Conclusive evidence? Evidence does nothing more than lend credence to any given hypothesis. Also, people do make decision for multiple reasons. The hiring of people who meet affirmative action criteria might be due to taxation benefits obtainable or it might not. During a time of high unemployment the amassing of individuals on the basis of superficial characteristics to the exclusion of all else could indicate hiring for taxation benefits when they the application candidates meet the necessary criteria, or in the case of Radermacher’s it could indicate the hiring of people based upon the sexual preference of the hiring manager.
Sorry iamnotaparakeet to clarify;
I found myself para-phrasing your OP to read in my head “Is it racist for the Tescor survey to be based on race?”
Seemed a rhetorical question.
Allow me to relate a similar situation in Sydney where I live.
Virtually all gas stations here are now operated by Indian and Pakistani people, this trend started around 5 years ago, here and there at first, but now is virtually the rule.
This sparked some violence notably in Melbourne where it apparently also occurred with racial beatings resulting.
Certain cultures and families tend to staff their business by racial preference I presume matching the owners this is most obvious in ethnic restaurants, deli’s & eateries in AU.
I would assume there are a variety of reasons including a few instances of racism though I also assume there are many more cultural reasons for this situation. Shared interests, second languages, eating preferences, reading, etc… This “similar” set of employees with common grounds would likely bond faster and tighter and thus create a stronger work force.
Personally I prefer diversity (variety the spice…) but I can see valid reasons for small instances such as you described.
As for justifiable racism, perhaps understandable would be more accurate I was thinking of a traumatic stress disorder resulting a perceived ethnic encounter, just as you said I believe.
The only reason I brought it up is for context’s sake. You however have responded as if you feel like I’ve somehow attacked you. Sorry if I’ve caused you this feeling. You’re not under attack. I’ve dealt with worse moderators on WrongPlanet who would blatantly threaten anyone and everyone for the sole purpose of power tripping.
Right, they do. You’ve come up with one or two explanations that relate to race, but you have not provided a reason to think they apply. You haven’t demonstrated that race is a factor in hiring.
Yes, it could. It could also be the result of the demographics of the area, random chance, family relationships, the employment history of the restaurant, the clientele of the restaurant, or other reasons. Or you could just be experiencing confirmation bias. From where I sit, those are all as plausible as the conclusion you appear to have jumped to.
The probability of hiring 10 employees of all the same type, and let’s go with only three types for now (white, black, Hispanic) is 1/(3^10) or 1 out of 59,049 and for increasing similarity between characteristics of selected employees there is decreasing probability of selection to be anywhere close to random - or providing equal opportunity for employment.
That “statistic” doesn’t mean anything. Populations aren’t distributed randomly and employers don’t hire from random samples. If the area is majority black, for example, it’s a lot less surprising to find 10 black workers.
The majority in Brooklyn Park is black, actually, as is the Chipotle that has 8 Hispanic workers and one African American general manager and no other groups. BTW, that’s not a “statistic” that is a probability.
If you flip a penny you can get either heads or tails, that’s a one out of two chance. You flip a nickel and you can get either heads or tails, that’s a one out of two chance. You flip both the penny and the nickel, the probability that both with land on tails is 1/2 time 1/2 or 1/(2*2) or one out of four.
So, like I said, it’s not surprising that the White Castle is staffed primarily by black people.
Are there are significant number of Hispanic people in the right age group in the area? (I’m guessing most of the people who work at Chipotle are younger - at least the cashiers - which is the case in the Chipotles I have seen.) And what about the clientele, for example?
No, most of the workers up here commute from Le Seur and Jordan (one of the workers is a member of a church I used to attend, Agua Viva, down in Jordan whose brother lives in Shakopee), and no they aren’t young- rather they are in their late 20’s to mid 30’s which is only young in comparison to a baby boomer. The clientele is primarily white people from Maple Grove. It’s right next door to a Jimmy John’s which hires a quota-even distribution of white and black guys in their early 20’s, a Caribou Coffee which hires primarily white and black women in their early 20’s, a hair salon which hires only Vietnamese people, an empty office, and accross the parking lot is a GameStop which seems to hire anyone regardless of appearance.
OK, so the demographic explanation doesn’t apply. Like I said, there are plenty of alternatives.
I should’ve just come out and asked this earlier, but what “taxation benefits” do you think the stores get for hiring black and Hispanic and female employees? I think employers are able to qualify for some benefits if they are equal opportunity employers, but that doesn’t mean they get a tax refund every time they hire a black person. Equal opportunity rules are about the job application process, not hiring. I guess large corporations sometimes have scholarship programs student employees and some of them could benefit minorities, but I don’t think this would explain what you’re talking about either. So I don’t think your observations about the White Castle and the Chipotle support your thesis at all, and neither does the fact that you observed something “odd” at Rademacher’s that had nothing to do with minority hiring.
