Jules NYC wrote:
Are employers afraid to discipline a person of color or any minority status because of racism?  If that's the case, does reverse discrimination exist?

No and no.

That idea gets thrown out that by racists as a way to try to argue that they're the ones being persecuted.

DMotion Picture Group wrote:
No and no.

That idea gets thrown out that by racists as a way to try to argue that they're the ones being persecuted.

Not in all cases, esp. if you don't feel persecuted whatsoever lest racist.  If two equally qualified people are up for the same job, there is still EEO.  That certainly exists. I used to work in a diversity department.  I could see that hiring always involved race as the tipping point for consideration.

I agree what this woman has to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEkXOfFw5IM

Jules NYC wrote:
When it comes to hiring and firing, very difficult to prove.  The race card is a powerful thing though.  I never been confronted with a co-worker so blatantly disrespecting her boss, telling me "he's a pussy" to being condescending to him to his face.  I'm silently shaking my head witnessing this. 

This woman complains constantly about how horrible it is to be black almost every day.  She got moved to her boss' office and STILL talks on the phone all day.  It's somewhat amusing.  I think her boss is so passive, he just 'takes it'.  I think he's afraid to discipline her.  I just overhead him say, "I'll get *name here* on you to another colleague (I'll sic her on you).  She's not a dog, she's a human, just mouthy and disrespectful.

At the end of the day, if I acted that way, I'm not sure I'd be around forever.  I believe racism has caused employers to be afraid to discipline because of that race card that is held high, fair or not.

In reality, working for an employer is for the most part "at will".  An employer should be able to discipline as needed so long as it doesn't infringe upon laws exist.  Most businesses have a path which they follow to document disciplinary actions.  First a verbal, then a written, then suspension or termination of employment.  In regards to reverse discrimination in your example, I would prob ask a lawyer how to proceed in dealing with such an issue if I was him.

Gryph wrote:

Re-evaluating what I posted.

I think people are wary about talking about this.  Thing is, I think bad behavior is not attached to race/religion/gender/etc.  I just find that when someone is complaining constantly about being *insert whatever here* it becomes really uncomfortable to reprimand someone who may be in an oppressed group.  Shouldn't be.

You're being reprimanded because you're rude & disresprectful, not because you're black, white, male, female, etc.

Jules NYC wrote:

I think people are wary about talking about this.  Thing is, I think bad behavior is not attached to race/religion/gender/etc.  I just find that when someone is complaining constantly about being *insert whatever here* it becomes really uncomfortable to reprimand someone who may be in an oppressed group.  Shouldn't be.

You're being reprimanded because you're rude & disresprectful, not because you're black, white, male, female, etc.

What I had posted earlier wasn't exactly correct, therefore misleading based on what I thought was correct which wasn't.

Gryph wrote:

In reality, working for an employer is for the most part "at will".  An employer should be able to discipline as needed so long as it doesn't infringe upon laws exist.  Most businesses have a path which they follow to document disciplinary actions.  First a verbal, then a written, then suspension or termination of employment.  In regards to reverse discrimination in your example, I would prob ask a lawyer how to proceed in dealing with such an issue if I was him.

At will employment... ah, yes.  You can leave or get fired pretty much, ha.  As far as this woman's boss, he'll do nothing and is not even upset about it.  I feel sorry for him really.  He was in the military, has a good position and his passive nature is hurting him.  Not my problem but I guess I have a big problem with disrespectful people.

If I was in his place, I'd grow a pair.

Jules NYC wrote:
At will employment... ah, yes.  You can leave or get fired pretty much, ha.  As far as this woman's boss, he'll do nothing and is not even upset about it.  I feel sorry for him really.  He was in the military, has a good position and his passive nature is hurting him.  Not my problem but I guess I have a big problem with disrespectful people.

If I was in his place, I'd grow a pair.

The problem is with the fear of retaliation by said "minority".  In this day and age, it would be via social media and wrong accusations and mob mentality based off what one person writes.  Guilty until proven innocent is how things work now.

Edit: considering the gig economy, this would also be another reason why company's would rather contract out employees; try before you buy.  If the company is not happy with the person they hired via a 3rd party contract/recruiting firm, the hiring manager simply reaches out to that firm and says to end that persons employment and replace with another.  It falls on the recruiting firm to take care of the rest.

Some Mr. Miyagi quotes from Karate Kid movies.

"Lie become truth only if person wanna believe it."
“First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule Daniel son, not mine”
"No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher. Teacher say, student do."

