accept change and if they can't adapt then they should leave. I hear the "back in the day" quote from more people of that age group than not.

And you are the exception to the rule based on discrimination claims. Ageism is a very real thing and most of the time it has an adverse impact on those who are older not younger. Military veterans are another protected class and that stems from what is still statistically proven to be a significant discriminator with most employers. Out of 80 state agencies in Idaho, we are the only ones hiring an acceptable number of veterans based on the percantage of them that apply for jobs. These protected classes exist for a good reason.

Who Princess

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

You can gripe about reverse discrimination all you want, but the protections are there for a reason. Contrary to what you might think, most people are not going to make use of them until the discrimination is pretty flagrant. Yeah, there will be a jerk here and there that knows how to work the system but I see that in any workplace. Most people would rather get out of a bad job situation than file a complaint.

If your boss is an asshole, then tell management or HR to quit worrying about his culture and do something about his management style. Assholes are not exclusive to Asians, Caucasians, Martians or anybody else. Also, that whole "culture" label may have more to do with English being a second language. I've encountered that with co-workers before.

no one said any one race or culture were assholes.

and no, in my experience as of late, the "culture" thing has nothing to do with his language skills. and he's not the one making excuses using his race; my MANAGER and other COWORKERS are. that's the problem I'm talking about. that people are willing to toss aside idiocy and inappropriateness in the workplace and dismiss it as a culture thing. I find that unacceptable. As unacceptable as if someone's good qualities were tossed aside for the same reason.

and the filipino ass I also mentioned speaks very good english. he just spouts anger when he does.

like it or not, in many cases, my corporation it seems specifically, that white males are actually the minority now. there is no protection because we have been cast as the villian for decades. we suffer because society seems to need to "make it right". the only "right" is dealing with everything and everyone on a case by case basis, not a blanket "he doesn't know better becuase he's from (insert country here)".

I did not say that someone is an asshole because of their race or culture, nor was I implying that you did. I was saying that someone from any background can be an asshole. And I only offered the language possibility because I've sometimes found that even when someone is fluent in English, because it is not their first language they can misconstrue and misspeak. Not saying it's definitely what's going in your workplace, just something I've seen before.

If your workplace management or HR isn't willing to deal with a problem employee (and it may just be an unwillingness to confront a problem rather than saying "oh it's probably his culture"), then I would do what Snakeduck is recommending: document, document, document. Just as you would with any problem employee. Keep track of dates and statements or actions. Take your records to management and insist that they at least discuss the matter with said asshole. And by all means, have your co-workers do the same. HR will take it more seriously if they see a pattern and not just what can be passed off as a "personality conflict." (Been there too.)

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Who Princess wrote:

Sorry, but we aren't all the same.

You can gripe about reverse discrimination all you want, but the protections are there for a reason. Contrary to what you might think, most people are not going to make use of them until the discrimination is pretty flagrant. Yeah, there will be a jerk here and there that knows how to work the system but I see that in any workplace. Most people would rather get out of a bad job situation than file a complaint.

Who's griping about reverse discrimination? Saying something like this is basically calling someone out for being in the 'old boys' club'. Not cool. Did you read what I wrote? I'll paraphrase:

The world would be a much better place to be if these 'protections' did not need to be in place. Nobody is arguing against them as they stand right now, but if these are the best we can do... then the human race is in a sad state.

How is such a position offensive in the least? Let your guard down- you're preaching to the choir.

Who Princess

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

..... but I was unprepared for how much ageism there is in the workplace. People in my age group are regarded as dinosaurs who are afraid of technology. When we offer our experience, we are just living in the past.

I want to address this quote specifically, because I'm 39. Most people in my office are significantly older than I am. I cannot tell you how many times per day I hear people of the older generation talking about current procedures and changes and inevitibly you always hear the phrase "back in the old days...we did it like (this)".

it is so frustrating to constantly hear about how things were done back in the day. Just accept how it's done now, or talk to the person responsible for changing it, because, as you said, the perception is driven that older people can't accept change and if they can't adapt then they should leave. I hear the "back in the day" quote from more people of that age group than not.

And I can probably give you an equal number of examples of people younger than me who completely disregard the fact that I could save them a lot of time and effort by showing them techniques and activities (I'm a health educator), often even helping them with technology. There is no "back in the day" in my field. I've had to constantly learn and update my skills. I've trained many people younger than I am and older too, because I'm actually good at it and because I like learning along with other people.