There are a lot of reasons the employees of a business might not match the demographics of the area and it doesn’t make sense to assume it has something to do with unintended consequences of anti-racism employment practices.
It seems to be a constant function that as long as racism is not considered a possible motive in the minds of infallible employers almost any other conclusion is permissible. Anyhow, it’s called Affirmative Action which allows for taxation benefits, in the form of a discount, to be conveyed to employers of "the oppressed minorities"©. It had applied to women previously, but that was repealed.
I live in Minnesota, which is not Hispanic central. And our Chipoltles have a lot of Hispanics working there. And I got to know the manager and asked. They’ve had non-Hispanics working there, but not many. White people apply at Noodles and Company next door. Its rare they even get an application from a non-Hispanic.
My husband was hiring for an experienced web developer. He was told to try and hire a minority. Minority in this case meant “black or Hispanic.” Women didn’t count - they had enough of those. Asians didn’t count. Indians didn’t count - those are all well represented in technology. Find a Black or Hispanic.
Finding a Black or Hispanic web developer is not easy. 300 resumes, not one that was qualified from either class. Now, he does have - not working for him - but working with him, a very talented black web developer. They exist.
I work for an engineering firm - mostly mechanical and electrical - but some chemical as well. We have the same issue. We can hire Asian mechanical engineers. We can sometimes find women (they are a little harder), but there are not a lot of applicants from other classes.
You can only hire from the pool that apply. If white men don’t apply at Chipotle, they can’t be hired.
For two years now, I’ve applied and have been interviewed. The interview always seems to go well, and the manager says for me to call back the next day to find out his decision. I call and get a run around, “call back later” and “he’s on vacation to Chicago today”. Seeing the GM in the store while he’s supposedly on vacation in Chicago is a little disconcerting at the very least.
The problem is that there are still a lot of white males who figure that any system that doesn’t put them at the head of the line is reverse discrimination.
Situation #1 - White male got a job or promotion and minority person (black, hispanic, asian and/or female) also got a job or promotion. See the system works. Everyone wins and we’re all happy. Discrimination was just a bad thing that happened long ago in history.
Situation #2 - White male got a job or promotion and minority person didn’t. Well, you have to look at the big picture. You shouldn’t go assuming discrimination unless you have proof. You have to look at all the factors involved. Racism is a serious accusation and shouldn’t be made lightly. Things aren’t as bad as they used to be. What do you people want? Look, I have a lot other things to deal with right now and I’ll get back to you on this someday.
Situation #2 - Minority person got a job or promotion and white male didn’t. Three simple words: End Discrimination Now. How can something like this happen in America? You know what this is? I’ll tell you what it is - it’s racism, plain and simple! It’s exactly the kind of thing that Martin Luther King died for. But nobody wants to talk about it now. Well, I’m willing to tell you the truth - those people are taking over and they might as well be burning crosses in our front lawns. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no bigot. I’m just saying we need to take our country back.
You have provided no evidence racism was a factor in the hiring you are discussing. You can be sarcastic about counterexamples if you want, but the ones I provided are much more likely as far as I’m concerned.
[quote]
Anyhow, it’s called Affirmative Action which allows for taxation benefits, in the form of a discount, to be conveyed to employers of "the oppressed minorities"©.
I don’t think you have any understanding of what affirmative action is. It’s about providing opportunities for employment regardless of race and other criteria. It’s not ‘hire a black woman, get a tax cut.’ If it were, why are only some of the businesses you observed taking advantage?
This is also wrong. Affirmative action initially didn’t include women, and now it does.
[quote=“Marley23, post:35, topic:562316”]
You have provided no evidence racism was a factor in the hiring you are discussing. You can be sarcastic about counterexamples if you want, but the ones I provided are much more likely as far as I’m concerned.
Affirmative action, by its very nature of benefiting some on the basis of the outward and not others is both racist and, prior to its repeal in regard to women, sexist. You’re right that initially it did not apply to women but later, for a time, it did. However it no longer does.
Why are some taking advantage of taxation benefits while not everyone? Probably because each employer isn’t the same person cloned ad infinitum.
Why does it have to be reverse? It’s the same thing wrapped up in the Emperor’s New Clothes.
Quoted for emphasis. This is wrong.
Not in a meaningful way. The intent of the policies is to undo some of the effects of discrimination on our society. Racist policies like Jim Crow laws are ancient history, but it takes longer to undo the effects of generations of discrimination. I’m not going to defend every affirmative action-related law or policy (I think there’s a case to be made that class is a bigger issue than race and gender at this point), but principle is not comparable to racism.
Cite please. I am sure you are wrong.
Please provide a cite detailing the “taxation benefits.”
Why not also have Affirmative Action policies to undo some of the effects of the currently socially acceptable targets of racism, sexism, and age discrimination?