Gryph wrote:

The problem is with the fear of retaliation by said "minority".  In this day and age, it would be via social media and wrong accusations and mob mentality based off what one person writes.  Guilty until proven innocent is how things work now.

Some Mr. Miyagi quotes from Karate Kid movies.

"Lie become truth only if person wanna believe it."
“First learn stand, then learn fly. Nature rule Daniel son, not mine”
"No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher. Teacher say, student do."

Love that movie.

I've worked with all kinds of people but never did I work with someone who held so much pain.  I'm pretty empathetic so I try to see her point of view.  Everything is about understanding yet when that understanding becomes favoristism or fear, it's no good.

I think that pain manifested into something else... into a 'I'm doing this because I'm going to speak out, be heard, no one is going to shut me up' mentality.  That's all fine and good but when it manifests into bad behaviors, it doesn't help anyone.

I think some people need a mouth-box because they don't have a voice.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Same woman you posted about before?

Is she still a contract employee?

You said she was moved to her boss's office.  Any update on how that came about?  Doesn't that solve what was previously your issue- that you had to listen to her all day?

How is this hurting the passive boss?  Have you talked to him about it?  Have you offered to help him in some way? Back him up concerning her behavior?  Is there a reason unrelated to her work ethic as to why she is there?  i.e.. favor to a boss somewhere else in the company?

edit:
What are the gender and racial ratios in the company?

It IS!

I decided to befriend her to give myself less pain.  She can be very cool at times but very money driven to the extreme end of materialism/woe is me kind of person.  Wants a rich man to take care of her, ultra bossy (without being a boss), etc.  She's money strapped all the time but has a problem with shopping and buys designer everything & leases a BMW.  Excess all the way.

I did mention to her boss and my colleague that you may want to look at the situation.  He thanked me for it yet there's a very weird dynamic going on now.  I think he isn't thrilled with his wife and kind of welcomes being pushed around by her.  He had a Skype meeting today and put her voice (she worked from home today) so incredibly loud I had to drown myself in my headphones.  I couldn't believe it!  Master/slave thing going on without the whips and chains.

I'm pretty observant and the whole thing is out the door crazy but hey.  She's also one of those insecure one-uppers too.  I mentioned it's very difficult to get a good job.  She keeps saying it isn't.  So I guess your full-blast complaining at the contract job you still have was all for naught?  I turned it back saying that if it were that easy, you would have had another job months ago.  Her response was that she wasn't looking.  Odd when she told me of every job she was applying to.  I guess I don't like dealing with crazy.

Kind of hard to hear the "every white person should be black for a day" when she has a good job, lives in Westchester and drives a Beemer.  Yeah, life is really rough. 

Jules NYC wrote:
I did mention to her boss and my colleague that you may want to look at the situation.  He thanked me for it yet there's a very weird dynamic going on now.  I think he isn't thrilled with his wife and kind of welcomes being pushed around by her.  He had a Skype meeting today and put her voice (she worked from home today) so incredibly loud I had to drown myself in my headphones.  I couldn't believe it!  Master/slave thing going on without the whips and chains.

This was my next impression of him.  He's got a fetish for her type of behavior.  S/M

Gryph wrote:

This was my next impression of him.  He's got a fetish for her type of behavior.  S/M

Hey, some people need to be dominated, ha.

https://youtu.be/IsvfofcIE1Q

Abbitt Photography wrote:
It seems to me that the reverse of discrimination is non discrimination.  I think terms like reverse discrimination, positive discrimination, etc. are simply terms to make discrimination sound like a good thing, rather than just refer to it as the discrimination it is. 


In the U.S. we have several laws that discriminate in favor of females and against males.  Whether this legal discrimination is justified or not is of course another matter, but clearly, it exists.     Some examples are:

Selective Service Registration
Women's Educational Equity Act
Women Owned Small Business Advantages (5 of them I know of)
VAWA
Women only mandates under Obamacare (We'll see what happens there)
Law Creating Council for Women and Girls to represent the female interest in public policy while blocking the same for males.
Law Creating a Women's Department of Health, but no Men's Department of Health.

I think Wiki got it right:

Reverse discrimination is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.

Favoritism.

If everyone were treated equal there wouldn't be a word/phrase for it.

Jules NYC wrote:

I think Wiki got it right:

Reverse discrimination is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.

Favoritism.

If everyone were treated equal there wouldn't be a word/phrase for it.

I agree if everyone were treated equally, it there would be no need for the word discrimination, but I think it's misleading to refer to discrimination against some as reverse discrimination.  Again, the reverse of discrimination is non discrimination, and BTW, women are a majority in the U.S., not a minority.   

