New Era in Race Relations

Our new era in race relations begins this week with the Federal government sending me a nasty-gram that I have not yet proven to the government that I know the race of every one of my employees.  The EEO-1, a quite distasteful annual requirement from the feds, is a report we must file showing the number of people we have employed of various races and ethnicities.  Rest assured, readers, I have, after naively believing that race was irrelevant in evaluating my employees, now educated myself as to the race and gender of all my employees and reported this understanding to the government.

  • GU

    The government will read your report and tell you whether race is relevant or not.

  • Miklos Hollender

    There is some sort of an evil irony in it. I mean, two or three generations ago, if you said that you don't give a damn about the race of your employees, that was considered a bold, liberal, radical statement. And the whole idea of the Civil Rights movement and all was to try to make everybody think this way.

    And now you are plain simply not allowed to not give a damn about the race of your employees. Quite shocking.

    Couldn't either you or someone who for some reason doesn't have much to lose, make some sort of a publicity stunt out of it - refuse the answer openly, tell the media something along the lines of that it is against your freedom of conscience because your conscience forbids you from noticing the race of your employees and see how the lib-media pundits manage to bend over backwards attempting to prove that it's somehow wrong?

  • Tom Kelly

    Years ago a white employee of mine filed a reverse discrimination EEOC complaint against me alleging he had been mistreated by the black manager because of his race. I got a lengthy questionnaire from the EEOC asking about the race of all the 50 or so employees.

    That restaurant location was 600 miles from my office, and I rarely visited it. I sent a letter explaining that I had no idea what the race was of any but the top few managers.

    Of course the EEOC hunted me down on the phone and insisted that we take whatever steps necessary to ascertain the race and sex of each and every employee.

    Fortunately, the complaint was not escalated by the EEOC.

  • Skipping my real name today

    Unless things have changed a lot lately, all EEOC reporting is pure bullshit. Employees are requested to describe their own race. If an obviously white person claims they are black, they are black - no ifs ands or buts!

    I used to have a "native American" who was very handy for filling quotas. Don't think he had a relative within 6 generations of an actual "Native American"

    And it was always nice to be able to fill EEOC quotas with "materials purchased from businesses owned by minorities, females or disadvantaged groups" That means you buy materials from the company owned by the salesman's wife - and she only takes about a half percent in handling fees.

  • Skipping my real name today

    Unless things have changed a lot lately, all EEOC reporting is pure bullshit. Employees are requested to describe their own race. If an obviously white person claims they are black, they are black - no ifs ands or buts!

    I used to have a "native American" who was very handy for filling quotas. Don't think he had a relative within 6 generations of an actual "Native American"

    And it was always nice to be able to fill EEOC quotas with "materials purchased from businesses owned by minorities, females or disadvantaged groups" That means you buy materials from the company owned by the salesman's wife - and she only takes about a half percent in handling fees.

  • GU,

    "The government will read your report and tell you whether race is relevant or not."

    You give them too much credit. The government will take their little checkoff sheet, check down that Warren has answered the report, never read it, and push it off into a little filing cabinet in a warehouse reminiscent of the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

    They really don't care what it says any more. It's a rule, though, that he has to fill it out. And by God, the rules will be followed!

  • MIkeL

    I think you should send them a group picture of all of your employees and explain that you, as someone who by law can not hire (or fire) someone based on race have no flippin idea what race your employees are and that you need the EEOC's to determine this for you so you can complete the EEOC's idiotic paperwork. Besides I think this is a trick question, if you know the race of your employees then you can be accused of race based hiring. Or you could just tell them that all of your employees are native Americans, as this would pretty much cover everyone born in Canada, the USA, Mexico and South America.

  • rxc

    I think this is just a good example of how government has taken "business practices" and twisted them to serve political/governmental ends. Businesses trumpet the importance of "metrics" - measuring performance in order to objectively establish how well/badly somthing is going. The government likes metrics, as well, because numbers, any numbers, can be put to political use.

    In this case, the numbers can be used to measure how well affirmative action programs are doing. They starting with the two premises: (1)that every business or organization "should look like America", especially if it takes money from the government; and (2) if they don't, that is prima facie evidence of race-based hiring. The government also belives that it should be able to measure how well its affirmative action programs are doing, so it requires this survey to be done. The results are then used to beat the offending business/organization over the head because they did not meet their affirmative action "goals". Or worse, they are used to sue because the numbers show some sort of "disparate impact" on minotiries.

