Pape
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2012
- Messages
- 10,565
- Reaction score
- 15,930
SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
"We are making money hand over fist, until that stops, it's all aboard the Roger Goodell train. Wait.... that's not... ahhh screw it. Choo Choo!"
I remember seeing Rice say that her dream job is commissioner of the NFL.
Quite right. The Rooney Rule was a joke from its very conception and remains so. I believe it was devised in a room full of weeping men with tom-toms clasped between their knees in a teepee near Berkeley.
What a time to be alive … I’m more confused now then when I first started out … no lie.
The solution would be to hire (and admit and elect and appoint) on merit exclusively, as the individual or entity hiring or buying or electing or admitting would define it (certainly not as some bubble-brained young ideologically-paralyzed government hack with a degree in mendacious propagandistic horseshit and an affliction with rabid emotional lability would do). The solution, that is, is - as always - freedom of the individual. Freedom in this instance would, I suppose, theoretically disadvantage such an old shoe as I in the job market, but I am unafraid. I'd like my chances against the present cohort of simpering ninnies. Bring it, boys and girls.
The basis behind age discrimination issues is that older workers have more experience and therefore higher pay, and are forced out in cost cutting moves. That is how they become a protected class, and then brig a member of that class makes that demographic illegal to use as a factor. I.e. you can’t hold his close to retirement against an elderly person any more than you can hold potential to go in maternity leave against a young woman.
Good cause nobody's hiring your old ass. Lol
I AM a boomer. I support the freedom of employers to hire and fire anyone they like, for whatever reason. If in some unusually perverse circumstance a firing (hiring?) is in furtherance of some other, actual crime, that is a different matter; but if you wanna hire somebody because he reminds you of your beloved uncle Bobby, or he has red hair, who am I to judge? It's none of my business. If by some chance you hired me and you turned out to be an *******, I'd quit. All this freedom turns today's mollycoddled primadonnas into squishy, handwringing wrecks, or course. Couldn't care less. Might be good for them.
It is an actual crime to not hire someone based on race, religion, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, national origin and disability or age(so long as it doesn't prevent someone from completing the tasks). Otherwise yeah, reminding you of Uncle Bobby or not liking red hair etc. is up to the employer
Then abolish the laws which make such hires a crime. It's none of the government's business whom I hire and for what reason. Want an equal shot at a job? Make yourself equally worth hiring. There is no other honorable and sustainable approach. If the resultant whining bothers you, get ear plugs.
I haven't done any research but 3 black HCs out of 32 is very poor and could be lower than when the rule began.
When I first retired I looked into a part time job at a pro course where I volunteered to work during tournaments. A short time after my interview I started working the tournament and I found out that there was a class-action lawsuit against the course for age discrimination. They had fired all but a couple of their older employees and replaced them with youngsters. I figured that job was gone.
I have argued extensively in other venues re affirmative action, and I could rattle on for an hour about the damage it does - most cruelly to the groups it is intended to benefit, as well as to the body politic generally. I suspect, though, that this is not the venue to extend this discussion, but I suspect you and are of a mind. I am trying to respect Ian's sundry edicts here.
