Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Politically correctness is just about avoiding gratuitous insult to the people around us. Affirmative action is not the same thing.I agree with everything, except...
"Anger over pressure to be politically correct on the job" - Being a jerk is one thing, nobody should be a jerk at work, but being PC has gone a little far lately.
For example, I'm not completely on the side of affirmative action in the workplace if it is forced. Intel is going through some serious restructuring issues because of the tremendous pressure the government is putting on them to be "more diversified". To the point that Intel has sent out a corporate memo to HR stating quite succinctly they need to hire minorities over everyone else first.
Jobs should be given to the most qualified individual. And compensation should be commensurate experience, not race or gender. The oversight should not be in form of forcing companies to diversify but rather penalize when they are way under diversified, or offer assistance in new hiring processes.
But that brings us back to this indignation the Republican party has with educating "the poor". They simply don't want to do it. The upper class Republicans like keeping the poor people, poor. And the poor Republicans are too stupid to realize who they are supporting. They coexist in a tumultuous symbiotic relationship extenuated through cognitive dissonance.
If you've done any hiring, you know that "the best person for the job" is really hard to identify. I've been involved with searches for candidates where we took our time and hired somebody that we thought was great but he turned out to be a chump. In the kind of jobs that I helped fill, we looked at affirmative action as making an effort to find qualified candidates and there were fewer women and minorities that had those qualifications. So we had to put more effort into finding them. But we'd never put an unqualified person into those roles. If Intel is doing this then I'd say there is a different problem in play.