A big part of success in my field is knowing people in the community. That is accomplished over time. And I'm happy to share that knowledge if others are interested. Most are.

Several years ago I worked with a young woman who had a degree in health education. A degree that did not even exist when I was in college. Although we were peers, she was always very condescending to me because of my lack of credentials. As far as she was concerned, my master's degree and years of experience counted for nothing. I rarely offered her any assistance because she always declined.

HFD, if you are in the workforce in 20 years, watch out that you don't start mentioning "back in the day."

Who Princess

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Who Princess wrote:

Sorry, but we aren't all the same.

You can gripe about reverse discrimination all you want, but the protections are there for a reason. Contrary to what you might think, most people are not going to make use of them until the discrimination is pretty flagrant. Yeah, there will be a jerk here and there that knows how to work the system but I see that in any workplace. Most people would rather get out of a bad job situation than file a complaint.

Who's griping about reverse discrimination? Saying something like this is basically calling someone out for being in the 'old boys' club'. Not cool. Did you read what I wrote? I'll paraphrase:

The world would be a much better place to be if these 'protections' did not need to be in place. Nobody is arguing against them as they stand right now, but if these are the best we can do... then the human race is in a sad state.

How is such a position offensive in the least? Let your guard down- you're preaching to the choir.

Hmm, maybe not the whole choir.

No , I understood what you were saying and I agree. In a perfect world, as they say. But the term reverse discrimination has been raised in the thread. It's been mentioned that in some work places white males are now the minority. I think that implies that white males have fewer rights or are less likely advance but I'm not sure.

I my area of work (nonprofit agencies) women predominate, except in the top management positions. Something of a dichotomy since nonprofits overwhelmingly attract women as employees. But that's a different argument for a different day.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Snakeduck wrote:

And you are the exception to the rule based on discrimination claims. Ageism is a very real thing and most of the time it has an adverse impact on those who are older not younger. Military veterans are another protected class and that stems from what is still statistically proven to be a significant discriminator with most employers. Out of 80 state agencies in Idaho, we are the only ones hiring an acceptable number of veterans based on the percantage of them that apply for jobs. These protected classes exist for a good reason.

oh, I know ageism is a real thing. it nearly cost my dad his sanity. he was in a job he hated, he had been there for over 20 years, right out of university, and started applying at other places in his late 40's early 50's. even then he was given the "overqualified" nonsense. it was so deflating for him. he ended up giving up and retiring in that job. he warned me not to wait too long to change companies, since he knows what mine is like.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Who Princess wrote:

And I can probably give you an equal number of examples of people younger than me who completely disregard the fact that I could save them a lot of time and effort by showing them techniques and activities (I'm a health educator), often even helping them with technology. There is no "back in the day" in my field. I've had to constantly learn and update my skills. I've trained many people younger than I am and older too, because I'm actually good at it and because I like learning along with other people.

A big part of success in my field is knowing people in the community. That is accomplished over time. And I'm happy to share that knowledge if others are interested. Most are.

Several years ago I worked with a young woman who had a degree in health education. A degree that did not even exist when I was in college. Although we were peers, she was always very condescending to me because of my lack of credentials. As far as she was concerned, my master's degree and years of experience counted for nothing. I rarely offered her any assistance because she always declined.

HFD, if you are in the workforce in 20 years, watch out that you don't start mentioning "back in the day."

I think I've already caught myself before saying that. I mean, honestly, I'm 39; even though I'm one of the younguns in my office, I've been around long enough already to have my "back in the day" moments.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Who Princess wrote:

Hmm, maybe not the whole choir.

No , I understood what you were saying and I agree. In a perfect world, as they say. But the term reverse discrimination has been raised in the thread. It's been mentioned that in some work places white males are now the minority. I think that implies that white males have fewer rights or are less likely advance but I'm not sure.

I my area of work (nonprofit agencies) women predominate, except in the top management positions. Something of a dichotomy since nonprofits overwhelmingly attract women as employees. But that's a different argument for a different day.

I don't think I ever used the term reverse descrimination to describe my case. I should have thought twice about using the word "minority" when talking about white males in the workplace, cause that's not exactly what I meant. I don't think that minorities are getting the promotions and stuff like this; I just think that we are treated fairly when it comes to discipline, but others are handled with kid gloves because the managers are afraid of being called a racist. I honestly believe that if I behaved like the Filipino guy I described, I would have been fired long ago. That's just my opinion.