You ask if "reverse discrimination" exists.  Putting aside the biased nature of the term, my main point, is that we have actual laws that discriminate in favor females and against males.  Agree or disagree with such laws, there's no denying such discrimination exists.  Such "reverse discrimination" is a documented matter of law.  Clearly it exists.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

I agree if everyone were treated equally, it there would be no need for the word discrimination, but I think it's misleading to refer to discrimination against some as reverse discrimination.  Again, the reverse of discrimination is non discrimination, and BTW, women are a majority in the U.S., not a minority.   

You ask if "reverse discrimination" exists.  Putting aside the biased nature of the term, my main point, is that we have actual laws that discriminate in favor females and against males.  Agree or disagree with such laws, there's no denying such discrimination exists.  Such "reverse discrimination" is a documented matter of law.  Clearly it exists.

I'll agree that discrimination is discrimination.  I guess that term was coined when the people 'not of the oppressive group' were finding greater discrimination.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
I agree if everyone were treated equally, it there would be no need for the word discrimination, but I think it's misleading to refer to discrimination against some as reverse discrimination.  Again, the reverse of discrimination is non discrimination, and BTW, women are a majority in the U.S., not a minority.   

You ask if "reverse discrimination" exists.  Putting aside the biased nature of the term, my main point, is that we have actual laws that discriminate in favor females and against males.  Agree or disagree with such laws, there's no denying such discrimination exists.  Such "reverse discrimination" is a documented matter of law.  Clearly it exists.

Agree with your concept.  Discrimination is discrimination, which ever direction it goes.  Part of the problem with the definition of discrimination and reverse discrimination is the use of majority and minority parties as actors and victims in specific roles which define discrimination.  There are places in the world where a minority is in power and it is the majority bears the brunt of discrimination.  The term reverse discrimination is probably one of those popular idioms that have become standardized out of misuse in order to highlight the difference.

The problem with laws that are created to create balance and equality, can be discriminatory in themselves.  As a society, we need to address the methods that we are to employ to create a balance, if we are willing to accept balance at all.

As far as the modern work place goes, there are thinks that any sane employer would want to document the crap out of.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
The problem with laws that are created to create balance and equality, can be discriminatory in themselves.  As a society, we need to address the methods that we are to employ to create a balance, if we are willing to accept balance at all.

The 19th amendment, the equal pay act and many clauses of the civil rights act are examples of laws which simply state that one can't discriminate on the basis of X.  Those are examples of laws that make discrimination illegal, they don't encourage discrimination, reverse or otherwise. 

Other laws, such as the one's I previously mentioned, actively promote discrimination, which is quite the opposite of making discrimination illegal.  It seems clear to me that the way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating, not create more discrimination, but I'm not going to get into that more because I think that might get off topic. Again my point to the OP's question is simple:  We know reverse discrimination exists, because we have documented laws which require such discrimination.  This isn't anecdotal, it's a matter of law.

Jules NYC wrote:
I think Wiki got it right:

Reverse discrimination is discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.

Favoritism.

If everyone were treated equal there wouldn't be a word/phrase for it.

I don't agree

I believe that those peoples who have been invaded , colonized . enslaved . murdered , oppressed etc have every right to be less than accepting of their oppressors ...Its human nature

and  of course that is the history of the world

and it is not simply a Black and White thing in America

A Thousand Words  wrote:
How can there be "reverse" discrimination? Isn't it discrimination regardless which side is being discriminated against?

This was covered a few posts ago as opinion is discrimination is discrimination. I agree to that. Women can be discriminated against of any color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Thing is, when a woman is not promoted for the same job as a man with the same qualifications in the ol’ boys club or a white male is not hired because a quota has to be made with EEO (I’ve seen it in print), the term exists however unfair.

Being a minority of any kind is not a qualification, I concur.
Equality = no special treatment for anyone.

https://youtu.be/eEkXOfFw5IM

Jules NYC wrote:
Are employers afraid to discipline a person of color or any minority status because of racism?  If that's the case, does reverse discrimination exist?

Back in the 1990's I took a job at a major university in Philadelphia running the department that managed the computing systems (administrative, academic and student). I was to directly lead about a dozen folks, and indirectly lead another couple dozen.

One of my direct employees was a black man with one artificial leg. He was a long timer, who got mad a few years earlier when he felt he was passed over for a promotion. I was told that he only shows up once a year, mainly to do his review and choose his health plan for the next year. He spends all his time in Jamaica playing with his steel drum band.

