I think the NAACP should distribute their own damn surveys. Why should Target do their work for them? Let them have a guy stand outside the employees entrance with a clipboard.
I think this was a joke, but just in case it was not:
Target is rather good about not letting people stand outside their doors with petition or anything else. Additionally crowmanyclouds is probably correct about it being a survey for the Corporation to fill out, not individual employees.
Any practice that consist of “fill out”/”distribute” our survey or we will give you an ‘F’ and possibly call for a “boycott” strikes me as a heavy handed and unfair tactic. I think this is true of any group.
Jim
If this is so, it demonstrates why Target has no motivation at all to take the survey, even if it just meant having some junior executive fill out a questionaire.
If they got a D- last year, and the highest grade anyone got was a C+, then what’s the point? It’s not worth the effort if they are still going to fail.
It strikes me as nothing quite so much as an aggressive fishing expedition.
Obviously they haven’t received any actionable complaints.
So, in order to prop up their own sense of importance and to possibly create racial tension where there wasn’t any to start with, they attempted to shoehorn themselves in with the threat of a boycott in retaliation for not taking them seriously. As if not filling out a survey is in any way, shape, or form indicative of unfair practices with regard to minorities. Or that a private company with above board practices is somehow obligated to bow to the wishes of the NAACP or risk being seen as being ‘against black America’. Or some such rot.
I give the NAACP an F, and I’m off to buy something at Target later today just for kicks.
Just a note about why asking them to take the survey is divisive - when I was teaching at the university level many moons ago, I was asked to tell the administration how many black students and how many white were in my classes. I replied that I tried my best to be color-blind and tended not to NOTICE this. They told me I couldn’t get my pay check until I provided these numbers. Thus I was forced to notice the percents of races in my classes and to what race each individual belonged. To me, this promoted divisiveness in my attitudes to my students, not inclusiveness. To me they were all students (or as a friend of mine called hers, “little mothers”) and I mainly divided them into stupid/not stupid or turning-in-things-on-time/not. Counting races is dumb. Makes us notice differences when the goal should be not to. NAACP asking Target how they treat black employees is definitely in the stupid category. One hopes they treat all employees the same. (I guess NAACP does not hope that, actually, huh?)
[slight hijack/redirect]
I lost what little respect I had for the NAACP when I read how they actually asked for clemency for Pierre Dale Selby and William Andrews, the perpetrators of the utterly senseless and unbelievably horrific Hi-Fi murders (actually robbery, rape, torture, murders).
IMO this would have been like the Klan asking for clemencey for the scumbag who dragged James Byrd to death.
From your cite,
The NAACP has a 40 year history of opposing the death penalty, does the Klan?
BTW, commute != clemency.
CMC fnord!
I think the problem with distributing them to black employees is, who decides who gets one? Here’s one for you… and you… and you… “But I’m 3/4 Irish!”… one for you… “I’m from Jamaica!”. Its like going back to the one-drop rule. That is how I read TArget’s explanation regarding diversity and such. It picks people out and forces them to identify in a way in which they may not voluntarily put themselves.
Cite that the survey is being distributed to employees (or reread the OP’s cite and post #16).
CMC fnord!
Even if Target only fills it out in HR, a large part of hawksgirl’s post is valid. My company does not keep statistic employee information based on race. To fill out the NAACP survey, wouldn’t they now have to come up with a method for deciding which employees pigeon hole into different categories?
This hardly sounds like a positive step. Especially in a huge company like Target.
Jim
I’ll agree with you there, but I’d still feel better if they had suggested life WITHOUT possibility of parole.
It’s nice to see that a company can be forward thinking and capable enough of being non-discriminatory to the point of making an activist committee obsolete between them; pretty much a role-reversal where the activist committee is now assuming the role of discriminator.
I was looking forward to going to Walmart tonight…sigh…I hope Target has what I need.
