USA generating stupid ppl??

[salvageV6]

" So, why did you??? LMAO! "

I read your lying lefty book. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

OH THE SHAME!!!

Your responses surely AREN'T so intellectual and well thought out.

That's why you get OWNED in EVERY intellectual discussion here.

OH THE SHAME!!!

ROFLMFAOAY

[Weester]

I know you are but what am I................LMAO!

You are a perfect example of why there are laws outlawing marriage between family members..................

[yamla_jatt806]

Originally Posted by daverr

why is our education system sooo behind Europe, China , Japan etc.?????

why are we importing "smart ppl" from India???

College teachers are passing students who fail exams/poor attendance , because they need to pass a certain percentage of students in order to keep their jobs.

Our education system is behind other countries because we insist on passing everyone, it is very hard to fail high school in America. In other countries, the stupid ones are left behind so that more resources can be made available for the smart ones. In India for example, most colleges are public and mostly free, so the entrance exams are very, very hard, only the very smart get admitted. In a country of 1 billion people, even if only 1% graduate college, that's 10 million people.

Why are we importing people from India? Its very simple, our population is unable to fill all the open positions in technical fields that Indians excel in such as IT. Every look at a big company's IT department, its full of Indians, this is not due to affirmative action, this is due to Americans unable to fill these jobs. We need to get our kids more interested in a variety of fields if you want to stop foreigners from taking the jobs.

[benoitthegr8]

Originally Posted by yamla_jatt806

Our education system is behind other countries because we insist on passing everyone, it is very hard to fail high school in America. In other countries, the stupid ones are left behind so that more resources can be made available for the smart ones. In India for example, most colleges are public and mostly free, so the entrance exams are very, very hard, only the very smart get admitted. In a country of 1 billion people, even if only 1% graduate college, that's 10 million people.

Why are we importing people from India?

Bingo.... Also importing foreign workers on work visas (Corporate sponsored) can pay the entry level workers significantly less... When my Uncle was working for J&J back in the late 90's he was telling me they would higher these guys from all over Asia, pay them about 2/3's the salary less benefits and when their visa was up see ya... They had tapped a constant pipeline of cheap white collar labor... I call that selling out you fellow countrymen to make a buck....

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by Weester

"I didn't have to lie and cheat to graduate anywhere either."

So, why did you??? LMAO!

Your responses are so intellectual and well thought out.............ROTFL!

But you DID have to lie about being a NAVY SEAL???!!!

[salvageV6]

And about being an Iraq War Veteran, and about when it's "okay" to lie , and about religion, and about being Conservative, and about global warming, and...............

The list goes on and on..........

OH THE SHAME!!!!!!!

So much for "intetllectual" and "well thought out" LIES.

[BlownZ]

Originally Posted by Black Power

Not true.

My company doesn't get government funding, we have quotas because if we don't have a good enough ratio of minorities and women getting hired and/or promoted we get successfully sued for discriminating.

Well because your company CHOOSES to have a quota sheet does not mean it is required by the government or the law.

You may still be subject to litigation but as long as you didn't actually discriminate against someone then you won't be liable.

I don't know what you do for a living or what kind of background you have in this field....but I assure you....I am well versed on the subject.

There is no quota....unless you accept government funding.

[BlownZ]

Originally Posted by UNGN

Not government funding, They just have to sell one thing to the government.

Very few large corporations in the US don't sell one thing to the government.

Every Aerospace company in the US has quotas for minorities. Indians and Chinese are taking american minority jobs by the hundreds in Aerospace.

The HR manager gets a check and the company doesn't get a two year and out warm body minority job hopper, but a book smart guy we can't understand WTF he is saying 1/2 the time.

That may be true in the aerospace industry but it still isn't true for all corporations and it isn't as simple as "selling something to the government."

If a government employee buys a stapler from Staples on his P-Card then the statutes wouldn't apply. If however Staples enters into a contract with the government to supply them with office products on a regular basis THEN they are subject to further scrutinization.

My original statement still stands true....not all large corporations are required to fulfill a "quota."

[henschman]

but not hiring very many minorities can be prima facie evidence that your hiring practices are discriminatory... leaving the burden on the employer to show a "legitimate" reason why it didn't hire the person.

workplace discrimination laws are all huge violations of our citizens' right to contract, and they all need to be repealed. business owners should be left alone to make whatever hiring choices they want, based on whatever reasons they want, and should bear all the consequences thereof, like people do in a free country.

[BlownZ]

A privately owned and privately held company that does not accept government funding or contracts can hire whomever it wants to hire.

There is no mandatory quota.

[Black Power]

Originally Posted by BlownZ

A privately owned and privately held company that does not accept government funding or contracts can hire whomever it wants to hire.

There is no mandatory quota.

There may not be a mandatory quota for these companies but that doesn't mean crap when you are getting your pants sued off for not hiring enough vato locos.

