[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 20:54, said:

Did I not say that if it weren't for litigation fears I would have no problem hiring a black person? It's the legal system that is reflecting that skin color means something other than variation in the species; indeed, the legal system will make you pay more to defend yourself against a black's anti-discrimination suit than a white's. I can't control that.

You bid a heart game more often than a club game because the bridge laws say that hearts are worth more.

In an unwarranted discrimination case, (unwarranted because you are fair), you pay out more when sued by a black than by a white.

Just like the bridge laws make hearts and clubs different, the courts make blacks and whites different. I can't control the courts. If I could sign a contract saying that I will try to be fair and that they aren't allowed to sue for discrimination, and could make it binding, I'd hire the qualified black person in a heartbeat. But I think such a contract would be laughed out of court, so the courts are telling me that the black is like a club and the white is like a heart because my expectation is less with a black employee when possible court costs are factored in.

I think it's simple expectations, not racism that is causing this. As soon as the courts treat blacks and whites equally, the difference in expectation goes away and blacks get hired again.

Kaitlyn, what you have to determine is whether or not your supposition is accurate. Is there really a higher risk of litigation from Afro-American hires or are you simply expressing a fictionalized account based on yours or someone else's (whom you believe) personal bias?

Donald Trump's father was sued for not renting to African Americans. Isn't it more likely that refusing to hire Afro-Americans and trying to hide it with silence will lead to discrimination lawsuits rather than not?

[PassedOut]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 20:54, said:

Did I not say that if it weren't for litigation fears I would have no problem hiring a black person? It's the legal system that is reflecting that skin color means something other than variation in the species; indeed, the legal system will make you pay more to defend yourself against a black's anti-discrimination suit than a white's. I can't control that.

You bid a heart game more often than a club game because the bridge laws say that hearts are worth more.

In an unwarranted discrimination case, (unwarranted because you are fair), you pay out more when sued by a black than by a white.

Just like the bridge laws make hearts and clubs different, the courts make blacks and whites different. I can't control the courts. If I could sign a contract saying that I will try to be fair and that they aren't allowed to sue for discrimination, and could make it binding, I'd hire the qualified black person in a heartbeat. But I think such a contract would be laughed out of court, so the courts are telling me that the black is like a club and the white is like a heart because my expectation is less with a black employee when possible court costs are factored in.

I think it's simple expectations, not racism that is causing this. As soon as the courts treat blacks and whites equally, the difference in expectation goes away and blacks get hired again.

All right. I have no information about the courts treating blacks better than whites (and from what I read about the criminal justice system, I'm sure that's not true in that arena). But could you provide any specific links to real cases where the courts have treated blacks better than whites in civil suits against small businesses?

And, by the way, the NAACP (and Holder, too, I'm sure) won't go after a business unless there is very substantial evidence of unfairness. Those people aren't idiots and they aren't monsters. They are professional people interested in rooting out actual unfairness, not on destroying businesses that treat people fairly.

[Kaitlyn S]

By the way, I appreciate that so far this particular discussion has remained somewhat civil. Both of you seem like smart and informed guys and I'm willing to consider your viewpoint when it makes sense. I just haven't seen a convincing argument why I'm wrong yet, but if I am wrong (and my argument still seems pretty strong to me right now but that can change) I may realize it if the right thing is said. At this point it sounds like your point is that an employer should ignore the difference in expectation imposed by the courts based on hiring a black as opposed to a white, and I am saying that while that might be noble, it's a stupid economic decision. If you can show me that it's not a stupid economic decision, then I will see that I have no case here.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 21:18, said:

By the way, I appreciate that so far this particular discussion has remained somewhat civil. Both of you seem like smart and informed guys and I'm willing to consider your viewpoint when it makes sense. I just haven't seen a convincing argument why I'm wrong yet, but if I am wrong (and my argument still seems pretty strong to me right now but that can change) I may realize it if the right thing is said. At this point it sounds like your point is that an employer should ignore the difference in expectation imposed by the courts based on hiring a black as opposed to a white, and I am saying that while that might be noble, it's a stupid economic decision. If you can show me that it's not a stupid economic decision, then I will see that I have no case here.