BTW, what is the antonym (sp) for boycott?
hh
How about “Show of Support”
-
Even if Target doesn’t keep statistical employee information based on race, chances are they have it: I submitted an electronic application with Target a few weeks ago for an overnight stock position. On a section of that application they asked applicants to voluntarily give racial/ethnic identification, which I did. So they not only have racial information on actual employees, they have it prospective employees and they can give precise numbers of how many of them chose not to answer the question at all, if Target so wished to process that information and comply.
-
That’s a mighty big “if.”
-
This isn’t activism gone amok on the NAACP’s part. This isn’t even activism. What kinds of social changes, political shifts and dissent for an injustice is being championed here? NONE. This is bullying. – weak-willed bullying at that: it doesn’t even appear to be a well-organized, well-publicized boycott with stated goals and negotiations with Target management. Plus any good boycott reaches out far beyond its membership to appeal to the larger community. You don’t get pissy with a company for not filling out a form…!
Stupid.
This is one of the many, many, many reasons why this formerly dynamic organization which I used to be part of has gone so far wrong. Asking for corporate support to complete a survey isn’t wrong. There’s other ways to ask, and there’s better ways to react if the answer’s “no.”
That said, I gotta wonder what in theory or practice is supposedly wrong with a racial civil rights organization asking for racial demographic information about a company’s employees, that a company would choose not to cooperate.
Girlcott?
They may or may not be able to produce it. (Any gen-u-wine HR programmers reading this?) This had not gotten fully under way the last time I was immersed in HR programming, but the questionaire is (I believe) required by the government. However, given that the answers are voluntary (also as required by the government) they are liable to be a little bit skewed. More importantly, however, the corporation may be required to hold the collected data separate from their HR systems and release it only to specific government agencies. NOTE: I am doing nothing more than speculating on a possible scenario, based on previous data I have worked to collect for the Feds over the last 25 years. (That is why I am asking if a programmer with recent experience is reading this.) It is always possible that the information is widely disseminated within the company–although I seriously doubt that.
My specific point is that while it has certainly been collected, it may or may not actually be available or the corporation to disseminate.
Without seeing the actual survey, we are somewhat in the dark here. But from this article, it says the survey asks specific questions about :
“ how well corporations work with blacks in employment, charitable giving, advertising, contracting and community service. This year, the civil rights group looked at the telecommunications, lodging, finance, retail and auto industries.”
Then you have this:
” For the second straight year, Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp. received the highest grade of any company — a 3.5 out of a possible 4.0. The company pushes its managers to look for vendors and employees who are black, said Valencia I. Adams, a BellSouth vice president. “They take it to heart and really work hard on it,” she said."
So for a company to score well, they must increase the number of black venders they chose. They have to chose a vender based on their skin color. So those with the wrong skin color are out, the right skin color is in. Something about that just doesn’t sit well with me.
The quote again, “A Target spokeswoman said via e-mail that the company opted out of the survey “because Target views diversity as being inclusive of all people from all different backgrounds, not just one group.” The NAACP survey asks only about blacks.”
So knowing that getting a good grade on the survey would mean Target would have to chose more black people as venders, give more money to black charities, etc, and that would mean less is available for people of other backgrounds.
If a person who was not black worked at Target, and knew Target was going to answer the survey and try to score well so they wouldn’t be boycotted, they would also know their chance for being promoted just went way down. Not because of their performance, but because Target would now need to have a higher number of specifically black managers. The NAACP isn’t concerned with all minorites, just black people.
Target wants a policy that is inclusive, meaning all have an equal chance. I can’t disagree with that, and don’t blame Target for not wanting to participate in a survey that in order to do well on it would have to change their hiring and promoting policies, policies in chosing venders and change which groups receive donations.
If the NAACP wants to take the route of saying certain companies have to show a preference of doing business with black companies, and hiring and promoting black employees, or they will tell their people not to do business with them, they certainly have the right to do that. But I can’t help but think most people will see this as unfair, and it will backfire.