I tried to give the guy projects he could do remotely... planing types of studies/papers. He always sounded enthusiastic, but would never follow through... so I would only see him once a year, and always heard the same thing from him: "They can't fire a handicapped black man in Philadelphia". He was correct. Even in years where I would be forced to cut a body or two due to budget cuts, I couldn't cut him... I would instead have to cut people I needed day to day. HR was scared to death of him... he played his race card boldly and it worked.

Eventually he got old enough and we were able to get rid of him on early retirement, with a gigantic check.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:
Back in the 1990's I took a job at a major university in Philadelphia running the department that managed the computing systems (administrative, academic and student). I was to directly lead about a dozen folks, and indirectly lead another couple dozen.

One of my direct employees was a black man with one artificial leg. He was a long timer, who got mad a few years earlier when he felt he was passed over for a promotion. I was told that he only shows up once a year, mainly to do his review and choose his health plan for the next year. He spends all his time in Jamaica playing with his steel drum band.

I tried to give the guy projects he could do remotely... planing types of studies/papers. He always sounded enthusiastic, but would never follow through... so I would only see him once a year, and always heard the same thing from him: "They can't fire a handicapped black man in Philadelphia". He was correct. Even in years where I would be forced to cut a body or two due to budget cuts, I couldn't cut him... I would instead have to cut people I needed day to day. HR was scared to death of him... he played his race card boldly and it worked.

Eventually he got old enough and we were able to get rid of him on early retirement, with a gigantic check.

Just WOW!

My boyfriend has witnessed blatant, "I'm not doing this/that" by a younger group of employees who directly report to a younger boss. Oddly the boss treats his older white employees badly.  The boss is white himself so I figure he is afraid to discipline these guys, wants to 'fit in' with his same aged employees or is afraid to lose his job because he let them get away with so much already.  The younger guys are mostly black or Hispanic and get away with murder.  Showing up late/leaving early/going home on the clock if a call comes in... not doing their work/overt disrespect to the boss...I just can't believe it, esp. the company being a HOSPITAL.  Truth be told, I wish I could replace HIS boss, a woman who is into sales for the hospital.  I wouldn't mind her cool 2 mil salary.  Crap, I don't have the same education as she but what a great gig.

The race card is a heavy one to play when a person wants & gets preferential treatment.  I know that some truly struggle with racism and that's why there are so many labor laws.  Thing is, I can't act like an ass and play that card, nor do I want to if the possibility was there.

As far as this guy you speak of, hey... he figured out a way to steal from the company and play music in the sun.  If he were legit, he could have this lifestyle without feigning a corporate job to sponsor his interests.

WTF

He spends all his time in Jamaica playing with his steel drum band.

Sounds pretty damn fun though.

P.S. If you told me the same story and the guy was white, he'd be fired a long time ago.  Behavior is equally as bullshit/ugly.

Jules NYC wrote:

This was covered a few posts ago as opinion is discrimination is discrimination. I agree to that. Women can be discriminated against of any color, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

Thing is, when a woman is not promoted for the same job as a man with the same qualifications in the ol’ boys club or a white male is not hired because a quota has to be made with EEO (I’ve seen it in print), the term exists however unfair.

Being a minority of any kind is not a qualification, I concur.
Equality = no special treatment for anyone.

https://youtu.be/eEkXOfFw5IM

A former DA (female) in our county, now a judge, was much harder on the women in her office then the men.  A woman who ran the Recoder's Department drove most of the women out of the office.   Fortunately, she got voted out, but the people are still gone.

Abbitt Photography wrote:

The 19th amendment, the equal pay act and many clauses of the civil rights act are examples of laws which simply state that one can't discriminate on the basis of X.  Those are examples of laws that make discrimination illegal, they don't encourage discrimination, reverse or otherwise. 

Other laws, such as the one's I previously mentioned, actively promote discrimination, which is quite the opposite of making discrimination illegal.  It seems clear to me that the way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating, not create more discrimination, but I'm not going to get into that more because I think that might get off topic. Again my point to the OP's question is simple:  We know reverse discrimination exists, because we have documented laws which require such discrimination.  This isn't anecdotal, it's a matter of law.

How do you propose that we get people to stop discriminating when they find discrimination to be just?

It seems that our first amendment rights are not without bounds.  Threats and "fighting words" are not protected.  Not all religions are legally recognized. Our right to petition the government is curtailed by bureaucracy.  Our second amendment rights are curtailed. We are not completely safe from unreasonable searches and seizures, especially as of a late ruling that permits the police to make "a mistake" without it jeopardizing their case. Why should there be no exception or special circumstance to the 19th?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
A former DA (female) in our county, now a judge, was much harder on the women in her office then the men.  A woman who ran the Recoder's Department drove most of the women out of the office.   Fortunately, she got voted out, but the people are still gone.

