• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Missouri sues Starbucks over its diversity programs

Allan

Allan

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
50,589
Reaction score
74,477
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
So let's see if I understand this correctly. The Attorney General's position is that women can't serve coffee as fast as men?

New YorkCNN —
Missouri sued Starbucks this week, alleging the chain’s push to hire and promote more people of color and women violated anti-discrimination laws and slowed down coffee orders.

The lawsuit, filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, opens up a new legal front in the war on diversity in corporate America. It aims to strike down the most common diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs that Starbucks and other businesses use to expand opportunities for minorities, women and historically underrepresented groups.
Click to expand...

 
If you don't hate black people you will join then in prison.
 
Nickyjo said:
Minorities are even slower than women.
Click to expand...
What about minority women? And who's got the stopwatch out to measure all this inefficiency?
 
Sounds like a threat, in hopes Starbucks caves to the Christian Taliban Republicans running Missouri, before this ever sees the inside of a courtroom.
 
NatMorton said:
One gets the sense you don't understand what racial discrimination means.
Click to expand...
SO, a white woman can not serve a drink as fast as a white man?
Furthermore: Wasn't it Righties that have FOREVER been bleating about no government interference in the affairs of a private business? Like a store refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple? Government had no right to interfere.

BUT NOW.............. OMG!............ Suddenly Righties WANT government interference it how a private business runs their operations.

Whitey tighties uptight about getting their coffee served by black, brown, pink and lesbians.
 
Nickyjo said:
Racial discrimination should not be confused with affirmative action.
Click to expand...

Here's how it works in the real world...

A company notices that:
1. In an area with a high indigenous population only 10% of applicants are from that group.

2. In an area where half the population is women only 15% of applicants are female.

3. In an area with an older population only 5% of applicants are retirees*.

That is a huge untapped pool of talent. So the company seeks ways to engage with these underrepresented groups to increase applications from them.

They still choose the best people.

*McDonald's Canada noted this in the 80s and took steps to recruit retirees who wanted something to do part time. It was very successful for them.
 
NatMorton said:
And what is that? Affirmative action is, for all intents and purposes, well intentioned racial discrimination.
Click to expand...
No it’s not. I worked investigating civil rights complaints, so I was familiar with what affirmative action meant, at least back then. For example, putting the phrase “Equal Opportunity Employer” in want ads qualified as affirmative action. So did choosing to advertise positions in the old Jet or Ebony magazines. Ditto including females and minorities in your business’s “here’s our team ready to serve you” - type pictures that companies often show. None of this was required, and discrimination against males and whites was also outlawed and investigated.
 
Allan said:
Here's how it works in the real world...

A company notices that:
1. In an area with a high indigenous population only 10% of applicants are from that group.

2. In an area where half the population is women only 15% of applicants are female.

3. In an area with an older population only 5% of applicants are retirees*.

That is a huge untapped pool of talent. So the company seeks ways to engage with these underrepresented groups to increase applications from them.

They still choose the best people.

*McDonald's Canada noted this in the 80s and took steps to recruit retirees who wanted something to do part time. It was very successful for them.
Click to expand...


In your scenario, lets look at number one, WHY are only 10% of the applicantws from that group?
 
Corbell said:
In your scenario, lets look at number one, WHY are only 10% of the applicantws from that group?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to an employer. They want to increase applicants from the underrepresented groups, not do a stupid sociology study.
 
Obviously, if you don't want to run afoul of the government, hire only straight, white able-bodied males.

An all-white work force is your government pass.
 
Allan said:
Irrelevant to an employer. They want to increase applicants from the underrepresented groups, not do a stupid sociology study.
Click to expand...

Interesting. What if the reason for the difference is that the indians just don't want to do that job? THey want to... so something else that is "cooler" in their eyes.


1.Why is that a problem?

2. How will the employer INCREASE applicants from the indians?
 
Nickyjo said:
No it’s not. I worked investigating civil rights complaints, so I was familiar with what affirmative action meant, at least back then. For example, putting the phrase “Equal Opportunity Employer” in want ads qualified as affirmative action. So did choosing to advertise positions in the old Jet or Ebony magazines. Ditto including females and minorities in your business’s “here’s our team ready to serve you” - type pictures that companies often show. None of this was required, and discrimination against males and whites was also outlawed and investigated.
Click to expand...
Then let's back up. How do you define "Affirmative Action?"
 
Corbell said:
In your scenario, lets look at number one, WHY are only 10% of the applicantws from that group?
Click to expand...
Company may have a (perhaps unjustified) bad reputation among the group. Back some decades ago when I worked on civil rights cases in Colorado, Coors beer had gained a bad reputation among minorities, as Mr. Coord had reportedly told his white employees to write opposing pending civil rights laws in the 1960s. (Colorado Chicanos used to boycott Coors.). The one of three Coors companies that was unionized was much more integrated. In time things changed for the better.
 
Nickyjo said:
Company may have a (perhaps unjustified) bad reputation among the group. Back some decades ago when I worked on civil rights cases in Colorado, Coors beer had gained a bad reputation among minorities, as Mr. Coord had reportedly told his white employees to write opposing pending civil rights laws in the 1960s. (Colorado Chicanos used to boycott Coors.). The one of three Coors companies that was unionized was much more integrated. In time things changed for the better.
Click to expand...

So, the members of that group, didn't WANT to work there?

That seems to be a product of their freedom and choice.

So.... why is that not being respected? Why is it a problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom