Affirmative Action

Lori1 · September 2003

I am involved in a research project regarding affirmative action and leveling the playing field for minorities and I thought this would be a great place to hear some thoughts from the employers forum since it reaches nationwide. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thank you all

JM in ATL · September 2003

Can you be a little more specific?

What kind of information are you looking for?

Dasher · September 2003

One of the things anyone interested in affirmative action must do is to clarify the term, since most people mix it up with diversity initiatives, equal opportunities, etc, and of course there is a relationship. However, a structured Affirmative Action program is only needed when disparate impact or disparate treatment has resulted in the exclusion or discrimination of a group/class of people (minorities, women, handicapped) for no other reason than that they belong to the group. I think of affirmative action as a management tool to be used to make sure equal opportunity is in fact practiced by the company so that we will have a "balanced" workforce where everyone feels heard. My preference is that it (a plan) be voluntary, however, I am not opposed to requiring a structured program if needed.

This is a subject that I love to discuss, but believe me it would take more than a few sentences on the forum to really get an understanding of the many issues involved.

cthr · September 2003

"However, a structured Affirmative Action program is
>only needed when disparate impact or disparate treatment has resulted
>in the exclusion or discrimination of a group/class of people
>(minorities, women, handicapped) for no other reason than that they
>belong to the group." >
>
AAP are required if you are a government contractor, regardless of whether disparate impact has occured.

"I think of affirmative action as a management
>tool to be used to make sure equal opportunity is in fact practiced by
>the company so that we will have a "balanced" workforce where everyone
>feels heard. My preference is that it (a plan) be voluntary, however,
>I am not opposed to requiring a structured program if needed."

If you are not a government contractor or otherwise required to have an AAP, my suggestion is don't. It is good to have a diversity program, but AAP are time consuming and labor intensive-you also open your company to scrutiny that wouldn't otherwise exist.

Don D · September 2003

CTHR has nailed it! Twice!
Your followup question about 'what if' we didn't have formal AAPs I would answer this way. If we didn't have The Older Worker Protection Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, would people quit hiring older workers? If we didn't have the Pregnancy Discrimation Act, would employers kick out all the pregnant women? If we didn't have the Equal Pay Act, would employers pay women half what they pay men suddenly? If we didn't have ADA, would employers rip off their access walks and bars? If we didn't have Title VII, would all the minorities be dismissed? If there were no Immigration Reform & Control Act, would people flood across our Southern borders in violation of the law? People who are intent on doing wrong things will continue to do wrong things, perhaps more subversively. People who don't like a law will find a subtle way to do an end run around it. None of these laws ensures that wrong things will not be done. The laws only provide for sanctions when wrong is done. Some employers will never hire someone over 50 and others will never hire a female and will find a way to terminate her if she gets pregnant. Affirmative Action, and we're a government contractor, is a monstrous requirement that, if written and maintained properly, costs an honest employer at least .25 of one staff position. Is that a reasonable expense for an honest employer to slice off his bottom line? Is it reasonable that an honest employer divert bottom line money to the maintenance of an AAP and add that cost to the cost of the items you purchase? We just passed an AAP Formal Audit. Not counting the hours upon hours we spent writing the program, implementing, monitoring and reporting on it, the research, copying time, production time, mailing costs and related expenses really totalled up. You spoke of 'levelled playing fields'. That was once a buzz phrase but has become largely irrelevant. Nothing levels playing fields other than honest people doing right things and that equation does not require government intervention, so the playing field levels itself and needs no manipulation by smoke and mirrors and committees and congressional staffers. I'll quit now.

