Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action
Message-ID: <337@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 21:10:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.337
Posted: Tue Jun  4 21:10:48 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 03:16:12 EDT
References: <sphinx.566> <338@unc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 86

The idea is FALSE that Affirmative Action  equals quotas

Let us look at the *reality* of AA plans. AA is a recognition that merely
declaring that an employer will not discriminate is not enough. When doors
have been closed to some for so long, putting up a sign that they are now
unlocked will not be convincing (remember, the 14th and 15th amendments,
which outlaw discrimination, did not stop same). An employer needs to
affirm the intention to not discriminate. In practice, AA is a pledge
that an employer will actively attempt to *include* members of disadvantaged
groups in the *pool* of candidates for jobs/promotions.

We must differentiate between public and private sector plans. In the
public sector, occupations are primarily ones where people receive raises,
promotions, etc, by seniority, rather than purely on merit. In such cases,
the important thing is to be hired and then avoid screwing up. Since
hiring is so important, and since turnover is relatively low (and because
politicians seek to justify their existence at election time) public sector jobs
sometimes include target dates and milestones by which the AA goals
are to be reached. These plans are by and large working well, in that
they have not reduced the effectiveness of the police, fire, sanitation,
etc work forces, and that they are well accepted by the communities.
With the Supreme Court's recent decision that AA does not take precedence
over seniority in layoff decisions, there can be few claims of
intrinsic discrimination in public sector AA programs, except that their
applicant pool has been significantly widened. WIth more competition,
fewer white males get the fixed number of jobs available.

But the private sector is far more important. First because that is where
the majority of workers are; second because that is where the majority of
netters are (:-) There are few, if any, private employer AA programs
that proclaim the intention of hiring X percent of disadvantaged groups,
and promoting Y of them to senior positions within Z units of time.
Rather, private AA programs pledge that their *goal* is to integrate
their work force. As long as progress is being made, neither the government
nor private organizations representing discriminated against job candidates
has a prayer of winning a suit aimed at forcing the employer to move
faster (the definition of progress is subject to disagreement,
especially when the employer is acting in bad faith) So far, there is
no discrimination for or against anyone, merely a statement of intent
to include a representative percentage of members of disadvantaged
groups in consideration for hiring/promotion.

The concept of representative percentage is based on census figures
for the area the employer is located in (the definition of an area
is set by government) The employer attempts to find a number of
job applicants representative of the population distribution ***for the
particular skill required for the job***. The presumption is that
a subset of those applicant proportional to the percentage will be
found qualified, be hired and in time promoted, thus leading to
a company whose employee distribution reflects that of the region it is
located in. The key words here are "goal", "in time", and "progress"
The assumption is that the employer is acting in good faith,
and genuinely wants to achieve the stated goal.

Unfortunately, some act in bad faith. They may hire unqualified people
and then point to them as proof of the failure of AA~r. They may set
quotas and then point to their "unfairness". Blaming the concept of
AA for these implementation flaws is throwing the baby out with the
bathwater. AA programs by and large work. The growing integration
of the work force is proof to that. No one should think that employers
would have integrated on their own. After all, there were laws of various
strength on the books for almost 100 years, and entrenched discrimination,
before the advent of AA

Those who complain of reverse discrimination and unfairness probably
work for companies that have AA programs. Have any of *them* been passed
over for a job or a promotion in favor of a female, a black or whomever,
who was less qualified? Can they *prove* the slight? Or is it a reaction
to increased competition? AA *does not* mandate that the disadvantaged
be promoted at the expense of white males, but that special efforts
be made to identify worthy disadvantaged people and include them on
promotion/hiring candidate lists. Selection is made on the basis
of qualifications, as always (the employer better be able to give
some good reason why a qualified female/black is turned down, however)
One who does not wish to lose out ton AA boosted competitor need
only be *better* This added requirement for white males is
offset by that of blacks and females, who must constantly prove
their worth, who must do twice as well to be considered half as
good.

I have talked about "over time." Will there be a time when AA is
no longer necessary? Yes, when minority and female employees
can share the quintessential attribute of most of their coworkers:
when they can safely be average

Marcel Simon