    No one, of course, expects that the NBA or the NFL will be "diverse", except in as much as they should have minority coaches and managers. And no one expects the entertainment industry to "look like America". I wonder if I could declare my lack of physical stature a disability, and sue the NBA to hire me as a center, with appropriate accomodation for my height?

  • David Johnson

    It's a stupid little rule, but how many stupid little rules like this are there? How can a business owner possibly know all of the stupid little rules to comply with, and where to get all the stupid little compliance forms? It's why even the smallest of businesses now have to hire controllers and accountants just to open the front doors in the morning.

  • Mike

    I refused to fill out the paperwork (as an employee) a few months ago. I was sent to HR to explain why I refused. I told them that I had never heard that it was mandatory. They assured me that it was, and I gave them a rant about the color of one's skin shouldn't matter, and that I thought their quota system was bull shit.

    I was told they didn't have a quota system, and that they must do this to comply with affirmative action requirements. They eventually admitted that AA allows them to "guess" people's ethnicity which is why I never got in trouble for not filling it out in the past.

    They also eventually explained that they do "adjust" their hiring to comply with the law. (Essentially quotas). The problem is I need this job, so I didn't push the issue any further, and I filled out the paperwork with two HR reps present. I also told them that they had better make sure that they have all their paperwork properly filed, because it would be a shame if they were to be audited.

    I went home and looked up AA. Wow, it's bad. They do have quotas, and if they don't meet them, they have to write up an "action plan" that will explain how they will bring their employees into compliance. I know my employer plays the race/gender quota game, I and another white male have been victims. The problem is we don't have proof.

    An interesting thing about the government's site on AA is that they openly admit that the burden of proof is more difficult for white males. For example, a minority only has to suspect discrimination based on the number of employees in each job group and it will likely be determined by a judge that there IS discrimination.

    However, a white male would have to prove that he was not hired for a position because he has proof of this. Which means they only real way he can prove discrimination is if someone in HR slipped up and allowed the secret to get out. This is what me and this other guy lack, is evidence.

    Heck, this other guy has a degree in Business Management, but he didn't get a management position in the company he applied for, but a minority without the degree got the job. (The minority never worked on the production floor before either, while the white guy had for several years!)

  • Mike

    41 CFR 60-2.14 - Determining availability.

    (c) In determining availability, the contractor must consider at
    least the following factors:
    (1) The percentage of minorities or women with requisite skills in
    the reasonable recruitment area. The reasonable recruitment area is
    defined as the geographical area from which the contractor usually
    seeks or reasonably could seek workers to fill the positions in
    question.
    (2) The percentage of minorities or women among those promotable,
    transferable, and trainable within the contractor's organization.
    Trainable refers to those employees within the contractor's
    organization who could, with appropriate training which the contractor
    is reasonably able to provide, become promotable or transferable during
    the AAP year.

    41 CFR 60-2.15 - Comparing incumbency to availability.

    (a) The contractor must compare the percentage of minorities and
    women in each job group determined pursuant to Sec. 60-2.13 with the
    availability for those job groups determined pursuant to Sec. 60-2.14.
    (b) When the percentage of minorities or women employed in a
    particular job group is less than would reasonably be expected given
    their availability percentage in that particular job group, the
    contractor must establish a placement goal in accordance with Sec. 60-
    2.16.

    41 CFR 60-2.17 - Additional required elements of affirmative action programs.

    (c) Action-oriented programs. The contractor must develop and
    execute action-oriented programs designed to correct any problem areas
    identified pursuant to Sec. 60-2.17(b) and to attain established goals
    and objectives. In order for these action-oriented programs to be
    effective, the contractor must ensure that they consist of more than
    following the same procedures which have previously produced inadequate
    results. Furthermore, a contractor must demonstrate that it has made
    good faith efforts to remove identified barriers, expand employment
    opportunities, and produce measurable results.
    (d) Internal audit and reporting system. The contractor must
    develop and implement an auditing system that periodically measures the
    effectiveness of its total affirmative action program. The actions
    listed below are key to a successful affirmative action program:
    (1) Monitor records of all personnel activity, including referrals,
    placements, transfers, promotions, terminations, and compensation, at
    all levels to ensure the nondiscriminatory policy is carried out;
    (2) Require internal reporting on a scheduled basis as to the
    degree to which equal employment opportunity and organizational
    objectives are attained;
    (3) Review report results with all levels of management; and
    (4) Advise top management of program effectiveness and submit
    recommendations to improve unsatisfactory performance.