Something to Agree On

[asur]

Do your own research, I don't have the time to do everybody else's research.

OK, but I only asked for one specific example.

I take it there are none!

 

[GenSeneca]

But, yes, the wording does further the progress toward fair employment and should be applauded.

I disagree.

If you wanted to make it fair for all individuals, then write the law so that it states, "No individual can be denied work based on something other than their qualifications for the job." That covers every single individual without the need to amend it repeatedly by adding this or that particular group. Of course, protecting the rights of all individuals as I suggest would eliminate the politicians ability to carve out voting blocs and pander to them under the guise of being an advocate for the rights of that particular group.

 

[asur]

The thing that concerns me, is how Obama policies have really harmed
Blacks, Eskimoes, Christians, Homosexuals and even the Transgendered.

The unemployment rate is much higher than it probably ever has been among these groups.

Changing words on a website is simply a red herring.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I disagree.

If you wanted to make it fair for all individuals, then write the law so that it states, "No individual can be denied work based on something other than their qualifications for the job." That covers every single individual without the need to amend it repeatedly by adding this or that particular group. Of course, protecting the rights of all individuals as I suggest would eliminate the politicians ability to carve out voting blocs and pander to them under the guise of being an advocate for the rights of that particular group.

Good point but since the 'ATTORNEYS' have convoluted the original bill and then each and every amendment that follows will have to be subject to all of that BLAH-BLAH-BLAH legalize or they won't know WTH they're talking about. If only things were that simplistically written so that all of the common man {humans} could understand...I know, I'm dreaming

 

[PLC1]

I disagree.

If you wanted to make it fair for all individuals, then write the law so that it states, "No individual can be denied work based on something other than their qualifications for the job." That covers every single individual without the need to amend it repeatedly by adding this or that particular group. Of course, protecting the rights of all individuals as I suggest would eliminate the politicians ability to carve out voting blocs and pander to them under the guise of being an advocate for the rights of that particular group.

That would simplify things, no doubt. What would we do with a highly qualified serial rapist (out on parole) who would have to share working space with women?

 

[GenSeneca]

What would we do with a highly qualified serial rapist (out on parole) who would have to share working space with women?

Do we currently ban them from working and living anywhere that they may come in contact with females?

 

[PLC1]

Do we currently ban them from working and living anywhere that they may come in contact with females?

That probably depends on the employer, but if the law was, "No individual can be denied work based on something other than their qualifications for the job." then we could not.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Originally Posted by PLC1 What would we do with a highly qualified serial rapist (out on parole) who would have to share working space with women?

Do we currently ban them from working and living anywhere that they may come in contact with females?

When I was a solid waste coordinator for a city of 80,000 our sanitation department would be approached by the county detention center for possible job placement for men that would soon be released...some of them were 2nd & 3rd time incarcerated offenders...some of them were considered long term criminals with assault & battery/armed robbery/sexual assault charges that they were serving time for; but we {the administration} were never allowed to know what they had actually been serving time for...only generalities and that they had done their time and were soon to be released and would be needing to be employed with supervision.

Some we hired some we did not. It was left up to the commercial sanitation supervisor and the residential supervisor whether or not they felt comfortable about the person that they were interviewing...depending on their individual work related job history, what ever that encompassed and the box that they were to check for if they had ever served time for a felony, nothing about the specifics {they {the Supervisors were only told that they were going to be living at a half-way house and would need a ride to & from work for their shifts if they were to get hired}.

I did have to call the Police Department regarding one rather mouthy new released man that was making verbal threats and harassing our African American workers...and all they could tell me was rather or not he had ever been charged or sentenced for a weapon charge...never was I ever given the specifics for his particular case...but he was discharged prior to the end of his 90 probation period.

But good strong/hard working/humans were hard to come by and we had so many out on 'walking wounded/aka Workman's Compensation claims' that we had to do something to keep the sanitation picked up and our routes done.

So it is highly possible that prisoners on work release are out here among us and we really don't know exactly who they are!

 

[GenSeneca]

That probably depends on the employer

I was responding specifically to the public sector, which is the employer in the case of this particular statement by the administration. Where the private sector is concerned, employers should be free to hire and fire anyone. Forcing private sector employers to hire, or not allow them to fire, certain individuals is a violation of the employers rights.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I disagree.

If you wanted to make it fair for all individuals, then write the law so that it states, "No individual can be denied work based on something other than their qualifications for the job." That covers every single individual without the need to amend it repeatedly by adding this or that particular group. Of course, protecting the rights of all individuals as I suggest would eliminate the politicians ability to carve out voting blocs and pander to them under the guise of being an advocate for the rights of that particular group.

I agree with you, but since that isn't the way the system works then I'm happy when we can make the system do something useful despite itself.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The thing that concerns me, is how Obama policies have really harmed
Blacks, Eskimoes, Christians, Homosexuals and even the Transgendered.

The unemployment rate is much higher than it probably ever has been among these groups.

Changing words on a website is simply a red herring.

I don't mean to be unkind, Asur, but if you don't know anything about a subject maybe you shouldn't post on it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Do we currently ban them from working and living anywhere that they may come in contact with females?

No, but we do segregate child molestors.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I was responding specifically to the public sector, which is the employer in the case of this particular statement by the administration. Where the private sector is concerned, employers should be free to hire and fire anyone. Forcing private sector employers to hire, or not allow them to fire, certain individuals is a violation of the employers rights.

Can you imagine the furor if Obie was to start hiring convicts who were out on parole?

 

[Pandora]

That would simplify things, no doubt. What would we do with a highly qualified serial rapist (out on parole) who would have to share working space with women?

A rapist might be like a child molester when it comes to this stuff but I am not sure....


The parole officer makes the call on where a child molester can live/work.


If a child molester wants to rent your appartment you can not say no or he can yell discrimination, but the parole officer of the child molester will tell him he can not live within 5 miles or 7 miles of a school and can not work with or around children.

I assume the same for a rapist on parole but after parole is over they are the same as everyone else according to the law. A child molester is different because they are a regestered sex offender for life. Not sure if they do that for men who rape adult women.

 

[asur]

This thread is a red herring.

The federal gov't doesn't require anyone to ever deluge such personnel
information.

Obama is just trying to score points by doing something
symbolic that isn't necessary. In effect he is doing nothing
positive, as usual.

Nobody here has provided proof that anyone has been denied a Federal job because they were transgendered.

In the past you'd have to check a box male of female on the SF-171, but that's
history.