Your argument seems confused to me. You are saying the fear is of the courts - yet a case must be brought by a litigant before the courts get involved. This means that the individual employee must bring suit. That means a fear that Afro-Americans are by the color of their skin more litigious than other people. And that is something that could be researched and determined.

My question is if it turns out that white women bring the most lawsuits would that change your position about Afro-American hires?

[PassedOut]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 21:18, said:

At this point it sounds like your point is that an employer should ignore the difference in expectation imposed by the courts based on hiring a black as opposed to a white, and I am saying that while that might be noble, it's a stupid economic decision. If you can show me that it's not a stupid economic decision, then I will see that I have no case here.

I'm saying that I've seen no information that supports your contention that there is a difference in expectation imposed by the courts based on hiring a black as opposed to a white. I've been in business many years and have never seen it. And you haven't pointed me to any court cases that support your contention.

This discussion has reminded me, though, of the potential dangers of hiring white women. (Just kidding!)

[Kaitlyn S]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-15, 21:13, said:

Kaitlyn, what you have to determine is whether or not your supposition is accurate. Is there really a higher risk of litigation from Afro-American hires or are you simply expressing a fictionalized account based on yours or someone else's (whom you believe) personal bias?

Donald Trump's father was sued for not renting to African Americans. Isn't it more likely that refusing to hire Afro-Americans and trying to hide it with silence will lead to discrimination lawsuits rather than not?

Clearly I need to do some research to answer your first question.

i think it is very unlikely that whites win as often or as much money or are as costly to litigate against in discrimination cases than blacks.

However, I do not know in how many of the cases the lawsuit had merit.

Probably in some cases, the lawsuit had no merit but the suing black had reason to think he was being discriminated against. It could be as simple as the boss drawing straws and a couple of whites getting promoted ahead of the black. The black wasn't discriminated against but he thought he was. So he sues and it costs the employer money. If it was a white employee, the suit never would have happened.

I don't think it's my own bias but I know that I would have that fear and would be surprised if others who actually were in a position to hire people didn't have the same fear whether it was justified or not. And I'm not even saying that it's justified, as long as the fear is there, blacks are getting hired less. I really don't see how you can argue with that. And I'm all for changing the situation so that the fear isn't there and blacks do not get hired less. Because I don't think that people that run businesses really have it in for blacks. They are simply looking out for the bottom line.

Your question about hiding not hiring blacks: If you have to hire 100 people, and none of them are black, you are going to get caught, so you have to suck up the fear of being sued because you're getting sued anyway. And isn't this just a great position for an employer to be in - they have to risk being sued in order to avoid being sued - all because the courts may award a black person who says he was discriminated against a payment or make it expensive for that not to happen.

If you are a small business owner and hire six people, you're probably not going to get caught. You could simply give a test to your applicants and say you took the highest grades. I would hope that would stand up in court.

Donald Trump's father lived in a different era. If the lawsuit issue was gone, I think very few people today would have a blanket policy to not hire blacks.

But your post and PassedOut's last post are telling me that I need to look deeper into the situation before continuing, because I am coming to a point where I need to gather some facts to back me up. While it is not possible to find out how many people refused to hire a black because of fear of a lawsuit, it is possible to find out how successful these lawsuits are, and it might even be possible to find out how costly they are when they aren't successful. Whether the suits had merit or not is going to be a lot harder to find out, for whether the suit was won is probably more correlated with the relative skills of the lawyers than the merits of the case.

[Kaitlyn S]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-15, 21:26, said:

My question is if it turns out that white women bring the most lawsuits would that change your position about Afro-American hires?

Of course. Hiring should be a purely economic decision. Don't you agree?

[PassedOut]

I googled "unfair discrimination suits" and didn't see any specific cases to look at. I did see a couple of links, but the contents didn't worry me:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

THE TOP TEN MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT SUING YOUR EMPLOYER FOR DISCRIMINATION

[Kaitlyn S]

I tried using many different sets of search terms and could not find out the percentage of racial discrimination cases filed by blacks (or minorities) or the amounts won. Most search terms sent me to EEOC articles. One said that there were over thirty thousand racial discrimination cases filed in 2012. I have to think most of them were minorities.