Sounds personal.

It's as if this judge had a major aversion to other women for what reason, no one would know.  I'm a big fan of anyone getting ahead but not at the expense of others.

I will say though... women (not all of course) may have to use additional resources to get ahead.  That's a subject in itself but I tend to believe that women have to refrain from their feminine side to get shit done/be respected/etc.  You'd think women would support other women but not in all cases.

Possibly the stakes are higher when you're appointed a great leadership role that requires a different set of soft-skills and business acumen.  Look at Judge Judy, she pretty much says it like it is.  I wonder if she looked like a standard bombshell if she'd be respected the same/or if she'd have to 'work' harder.

Every time I watch Sarah Sanders spin a PR retort with such authority, I think to myself how well she makes a convincing argument even if something is clearly, 'wait a second here'.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
How do you propose that we get people to stop discriminating when they find discrimination to be just?

I think the 15th and 19th amendments are  great example of how it should be done.  It didn't matter that some states still felt it was justified to deny voting rights based on race or sex.  These amendments made that illegal and forced states to stop discriminating. 

Where I work, they created an non-discrimination policy a few years ago, which basically says no discrimination anywhere.  When I was on a hiring committee last year and someone wanted to push affirmative action into it, I simply pointed out that to interview or hire someone based on their race or sex would be a blatant violation of our non-discrimination policy.  It shut that down right there. 

A problem of course is that non-discrimination laws or policies are only as good as their enforcement and can be twisted to become the opposite of what they were originally intended.  AA for example, came to promote discrimination, rather than end it.  For a while the proposed ERA had the Hayden Rider, which would have made it completely unequal.  The original Title IX, states schools couldn't discriminate on the basis of sex (either way), yet many schools now offer "No Boys Allowed" college prep programs and it's perfectly acceptable, because Title IX has come to be viewed only one-way making it a discriminatory practice, rather a non-discrimination enforcement practice.  That colleges should adjudicate sexual assaults amounting to felony crimes internally under Title IX is one of the biggest twists of non-discrimination legislation I've ever seen.  I think one reason the 19th amendment has held up better is it's very straight to the point.  It's not pages of points that can be twisted, it's two straight forward sentences. 


I think limitations on freedom of speech is also an interesting topic, but a bit different.  One commonality however is that again, laws are only as good as their enforcement.  It certainly seems to me that some colleges limiting free speech to a few relatively small free speech zones violates both freedom of speech and freedom of association, but it's PC and goes unchallenged.

Jules NYC wrote:
Are employers afraid to discipline a person of color or any minority status because of racism?  If that's the case, does reverse discrimination exist?

Of course it does, although it is simply a different form of racism, not reverse racism. This doesn't change the fact that racism against certain minorities isn't more prevalent and usually more damaging. The only solution is less concern about race, or other identifier, and more concern with individual rights. If we are concerned with the rights of individuals, the rights of minorities, or member of any other group, are protected. If we concern ourselves with the rights of members of any group, then the rights of any other group are not protected and usually are threatened, implicitly or explicitly.

Docta Shock Fotografix wrote:
Reverse racism explained

https://youtu.be/dw_mRaIHb-M

Jules NYC wrote:

Not in all cases, esp. if you don't feel persecuted whatsoever lest racist.  If two equally qualified people are up for the same job, there is still EEO.  That certainly exists. I used to work in a diversity department.  I could see that hiring always involved race as the tipping point for consideration.

I agree what this woman has to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEkXOfFw5IM

It's the second time I am coming across the mention of Roaming Millenial, aka Lauren Chen today.

So, I just looked her up, because I have heard those arguments before and lo and behold, she promotes ultra right wing talking points.

She just looks so pleasant and doesn't scream like Tomi Lahren, but both are ideologically aligned.

Not getting political, just mentioning where she is coming from.

Happy New Year, Julie! 

udor wrote:
It's the second time I am coming across the mention of Roaming Millenial, aka Lauren Chen today.
So, I just looked her up, because I have heard those arguments before and lo and behold, she promotes ultra right wing talking points.
She just looks so pleasant and doesn't scream like Tomi Lahren, but both are ideologically aligned.
Not getting political, just mentioning where she is coming from.
Happy New Year, Julie! 

Tomi Lahren is HOT!