Discriminatory hiring practices?

Grady-ladyGrady-lady AdmiralPosts: 5,282 Admiral
Weird - title should be 'Discriminatory hiring practices?' (Nuevo, if you see this, please...)

news:
Justice Department sues Pennsylvania for discriminating against women in state police hiring
...“The Department of Justice is deeply committed to eliminating artificial barriers that keep qualified women out of public safety work,” Jocelyn Samuels, acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, said in a statement. “The Justice Department will continue to challenge discriminatory hiring practices that unnecessarily exclude qualified applicants on account of sex.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/07/29/justice-department-sues-pennsylvania-for-discriminating-against-women-in-state-police-hiring/

opinion:
War on Who? Eric Holder Sues Police Dept. for Treating Women as Equals
...Don’t those out of touch, sexist, creeps who run the police department know by now that, in Holder’s America, “equality” means treating everyone differently? See, women are equal. Well, unless they’re not. In which case, we should treat them unequal in order to make them equal. But not too unequal. After all, they are equal… Unless they’re not. Are they? (Please don’t sue me.)

Welcome to our progressive Utopia: Where people get sued for not lowering their expectations.
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/michaelschaus/2014/07/31/war-on-who-eric-holder-sues-police-dept-for-treating-women-as-equals-n1872737/page/full


I have a beautiful, talented daughter. I encourage her to be all that she desires to be. I also have a handsome, strong, strapping son who is a firefighter. Fire depts. too, are under pressure to hire more of our beautiful, talented daughters. I just want to know that the firefighter standing next to my son in a burning building has the strength to carry him out if need be...
What say you?
I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

Replies

  • Big BatteryBig Battery AG Posts: 19,448 AG
    This is far more important than Fast and Furious or the IRS scandal.
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Admiral Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    PT tests can be a tricky area. If you are measuring one's health (how in shape they are) then male and female standards would be different. Also, requirements would decrease with one's age. If you are measuring to ensure they can do a job, then the requirements should be the same across the board, regardless of age and sex.

    The difference here would be a general PT test verses a requirement that firefighters can drag a 200lb load (down firefighter) for 200 yards (out of harms way)
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Admiral Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    this administration though is really going out of its way to move women up. The general that just got promoted to head the Air Force in the Pacific has the strong suspicion that she was picked because she was a woman, not that she was the best person for the job. The problem, even if she was the best person for the job, that will hang over her head and impeded her command.
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil AG Posts: 14,632 AG
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    I just want to know that the firefighter standing next to my son in a burning building has the strength to carry him out if need be...
    What say you?

    My son is a firefighter too, and I agree.
    The general that just got promoted to head the Air Force in the Pacific has the strong suspicion that she was picked because she was a woman, not that she was the best person for the job. The problem, even if she was the best person for the job, that will hang over her head and impeded her command.

    Source? I find it difficult to believe she would say that publicly... and ruin her chances of any future commands, perhaps even creating a scenario of being asked to retire.
  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Admiral Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    Source? I find it difficult to believe she would say that publicly... and ruin her chances of any future commands, perhaps even creating a scenario of being asked to retire.

    She didn't say that, sorry if it was confusing. Its just her selection has the sense they were looking for a woman to be the commander, not the best person to be the commander. There was a good article in the Air Force Magazine about it, but its not online. Here's another one. The main issue is they have put a non-combat person in charge of a combat unit. First time ever.

    http://www.newsmax.com/US/military-promotion-general-Pacific/2014/07/18/id/583516/
  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Admiral Posts: 7,438 Admiral
    Selling guns to drug cartels is cool, but fitness standards for women is an injustice.
  • phlatsphilphlatsphil AG Posts: 14,632 AG
    Selling guns to drug cartels is cool,

    GW thought so.
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Officer Posts: 17,248 Officer
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    Weird - title should be 'Discriminatory hiring practices?' (Nuevo, if you see this, please...)

    That happens when you send a woman to do a mans job . .
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • nuevowavonuevowavo Admin Posts: 6,675 Admin
    That happens when you send a woman to do a mans job . .

