I was an attorney focused on management defense in the field of fair employment practices for decades before retiring in 2015. Navigating “fair employment practices” can be a daunting challenge, but, frankly, I don’t shed a tear for employers who dove into the woke deep end trampling on the rights of employees and applicants in the performative name of bending the knee to the CRT/DEI crowd. It was gutless and has earned every bit of blowback it receives. Like so many things Trump, this is likely to be clumsy, excessive, and poorly thought through. Course corrections often are. If you run your business without principles, flapping like a windsock, it has an odd but predictable habit of biting you in the ass.
"I don’t shed a tear for employers who dove into the woke deep end trampling on the rights of employees and applicants in the performative name of bending the knee to the CRT/DEI crowd."
I think much of it was silly and I sat through lots of that silliness in workshops and trainings since at least the 1980's through retirement. I suffered no irreparable damage and I was paid for my time so what difference does it make?
When you have frat boys entering the corporate work place for the first time it is best to let them know up front what behaviors will and won't be tolerated AND tell them why it isn't tolerated from the get go. Spending some time and money up front is a good investment to avoid bigger costs and problems further down the road when coworkers start pursuing actions against sexist/racist and other hostile behavior.
But that is the prerogative of the companies who choose to do that.
BUT that is the point. It is not our business what a company wishes to do with regard to DEI. If I wish to work for the company it is for them to decide what training their workers must have as a condition of employment.
It is certainly NOT the government's business either.
Suggesting that companies who have DEI policies (or not) MIGHT receive favorable treatment is one thing but to make that a requirement for contracting is another.
As for the government itself Trump has every right to discard them.
Do you support the repeal of all anti-discrimination laws? Or do you only oppose State harassment, naming-and-shaming, and lawsuits against private employers when it's done to your side?
Yes, I support the repeal of anti-discrimination where the free market and freedom of association can act without constraint. However the origin of anti-discrimination laws lies in the historic failure of markets to act freely. Review the history of the Jim Crow South to see how social conditions distorted normal market behavior.
Tort law is the market remedy for discrimination. If there has been damage then the individual (or a class of individuals) should have the right to litigate. However because of the distorted market and incentives (attorney payouts) of the American civil court system it is virtually impossible for the individual to enter into a court of equity no matter how real or extensive the damage that has been done to them.
Hence because of the market failure of the market solution (access to courts) the state has set up systems to redress the tortious or negligent behavior of employers. Sure it feels like harassment but it isn't.
Naming and shaming is also a free market strategy and has been part of the arsenal deployed against bad actors and antisocial behavior from the dawn of civilization.
I think boycott, divestment and sanctioning is a morally acceptable thing to do. I would not participate myself but I certainly don't think the state should either support or oppose it.
Or both sides could agree to repeal the CRA. Your freedom of association is my free association. The prior situation, where only special classes could sue under the CRA, was unfair and untenable. It’s either everyone has free association or no one does.
That would be the most reasonable solution, but UnPopulist types will never agree to it, because they want the ability to use the boot of the state to rob and crush people they don't like.
I am a little confused here. "The UnPopulist types" who author the material we read here--- with a few exceptions--- are tending toward the libertarian perspective. As you probably know that philosophy is exactly opposite of wanting to rob and crush anyone. Whether they like them or not
But I can see from your idiosyncratic perspective (libertarian/nationalism) how see it otherwise.
Our Governor, Ron DeSantis, here in Florida toyed around with the idea of forbidding private companies from DEI practices. (The Individual Freedom Act or The Stop Woke Act) His legal theory was that forcing employees to participate in DEI training created a hostile work environment equal to those categories of behavior associated with creating a hostile work environment. That workers were being irreparably harmed by DEI policies and training.
The Florida state courts overturned the law with regard to private companies.
Many years ago, jazz and classical bassist Art Davis found himself consistently not getting hired by major orchestras despite more than satisfactory auditions since he was black. Eventually he launched a lawsuit against one of the major orchestras which resulted auditions in which musicians are behind a curtain and not visible. I guess something like this would be a solution, and I'm sure those accused of getting hired only because of DEI would still wind up hired. It would also make filling out job applications less tedious. Of course there's still the situation in online interviews using Zoom, MS Teams, etc. with a lot of variations, some with only the person being interviewed being visible, other cases sharing your desktop, etc. to deal with. Of course, they could also have all persons on an interview with superimposed cat heads, etc..
So much is driven now by technology. An AI program can filter out applicants before a human ever sees a resume or application or even the applicant. Kaneesha and D'Andre get kicked to the curb. So does Isabelle Johnson who graduated from Howard University. So does Pater Smith who live in the 1400 Block of Burdette Street in Omaha Nebraska. The whole process becomes opaque and far removed from human accountability.