However, many of the articles pointed out actual discrimination. This is wrong also. But I have to wonder how many of the non hires were not because the minority was considered bad, but instead for the reasons I am stating - that they are afraid that if they don't promote the minority worker later or have to let him go, they face legal challenges. Because TBH I don't see any other economic reason not to hire the qualified minority person, and for these companies, it's the bottom line, baby.

Maybe I have to dig harder to find the statistics I'm looking for - it may not be Googleable but it may be there if I happen to hit upon the right government website and follow the links down. In any event, something that I thought would take 20 minutes now seems like it will take hours and might bear no fruit.

[PassedOut]

Well let me know if you find something real.

I've been alternating working on my computer and (less productively) making these posts. Going to sign off now and get some sleep!

Anyway, I think I'd have heard of it if this were a real problem, and I'm too old to start worrying about unlikely scenarios now. If actually being fair doesn't protect me, I guess that will be tough. (I'll end up okay in any event.)

[Winstonm]

Enough for now. I appreciate your honesty in describing your thinking on this matter.

[Kaitlyn S]

PassedOut, on 2016-November-15, 22:18, said:

Well let me know if you find something real.

I've been alternating working on my computer and (less productively) making these posts. Going to sign off now and get some sleep!

Anyway, I think I'd have heard of it if this were a real problem, and I'm too old to start worrying about unlikely scenarios now. If actually being fair doesn't protect me, I guess that will be tough. (I'll end up okay in any event.)

I appreciate the time you spent on this (especially as you could have used it more fruitfully on BBO ) I applaud small business owners and hope that being fair does protect you, for I think it's very unfair when somebody takes it on the chin through no fault of his own.

[helene_t]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 21:06, said:

Look - I am not trying to screw blacks when I want anti-discrimination lawsuits curbed. I am trying to help them.

I think this is an interesting discussion.

A somewhat related problem with which I do have experience with from the Netherlands is discrimination against people of (perceived) risk of sick leave, disability or pregnancy. I think it is generally accepted that the Dutch labour market is not very inclusive because of the difficulty of firering people for health related reasons. If a British worker gets ill you just fire him. If a Danish worker gets ill you ask the municipality or his unemployment insurance to pay him. If a Dutch worker gets ill you have to continue to pay him so that means that you'd better not have hired him in the first place. OK I am oversimplifying a bit but you get the picture.

Of course it is a somewhat limited analogy since unlike sick leave (which is a real cost which someone has to pay for) skin colour ought to be a non-issue. Therefore, my thought is that while the problem you mention no doubt exists, I would think that it is more important to protect minorities who actually get discriminated against, if only in order to educate the public that discrimination is no-no.

Courts are not exactly known for a bias in favour of minorities so I wouldn't think that many employers would be afraid of such lawsuits. But I might be wrong. It is a bit similar to the discussion about affirmative action. Once, after I got a job in the Netherlands, one of my new colleagues joked that "we have a quota for ethnic minorities, one for women and one for disabled people so by hireing Helene we could afford to hire two normal engineers at the same time". I could laugh at that but I can imagine that not everyone would find it funny. I tend to think that the pros are bigger than the cons when it comes to affirmative action but I am a bit ambivalent.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn, I do hope that you understand that these lawsuits that you so fear apply not only when you fire people but also when you make a hiring decision...
The opinions that you are expressing here would most definitely be legally actionable during a hiring discrimination lawsuit and rightfully so.

With this said and done, I think that you are an outright bigot who has (partially) learned to control her language. As Lee Atwater famously said:

Quote

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-15, 22:03, said:

I tried using many different sets of search terms and could not find out the percentage of racial discrimination cases filed by blacks (or minorities) or the amounts won. Most search terms sent me to EEOC articles. One said that there were over thirty thousand racial discrimination cases filed in 2012. I have to think most of them were minorities.

You do understand that your basic methodology is inherently flawed, right?

You really aren't going to find many cases in which a non protected class is filing a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination

[StevenG]

hrothgar, on 2016-November-15, 17:33, said:

Here's what I don't understand: Why do folks think that I should identify more with rural working class whites than with Mexican immigrants?

Because the consequences of not doing so mean you get a president like Donald Trump.

[rmnka447]

Winstonm, on 2016-November-15, 12:48, said:

Religious non-issue like radical Islamic terrorists?