    I had Mrs Nuevo (the awesome Mary Ann Barnes) fix it for G-l.
    Federales, bring my baby back to me!
  • SWFL_F1sh0nSWFL_F1sh0n Officer Posts: 17,248 Officer
    nuevowavo wrote: »
    I had Mrs Nuevo (the awesome Mary Ann Barnes) fix it for G-l.

    Figures . . she left off the ? that was requested.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Ron@.38 Special[email protected] Special Admiral Posts: 6,929 Admiral
    Don't worry about your firefighters boys, they get paid good money by us to workout while they build a ridiculous pension in just 20 years. Biggest waste of tax dollars on any city budget!

    What is so great about FF that they are eligible for full retirement at 20 years when they sit on their **** most of the day. Heck our firefighters haven't seen three fires in the last 10 years, but its still the largest drain on our city budget,

    Not to digress, but i digress....
  • Big BatteryBig Battery AG Posts: 19,448 AG
    Yes...professional ff=Big scam on taxpayers
  • NewberryJeffNewberryJeff Admiral Posts: 7,438 Admiral
    phlatsphil wrote: »
    GW thought so.

    The lefty lawmakers were climbing over each other to vote for Bush's policies.
  • cadmancadman AG Home of the Gators Posts: 27,727 AG
    The Pennsylvania requirements are:

    To get into cadet training
    Vertical Jump - 14 inches, 3 Attempts
    1 RM Bench Press - Not applicable
    Illinois Agility Run - 23.5 Seconds, 2 Attempts
    300-Meter Run - 77 Seconds
    Push Ups - 13 Repetitions (no time limit)
    1.5 Mile Run - 17 Minutes and 48 Seconds

    To get hired:

    Vertical Jump - 18 inches, 3 Attempts
    1 RM Bench Press - 85% Body Weight
    Illinois Agility Run - 19.5 Seconds, 2 Attempts
    300-Meter Run - 65 Seconds
    Push Ups - 30 Repetitions (no time limit)
    1.5 Mile Run - 14 Minutes and 50 Seconds

    My question is, are those requirements necessary for a police officer to do their job. An 18" standing vertical jump? They looking for officers or basketball players.

    Some I understand, some I do not.

    another question.

    Are the veteran officers required to meet those standards on an annual basis?

    http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/psp/4451/hide_-_psp_cadet-trooper_eligibility_requirements/474393

    Mini Mart Magnate

  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady Admiral Posts: 5,282 Admiral
    Thank you to the awesome Mary Ann Barnes for fixing my booboo - it was the fault of a dumb pop-up that moved, like Lucy with the football, when I tried to close it.

    Yes...professional ff=Big scam on taxpayers

    I understand that sentiment, it's like insurance premiums, a waste of money...right up until the time you need it. Most pro ff's are also EMT's or Paramedics, they man Fire Rescue and ambulances in many stations thruout the country.
    It's up to the taxpayers of each city, county, state to determine the level of coverage they are willing/able to fund.
    Imo, professional politicians fund the biggest scams on taxpayers.




    cadman wrote: »

    Are the veteran officers required to meet those standards on an annual basis?

    Well for sure they're not required to meet the age standards.
    (the standards you posted are required at the end of basic training)

    Here are my questions...
    a. 70%+ of women pass while 90%+ of men do...is that really discriminatory?
    b. should physical standards be relaxed for women - be it police, ff, military, etc? (in many cases they already are)
    c. is this a justifiable use of federal tax dollars in what is a state issue? (the feds involvement also costs the state money)
    d) is not easing requirements for one gender discriminatory, by requiring higher standards, toward the other gender?
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr AG Posts: 27,685 AG
    Grady-lady wrote: »



    I understand that sentiment, it's like insurance premiums, a waste of money...right up until the time you need it.

    I take exception.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady Admiral Posts: 5,282 Admiral
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    I take exception.