Lori1 · September 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-10-03 AT 11:16AM (CST)[/font][p]WOW Don D., thank you I owe you a standing ovation. That answer really got to the bottom of what I was looking for and I know this is your opinion, but you are absolutely correct when you speak of honest employers and dishonest employers and the government regulations to keep dishonest employers honest. Discrimination is still prevalent nationally and globally and being a female, I have been at the receiving end of discrimination and it does not make for a warm and fuzzy feeling. Unfortunately, we live in a world where these gov't regulated programs burden the employer with red tape and huge costs, so it is no wonder that we are always battling controversy. Thanks again

Lori1 · September 2003

Thank you for responding to my question it is greatly appreciated. I am excited that AA is a subject you love to discuss, because I am not all that familiar with it since I have not had the opportunity to work for an employer where it was required. I do have a couple of questions. Do you feel that we still need an AA action program today with the other regulations such as EEOC and ADA? If the playing field was leveled for minorities do you feel that employers would revert back to the days of discrimination? Any response would be greatly appreciated and thanks again.

Crout · September 2003

People being people there's no question in my mind that discrimination in employment would revert right back to the bad old days. My argument is that aside from all the right reasons, anti-discrimination laws are the reason most of us have HR jobs. You may not like Title VII and the EEOC, but those standards were the catalyst for the HR field. Take away all that Federal intrusion and we're all just payroll clerks again.

Don D · September 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 09-10-03 AT 01:11PM (CST)[/font][p]I had a boss at my first mfg job while in college. He once called us all to silence and gave us this earth shattering truth, "People are just like everybody else". So, I guess you're right that people will be people. But I disagree that once restrictions are eased and sanctions are lifted, people will all revert to what they were doing somewhere in history. All these laws are indeed why HR is where HR is today. It's also why there are a hundred thousand labor law attorneys and four times that many HR consultants, not to mention a sprinkling of HR Expert Testifiers, and tons of government budget busting bureaucracy. Hey, if not for AAPs, there would be no need to do research on them and no need for the question we have before us. It goes on endlessly. Now, if there have been 30 wrecks at the intersection down from my house and the city puts a traffic control device there and one day it malfunctions, am I going to do what I did twelve years ago and speed headlong through it? There are people that do good things right and there are people that do bad things wrong. Neither develops from having done either historically. It's a mindset, a never-changing behavioral pattern. If behave a certain way, the traffic signal will not make me comply with the law. It will make me more careful if I see a patrol car or suspect one is in the area.

Having said all that, and with each of you thinking wrongly that you know where old Don D. stands on this; let me also say this: Congress and Courts have determined that it is the will of the people in this country to do certain things related to the demographics and behaviors of the workplace in general. It is probably a fact that the only way for a society to ensure that those desires are achieved is through the establish of sets of rules. The only way to publish the rules, pass out the playbooks and announce the penalties is through the publishing and enactment of laws. That is where we find ourselves.

PS: I never agreed to any rules about not stepping on anyones toes. I don't have the time to try to dance around that. Nor do I find anybody worrying about my own. x:-0

Dasher · September 2003

You are welcome. The reason I discuss this subject is because people often refuse to look at all sides of these issues but tend to lump everything in the same pot. There can be valid reasons for the differing regulations, and I tend to treat them separately. In a perfect world we would certainly not need so much red tape and interference in the way things are done. However, I still recall (and still experience) lots of areas where people will not do the right thing or where only a legal requirement will alleviate gross discrimination.

You are correct, there are lots of regulations and honestly I can see why those of us who have to administer these programs get weary. That does not mean, however, that I agree that they are a waste of time, energy or resources. Being a victim of discrimination is a lot more than just a hurting thing. And yes, I feel we can be discriminating in our choices of employees and employers, without sanctioning unlawful discrimination.

I am fully aware of the affirmative action obligations if employers do business with the federal government (Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, Executive Order 11246, etc. And then there are state requirements, as well. Requirements can vary depending on whether the contract is in excess of $10,000 or $50,000, and President Bush last year amended a law increasing the threshold from $25,000 to $100,000 . . .
some contracts require a cursory EOE clause and some a formal written plan with all kinds of documentation, and on and on. I did not go into that in my first post because I thought you just wanted our personal (HR) take on these issues.