I was an attorney focused on management defense in the field of fair employment practices for decades before retiring in 2015. Navigating “fair employment practices” can be a daunting challenge, but, frankly, I don’t shed a tear for employers who dove into the woke deep end trampling on the rights of employees and applicants in the performative name of bending the knee to the CRT/DEI crowd. It was gutless and has earned every bit of blowback it receives. Like so many things Trump, this is likely to be clumsy, excessive, and poorly thought through. Course corrections often are. If you run your business without principles, flapping like a windsock, it has an odd but predictable habit of biting you in the ass.
"I don’t shed a tear for employers who dove into the woke deep end trampling on the rights of employees and applicants in the performative name of bending the knee to the CRT/DEI crowd."
I think much of it was silly and I sat through lots of that silliness in workshops and trainings since at least the 1980's through retirement. I suffered no irreparable damage and I was paid for my time so what difference does it make?
When you have frat boys entering the corporate work place for the first time it is best to let them know up front what behaviors will and won't be tolerated AND tell them why it isn't tolerated from the get go. Spending some time and money up front is a good investment to avoid bigger costs and problems further down the road when coworkers start pursuing actions against sexist/racist and other hostile behavior.
But that is the prerogative of the companies who choose to do that.
BUT that is the point. It is not our business what a company wishes to do with regard to DEI. If I wish to work for the company it is for them to decide what training their workers must have as a condition of employment.
It is certainly NOT the government's business either.
Suggesting that companies who have DEI policies (or not) MIGHT receive favorable treatment is one thing but to make that a requirement for contracting is another.
As for the government itself Trump has every right to discard them.
Do you support the repeal of all anti-discrimination laws? Or do you only oppose State harassment, naming-and-shaming, and lawsuits against private employers when it's done to your side?
Yes, I support the repeal of anti-discrimination where the free market and freedom of association can act without constraint. However the origin of anti-discrimination laws lies in the historic failure of markets to act freely. Review the history of the Jim Crow South to see how social conditions distorted normal market behavior.
Tort law is the market remedy for discrimination. If there has been damage then the individual (or a class of individuals) should have the right to litigate. However because of the distorted market and incentives (attorney payouts) of the American civil court system it is virtually impossible for the individual to enter into a court of equity no matter how real or extensive the damage that has been done to them.
Hence because of the market failure of the market solution (access to courts) the state has set up systems to redress the tortious or negligent behavior of employers. Sure it feels like harassment but it isn't.
Naming and shaming is also a free market strategy and has been part of the arsenal deployed against bad actors and antisocial behavior from the dawn of civilization.
I think boycott, divestment and sanctioning is a morally acceptable thing to do. I would not participate myself but I certainly don't think the state should either support or oppose it.
Or both sides could agree to repeal the CRA. Your freedom of association is my free association. The prior situation, where only special classes could sue under the CRA, was unfair and untenable. It’s either everyone has free association or no one does.
That would be the most reasonable solution, but UnPopulist types will never agree to it, because they want the ability to use the boot of the state to rob and crush people they don't like.
I am a little confused here. "The UnPopulist types" who author the material we read here--- with a few exceptions--- are tending toward the libertarian perspective. As you probably know that philosophy is exactly opposite of wanting to rob and crush anyone. Whether they like them or not
But I can see from your idiosyncratic perspective (libertarian/nationalism) how see it otherwise.
Thank you, Harley.
Our Governor, Ron DeSantis, here in Florida toyed around with the idea of forbidding private companies from DEI practices. (The Individual Freedom Act or The Stop Woke Act) His legal theory was that forcing employees to participate in DEI training created a hostile work environment equal to those categories of behavior associated with creating a hostile work environment. That workers were being irreparably harmed by DEI policies and training.
The Florida state courts overturned the law with regard to private companies.
The Federal Courts may be more accommodating.
Many years ago, jazz and classical bassist Art Davis found himself consistently not getting hired by major orchestras despite more than satisfactory auditions since he was black. Eventually he launched a lawsuit against one of the major orchestras which resulted auditions in which musicians are behind a curtain and not visible. I guess something like this would be a solution, and I'm sure those accused of getting hired only because of DEI would still wind up hired. It would also make filling out job applications less tedious. Of course there's still the situation in online interviews using Zoom, MS Teams, etc. with a lot of variations, some with only the person being interviewed being visible, other cases sharing your desktop, etc. to deal with. Of course, they could also have all persons on an interview with superimposed cat heads, etc..
So much is driven now by technology. An AI program can filter out applicants before a human ever sees a resume or application or even the applicant. Kaneesha and D'Andre get kicked to the curb. So does Isabelle Johnson who graduated from Howard University. So does Pater Smith who live in the 1400 Block of Burdette Street in Omaha Nebraska. The whole process becomes opaque and far removed from human accountability.