rehmwa 2 #26 March 24, 2015 DanGI think preferential hiring of vets for government jobs makes some sense. They already have a known track record of Federal employment. The private sector can hire vets on a preferential basis if they want, and frankly it makes sense for them for the exact same reason. You are talking about any applicable experience being a good reason to consider a candidate - ABSOLUTELY. that's not what I'm talking about - if it enters into selecting less qualified candidates, or quotas, or excluding others from consideration for no other reason, or giving a tax break to employers to preference one group over another, then it's just wrong in short: "makes sense" to hire is fine - enacting policies to 'encourage' a biased decision is not ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #28 March 24, 2015 Quotein short: "makes sense" to hire is fine - enacting policies to 'encourage' a biased decision is not Disagree, I see nothing wrong with policies encouraging companies to hire those with a physical or mental handicap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #29 March 24, 2015 SkyDekkerQuotein short: "makes sense" to hire is fine - enacting policies to 'encourage' a biased decision is not Disagree, I see nothing wrong with policies encouraging companies to hire those with a physical or mental handicap. I think TSA's experience would recommend against hiring the mentally handicapped for some positions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grue 1 #30 March 24, 2015 DanGI think preferential hiring of vets for government jobs makes some sense. They already have a known track record of Federal employment. The private sector can hire vets on a preferential basis if they want, and frankly it makes sense for them for the exact same reason. I really, really realllllllllllllllllly hate the practice of preferential hiring of combat vets as police officers, though.cavete terrae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 March 24, 2015 SkyDekkerQuotein short: "makes sense" to hire is fine - enacting policies to 'encourage' a biased decision is not Disagree, I see nothing wrong with policies encouraging companies to hire those with a physical or mental handicap. that's laudable on the surface - worth thinking about But I have to start from equal treatment of all... I think policy that eliminates negative discrimination is our requirement Policies that encourage positive discrimination for specific focus groups just seems like it's a bad path to start down. But if any company chooses to do it voluntarily can still net a benefit in terms of the good will of their customers and communities. I worry about well meaning -legislative- (not private) policies that aren't focused on equality. They eventually end up being discriminatory in other ways, or even retributive or wildly inefficient. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #32 March 24, 2015 QuoteBut I have to start from equal treatment of all... Which is a laudable utopia. We all know there never wil be equal treatment of all. So, once we know that will never happen, we have a choice to do nothing or we can try and help those who are mostly discriminated against or impacted the most. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #33 March 24, 2015 rehmwa***I think preferential hiring of vets for government jobs makes some sense. They already have a known track record of Federal employment. The private sector can hire vets on a preferential basis if they want, and frankly it makes sense for them for the exact same reason. You are talking about any applicable experience being a good reason to consider a candidate - ABSOLUTELY. that's not what I'm talking about - if it enters into selecting less qualified candidates, or quotas, or excluding others from consideration for no other reason, or giving a tax break to employers to preference one group over another, then it's just wrong in short: "makes sense" to hire is fine - enacting policies to 'encourage' a biased decision is not Tangent: on an ethical/principle level, what do you think of private businesses that give discounts to vets? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #34 March 24, 2015 SkyDekkerwe have a choice to do nothing or we can try and help those who are mostly discriminated against or impacted the most. "doing nothing" strawman - So a focus on eliminating discrimination is nothing With that logic I agree, we should just jump straight to preferential treatment based legislation, of course. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #35 March 24, 2015 Andy9o8Tangent: on an ethical/principle level, what do you think of private businesses that give discounts to vets? Private businesses can do as they like, another category is senior discounts. But in reality, a discount for them is still a net increase for everyone else. So that's the tradeoff. I don't mind that tradeoff mostly. the intention is positive. But it's still a tradeoff. Is it fair to charge one person a different fee for the exact same service or product? However, it's not about fair, it's about business, isn't it? Phrase it a different way - We'll charge and extra 5% to non-vets... We'll charge an extra 10% to non-whites/30 somethings/ etc etc etc Different tangent: What do you think of volume discounts? same discussion? or different? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #36 March 24, 2015 Quote"doing nothing" strawman - So a focus on eliminating discrimination is nothing No, it will just never happen. Like the war on drugs will never get rid of drugs, focussing on eliminating discrimination will never eliminate discrimination. I don't see that as a strawman. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #37 March 24, 2015 QuoteDifferent tangent: What do you think of volume discounts? same discussion? or different? Probably different, since arguably it's not targeted at a "category" of people. The rebuttal to that, though, might be that it caters to those that have enough cash on hand to buy in bulk, something that people who just barely get by from one paycheck to the next might not be able to do. The adjunct to the adage of "it takes money to make money" is that it also takes money to save money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #38 March 24, 2015 SkyDekkerLike the war on drugs will never get rid of drugs, focussing on eliminating discrimination will never eliminate discrimination. but if the alternative action is then just more and more preferential treatment, then what are you fixing? (I'm driving at a concrete wall - ......crap........maybe if I drive faster......) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #39 March 24, 2015 I think you are now proposing a strawman. I am not saying that more and more preferential treatment is the answer. I don't think that is the answer as much as absolutely no preferential treatment is the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #40 March 24, 2015 SkyDekkerQuotein short: "makes sense" to hire is fine - enacting policies to 'encourage' a biased decision is not Disagree, I see nothing wrong with policies encouraging companies to hire those with a physical or mental handicap. It hasn't worked out for the Maple Leafs... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #41 March 24, 2015 SkyDekkerI think you are now proposing a strawman. I am not saying that more and more preferential treatment is the answer. I don't think that is the answer as much as absolutely no preferential treatment is the answer. I did, on purpose. But which strawman looks worse? That's the important part, not how the world really works, but which cliche takes root in the minds of those wanting to get one over on the others. 1 - Biased preferencing helps alleviate the worry about biased preferencing. 2 - Not being biased helps alleviate the worry about biased preferencing. The defense rests. Perhaps a offensively, but resting. Edit: the goldilocks gambit is usually the safe bet with consensus builders.......too much biased preferencing makes it worse, too little biased preferencing doesn't help it any, but JUST RIGHT biased preferencing just pisses off the uncaring puppy kickers ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #42 March 24, 2015 lawrocket***Quotein short: "makes sense" to hire is fine - enacting policies to 'encourage' a biased decision is not Disagree, I see nothing wrong with policies encouraging companies to hire those with a physical or mental handicap. It hasn't worked out for the Maple Leafs... Agreed....they just plainly suck.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #43 March 24, 2015 QuoteI did, on purpose. But which strawman looks worse? I didn't propose a strawman, so this is another strawman. You are on a roll. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #44 March 24, 2015 SkyDekkerQuoteI did, on purpose. But which strawman looks worse? I didn't propose a strawman, so this is another strawman. You are on a roll. yes you did - now you're just being contradictory ... later gotta take a call.... then off to a wind tunnel for a few days..... it's a happy place ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 219 #45 March 25, 2015 rehmwa***I think preferential hiring of vets for government jobs makes some sense. They already have a known track record of Federal employment. The private sector can hire vets on a preferential basis if they want, and frankly it makes sense for them for the exact same reason. You are talking about any applicable experience being a good reason to consider a candidate - ABSOLUTELY. that's not what I'm talking about - if it enters into selecting less qualified candidates, or quotas, or excluding others from consideration for no other reason, or giving a tax break to employers to preference one group over another, then it's just wrong in short: "makes sense" to hire is fine - enacting policies to 'encourage' a biased decision is not There is a thought. Affirmative action for the presidency and congress.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