So what's wrong with using "radical Islamic terrorists" to precisely define the people who perpetrated 9/11, the San Bernadino shootings, the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, the Paris attacks, the Orlando night club massacre, the Brussels airport attack, and countless other terrorist acts? If you simply said terrorist attacks, it would be some inscrutable reference to those who committed those acts. If you said Islamic terrorists, it would be improper because it would impugn millions of people following Islam. "Radical Islamic terrorists" precisely identifies a very specific ideology that is common to the perpetrators of all those heinous acts.

Quote

What does "closet conservative" have to do with political correctness? For that matter, what would any attempt to de-legitimize anyone have to do with politically correct words?

If political correctness were limited to polite references to people, it probably would not be a problem. But political correctness has been usurped and gratuitously expanded to try to stifle free speech, debate, or dissent.

To quote Kirsten - "Most people who reside on the left side of the political spectrum can tolerate difference of opinion without turning into authoritarian speech police. They can engage or ignore those with whom they disagree. ..... The illiberal left, on the other hand, believes that people who express ideological, philosophical, or political views that don't line up with their preferences should be completely silenced. Instead of using persuasion and rhetoric to make a positive case for their causes and views, they work to delegitimize the person through character assassination, demonization, and dehumanizing tactics."

"Closet conservative" is a pejorative in reference to a liberal by illiberals in order to delegitimize them and, thereby, render their opinions as something to be utterly ignored.

Quote

Are you sure you're not confusing political correctness with your personal animus?

No, I bear no personal animus towards liberals. But attacks on the constitutional right of free speech do worry me. Ugly as it can be sometimes, free speech is essential to the ongoing well being of our country. When you limit speech so that there is only one acceptable way of speaking or expressing yourself, you start limiting the discourse that is necessary for ensuring the country doesn't go off in the wrong direction to its ultimate demise.

[cherdano]

helene_t, on 2016-November-16, 03:47, said:

I think this is an interesting discussion.

You have an curious taste for what constitutes "interesting" discussion.
Of course, there is an interesting discussion to be had whether anti-discrimination laws have unintended consequences (aside from the bureaucratic hurdles they create in practice). But I'd rather not have that discussion with someone who is quite likely just shielding her own racial biases by pretending that racial discrimination is a necessity in order to avoid legal problems.

[PassedOut]

helene_t, on 2016-November-16, 03:47, said:

I think this is an interesting discussion.

A somewhat related problem with which I do have experience with from the Netherlands is discrimination against people of (perceived) risk of sick leave, disability or pregnancy. I think it is generally accepted that the Dutch labour market is not very inclusive because of the difficulty of firering people for health related reasons. If a British worker gets ill you just fire him. If a Danish worker gets ill you ask the municipality or his unemployment insurance to pay him. If a Dutch worker gets ill you have to continue to pay him so that means that you'd better not have hired him in the first place. OK I am oversimplifying a bit but you get the picture.

Of course it is a somewhat limited analogy since unlikely sick leave (which is a real cost which someone has to pay for) skin colour ought to be a non-issue. Therefore, my thought is that while the problem you mention no doubt exists, I would think that it is more important to protect minorities who actually get discriminated against, if only in order to educate the public that discrimination is no-no.

Courts are not exactly known for a bias in favour of minorities so I wouldn't think that many employers would be afraid of such lawsuits. But I might be wrong. It is a bit similar to the discussion about affirmative action. Once, after I got a job in the Netherlands, one of my new colleagues joked that "we have a quota for ethnic minorities, one for women and one for disabled people so by hireing Helene we could afford to hire two normal engineers at the same time". I could laugh at that but I can imagine that not everyone would find it funny. I tend to think that the pros are bigger than the cons when it comes to affirmative action but I am a bit ambivalent.

My view is that it would be much better for businesses in the US (except for those profiting from the status quo) if congress would simply remove the age barrier from Medicare. Continue to let the insurance companies provide supplemental policies to those who want extra coverage. That would eliminate a lot of unnecessary complication right off the bat.

Businesses would still have to deal with the times that a key employee might not be able to work for awhile, but businesses have to be ready to deal with that situation anyway for all kinds of reasons.

[billw55]

A couple years ago my company terminated an employee. That employee subsequently sued us. He was white. The suit did allege discrimination - just not racial.

I have now produced more facts than Kaitlyn on this subject.