    :grin

    Good point! I suppose even insurance agents gotta eat...and pay taxes.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Admiral Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    Grady-lady wrote: »

    Here are my questions...
    a. 70%+ of women pass while 90%+ of men do...is that really discriminatory?
    maybe, maybe not. It worth a check I guess, not sure a lawsuit. It's okay to question numbers. The answer to b would effect this answer

    b. should physical standards be relaxed for women - be it police, ff, military, etc? (in many cases they already are)
    Like I said earlier, if the physical standard is to ensure the candidate is in shape (what the military PT does) then they should be different based on gender and age. If however the standard is based to ensure the candidate has the strength to do the min job requirements then they should be the same regardless of age and gender. In this case, when you are testing push-ups, sit-ups, run time, ect. Then the test is more to ensure the candidate is in shape. So the standards would vary. This would lead one to believe the pass rate for women and men would be similar. But this may not be the case. Is the pass rate in the military for men and women similar? Are the female candidates shown have a higher rate of "not being in shape" coming in (what is the average BMI of female candidates?)? 90 vs 70% doesn't sound like a huge difference to me at first glance. But I don't have any comparison to make that judgement on.

    c. is this a justifiable use of federal tax dollars in what is a state issue? (the feds involvement also costs the state money)
    if there is sufficient complaint from candidates then I guess the feds should at least look into it.

    d) is not easing requirements for one gender discriminatory, by requiring higher standards, toward the other gender?
    the same level of "inshape" male and female, the male will be stronger and faster. So PT tests should have higher requirements for males than females. And for the same reason, standards should decrease with age. I would think all candidates though should be able to drag a hose or even a down fireman regardless of age and sex.

    ..
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr AG Posts: 27,685 AG
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    :grin

    Good point! I suppose even insurance agents gotta eat...and pay taxes.

    My apologies. I don't want to detail your thread.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady Admiral Posts: 5,282 Admiral
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    My apologies. I don't want to detail your thread.

    No apologies...a post that makes me smile is always welcome...but would rather you 'detail' my car. :wink
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr AG Posts: 27,685 AG
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    No apologies...a post that makes me smile is always welcome...but would rather you 'detail' my car. :wink

    Never could type at the same time as trying to think.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady Admiral Posts: 5,282 Admiral
    ..

    I appreciate your input, and can agree with your reasoning. It does seem to me tho' - the DOJ is attempting to interfere in what should be a state issue. The article in the WaPo doesn't address the number of complaints. It does seem that since nearly three out of four women do pass the physical requirements it would be a difficult case to prove discrimination. What it is liable to be is costly.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • HomerSimpsonHomerSimpson Admiral Posts: 6,573 Admiral
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    I appreciate your input, and can agree with your reasoning. It does seem to me tho' - the DOJ is attempting to interfere in what should be a state issue. The article in the WaPo doesn't address the number of complaints. It does seem that since nearly three out of four women do pass the physical requirements it would be a difficult case to prove discrimination. What it is liable to be is costly.

    DOJ involvment would be warranted if the state ignored this problem. However.....given this administration I have serious doubts the case has merit. Based on their history, i have little doubt they would push such a lawsuit even if its not valid, because in their mind the greater exposure of appearing to push equality is the most important thing
  • cadmancadman AG Home of the Gators Posts: 27,727 AG
    Grady-lady wrote: »
    I appreciate your input, and can agree with your reasoning. It does seem to me tho' - the DOJ is attempting to interfere in what should be a state issue. The article in the WaPo doesn't address the number of complaints. It does seem that since nearly three out of four women do pass the physical requirements it would be a difficult case to prove discrimination. What it is liable to be is costly.

    They are suing under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That is a federal issue. It is easy to prove discrimination unless the State of Pennsylvania can prove the physical requirements are a mandatory function of the job. If they have veteran officers who can not meet the requirement, they will have an issue. Since other departments in the country do not have those requirements, it will lean toward the question of why do these requirements exist. If they exist for the sole purpose of hiring fewer women, then they will have an problem. It will boil down to the issue, are those requirements necessary for the police to do their job. As I asked, why does a cop need a 18" standing vertical jump?

    I agree it will be costly.

    Mini Mart Magnate

Sign In or Register to comment.