[BlownZ]

Originally Posted by Black Power

There may not be a mandatory quota for these companies but that doesn't mean crap when you are getting your pants sued off for not hiring enough vato locos.

It does mean crap and I am not sure why you are arguing this point when you just agreed with me.

UNGN said that all large corporations have to hire to quotas and I said that no they do not. It isn't the law and it isn't....you just agreed with me yet still argue.

Regardless of all the misinformation and exageration out there...the bottom line is this......If you hire the best person qualified for the job then you have nothing to worry about when it comes to Vatos locos....whatever they are.

Large corporations already have lawyers on staff so any frivolous lawsuits that you may have to defend won't cost you anything.

[Black Power]

Originally Posted by BlownZ

It does mean crap and I am not sure why you are arguing this point when you just agreed with me.

UNGN said that all large corporations have to hire to quotas and I said that no they do not. It isn't the law and it isn't....you just agreed with me yet still argue.

Regardless of all the misinformation and exageration out there...the bottom line is this......If you hire the best person qualified for the job then you have nothing to worry about when it comes to Vatos locos....whatever they are.

Large corporations already have lawyers on staff so any frivolous lawsuits that you may have to defend won't cost you anything.

What I am saying is that regardless of the existence/nonexistence of a written quota, large companies can, will, and do regularly get sued for being discriminatory in their hiring practices. Frivolous lawsuits in the hands of trial lawyers and liberal judges have tendencies to become successful big money judgments even if the company simply DID hire the best person for the job.

So even if your company is in no way obligated to adhere to a quota-structured hiring/promotion practice, you are still (many times) screwed.

Take a look at this $24 MILLION lawsuit. I obviously have no first hand knowledge of what happened, or if someone was treated unfairly, but I can say that being from the "racist South" I have never seen a black employee treated unfairly. In fact they are usually tiptoed around because nobody wants to have something like this happen.

Final Decree Entered With Walgreens for $24 Million In Landmark Race Discrimination Suit by EEOC

[UNGN]

Walgreens probably accepts government funding so they have quotas now, too.

If the government requires companies that do business with it to have quotas, most large public companies will track the ethnicity of their employees.

[Black Power]

Originally Posted by UNGN

Walgreens probably accepts government funding so they have quotas now, too.

If the government requires companies that do business with it to have quotas, most large public companies will track the ethnicity of their employees.

I know for a fact Walgreens keeps an eye on their percentages, mainly so they can use the number in the courtroom if (more like when) another lawsuit like that one pops up. There is a magic number as far as the minority quota goes, just not many people know what it is. The same HAS to be true for lots of big companies. It's easier and apparently cheaper to hire people that aren't the best for the job than it is to pay out 24 MILLION dollar decisions and form committees to monitor future practices.

I wonder how well our economy would run if businesses could conduct FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES and not be told who they can and can't hire/promote. It makes no sense that a company with any sense would hire a white person over a minority if the minority was better for the job. That's like throwing money in the trash or giving it to Al Gore to stop global warming.

[BlownZ]

You guys can promote hysteria all you want....the Walgreens case was dealing with promotion practices for employees already employed in the company.

That has nothing to do with a hiring quota.

Walgreens is not subject to a hiring quota either.

[UNGN]

Originally Posted by BlownZ

You guys can promote hysteria all you want....the Walgreens case was dealing with promotion practices for employees already employed in the company.

That has nothing to do with a hiring quota.

Walgreens is not subject to a hiring quota either.

You miss the point.

WTF difference does it make if someone is 1/4 Native american or 1/2 portugese in their ability to perform a job?

Why does the government care? Why is the government even involved in such things?

The fact that our Government REQUIRES this to be done at all, for anybody, guarantees that we will be divided by race until they stop requiring it.

[henschman]

Z, you're right that there isn't an absolute quota requirement on private businesses, but there is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal to have discriminatory hiring practices. As I said, a disproportionate amount of whites to minorities is considered prima facie evidence of discriminatory hiring practices, which means the burden of proof is shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant employer.

THis means that a company may not have any discriminatory hiring practices, but if for some reason a lot of a certain minority group aren't as qualified as the white applicants (imagine that) and the company's staff is consequently "disproportionately" white, they have to go to court and come up with a "legitimate" reason why they didn't give the plaintiff a job. They are guilty until proven innocent.

I am one of the apparently small minority of people who believe in a little thing called the natural, inalienable right of free men to contract. Another thing I believe in is the principle that the only contracts men can make are those that are entered into voluntarily by both parties. If somebody doesn't want to contract with you, for whatever reason, even if it's really unreasonable, you still have no right to force them to contract with you anyway. A business is the owner's property, and if he doesn't want to contract for labor with certain racial groups, then that is his right. He will just have to suffer the economic consequences (which in today's society w