Yes, I personally feel that affirmative action plans can be useful in certain circumstances. Currently these targets groups that may be underrepresented or discriminated against (not just racial minorities, which seems to be the sticking point for lots of people). However, I am much more pro-diversity initiatives - as long as the emphasis is on education/understanding/acceptance of ALL.

While I accept the upset of those who may feel some of these programs and laws are no longer useful or needed, I do not agree. Yes they can be onerous. We all have differing experiences which make us think and act the way we do about these issues. No, the degree of discrimination will never return to the days of yesteryear because there are too many people who understand that it taints us all and keeps the country from progressing. That being said I would never agree to leave it up to the individual to "do the right thing" and if they don't so what.

I feel these things deeply and honestly. Others may feel otherwise without any criticism from me. Just don't step on my shoes, please.

scottorr · September 2003

In response to the question "would employers revert back to the days of discrimination". Yes, some would. I can give you a personal account of this. When I began my HR career, I was a recruiter and at the time I worked for a manufacturing company. I was called into the president's office one day and flat out told by the CEO "stop hiring so many blacks, they scare my wife when she visits me at the office, they are nothing but a bunch of thieves and rapists". I refused to do so and six month later my position was magically eliminated with a very healthy severance package. He is now in prison for embezzling over a million dollars from the company. The irony kills me. As Don said he was one of the dishonest ones that cause us to have these types of laws. It's unfortunate when people like him make into senior level positions and it's unfortunate that we even had to have these laws in the first place.

Sunny · September 2003

One more thought - I've written Affirmative Action Plans for years and had and passed numerous audits. None of the Companies I worked for engaged in discriminatory hiring practices - all were government contractors (and to make it sillier, all were union so the majority of personnel actions were governed by union contract which really makes the AAP moot.) Bottom line - the Plans were just so many wasted dead trees. They are time-consuming, bureaucratic exercises in futility. And if you ask me nicely, I'll tell you what I really think. 8-|

Lori1 · September 2003

So what you are telling me is that if you have a job opening and you have 3 people apply 1 is a white male, the 2nd a black male and the third is a white woman and the most qualified is the white male, but you have not met your AA quota of black males you have to hire the black male even though he is less qualified? This is beginning to seem like reverse discrimination to me. If the playing field in a perfect world was leveled than the most qualified would be hired rather than race, sex or disabilities. Please let me know if I am off base on this.

Hunter1 · September 2003

From a practical standpoint, cthr expressed the point best early on in this thread. If you are not required to have an AAP, do not do it under any circumstances! In order for a voluntary AAP to be upheld by the courts, you basically have to convict your employer of prior discrimination as the basis of the need for an AAP. Unless required under one of the circumstances outlined above, the only reason to have an AAP is to correct the results of previous discrimination. Guess what postion that puts you in for the next charge?
My thoughts are: Do what's right, monitor your workplace, keep your eyes open for trouble spots, and deal with them as necessary, and that's applicable for all employment laws.

scottorr · September 2003

I believe you are correct. Once upon a time, I applied for a state job. I was told by relative that works in a different department that I would not even be considered if I was not of a minority group. I far exceed the requirements but was never called back for a second interview.

cthr · September 2003

Affrimative Action does not mean you have to hire a minority or a women who is not qualified for the position. It merely means that you should be making a good faith effort to attract QUALIFIED minority and women candidates. If you have three candidates:one white male, one black male and one female and all are equally qualifed, and you needed more women in that job group-you would hire the women, if you need more minorities-you would hire the black male. An AAP is not a quota system.

Lori1 · September 2003

I wanted to send a thank you to all of you who responded to my affirmative action research assigment which was due today. I will let you know how I do. I thought all of your responses were terrific and I appreciate all of you taking time out of your busy schedules to help me.

Lori

Affirmative Action

Comments