|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jun 28th, 2003 07:34 PM | |||
| kahljorn | Victorias secret won't hire men. I find that offensive. I applied there and they said no men, even though I told them I'm profecient in bra fitting and other such procedures. IM SUEING. | ||
| Jun 28th, 2003 04:35 PM | |||
| Anonymous |
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
| Jun 28th, 2003 01:42 AM | |||
| WorthlessLiar |
placement Rorschach, placement is not the issue here. No one is necessarily claiming the right to get hired. That's just something you've cynically imposed upon the person bringing this case forth. The right in question here is the right not to be judged by an employer soley on the basis of factors such as skin color. Obviously, you've made it clear that we still differ in this regard, which is fine, but don't try to set up a straw man here. I find your posts arrogant and dismissive of the real issue. Why is it that you wish to shop at abercrombie more often? Is it the kiddie thong underwear or the Asian bashing t-shirts? Probably just for that rich white prick look. |
||
| Jun 26th, 2003 06:37 PM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
Just for note, I do know the law, and I stand by my previous statements. I think he butted heads on a similar issue in the past when we were discussing the Robber Barons, so I won't bother repeating an old argument, but I will say this: If I owned a house, and invested into its property value through landscaping, restoration and buying furnishings and fixtures to make it more attractive, I would be in the right. If, after having done these things, I found I had too little time to upkeep my investment due to my work schedule, and I hired someone to do the yardwork and housework, I would still be in the right. Now if I wanted expressly a French Maid and a Scottish groundskeeper, why would I be in the wrong? It's my house, and my money going into their pockets. Why must I placate the first minority who applies if I do not desire them? People are not entitled to work, they are not entitled to jobs. They are entitled to certains rights, which the law cannot curtail, and certain liberties the law can restrict. They cannot, however, demand placement, and it is folly for society to think they can. |
||
| Jun 25th, 2003 11:41 PM | |||
| Immortal Goat | I do not think that segregation is right. A company is allowed to have a target audience, such as FUBU has blacks, but that does NOT mean that FUBU should only hire blacks to work in thier store. If their catalogue has only blacks, that is fine, but they should not segregate in the workplace. If they want a predominantly black staff, then hire the white people for the janitorial jobs and the blacks as the front-of-store employees. | ||
| Jun 25th, 2003 07:23 PM | |||
| Isaac | Vince, theres a problem in your argument, beacuse I've also seen you say that blacks and other minoritys aren't discriminated against, that they need to pull them selfs up, but you have to acknowledge that in some areas, with out anti-descrimination law suits, blacks and other minortys would never get a fair wage for there work, like in the south, nor would they get a job equal to there skill...either a)you don't acknowledege this as a result, b)you don't see how these things relate, c)your a bigot, or d)some combination of previos | ||
| Jun 25th, 2003 09:58 AM | |||
| mburbank |
I stopped shopping at A&F when they started their whole 'Branding' bullshit. I think anyone who wears their product should carry a sign that says "I'm marginally less of a moron than people wearing Tommy Hilfiger crap." The collective argument tha businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want is A.) Not what our current laws allow for, and I'm always amazed by how little reggard for and knowledge of law is held by so many upstanding patriots and B.) Dangerous. Unfettered business would grind you up for dogfood if their was a profit margin in it. You may object to speciffic regulation, or the scope of regulation, but keep in mind the unregulated business produces child labor, forced labor, the manipulation and addition of physically addictive ingredients, carcinognes in your backyard etc. etc. etc. How many of you think your boss is really great person who has a healthy respect for you as an individual and wants to work with you for the betterment of your company? If your hand is up (and by the way, mine is) you're damn lucky. Now how many of you think your boss would get you to work unpaid overtime if he thought he could get away with it? |
||
| Jun 25th, 2003 01:38 AM | |||
| Big Papa Goat |
An employer has the right to discriminate when he's hiring, but that discrimination shouldn't be on the basis of race, religion etc. I don't know the law for you guys down in the states, but I'm pretty sure that goes against our constitution up in Canada. But back on topic, the thing about men and flat chested women not being hired by hooters. In hooters case, men and flat chested women are not suited to the job, which is being a big jugged waitress. For Ambercrombie and Fitch, there is no reason for them to claim blacks and hispanics are not qualified for the job on the basis of their race. FUBU does it with blacks? Well, they're just as wrong, and both of these companies are perpetuating neo-segragationist policies that are only driving people of different cultures apart, with no possible benefit for any. I mean, what difference does it really make if there is a black salesmen selling you you're shitty ambercrombie and fitch sweater, or a white guy selling you whatever the hell FUBU sells, we have to work our way past our fear and discrimination against people that aren't like us through tolerance and understanding and if I sounded like a hippy, then give me some pot and a hacky sack and call me a hippy dammit! |
||
| Jun 23rd, 2003 12:06 PM | |||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
||
| Jun 22nd, 2003 07:53 AM | |||
| VinceZeb | Goat, in your weak attempt to try and insult me, you actually made my point. You target your main consumer. With FUBU, you target the "young urban african-american". With A&F, you target the "young collegiate anglo-saxon". It isn't racism, it is good business practice. | ||
| Jun 22nd, 2003 12:13 AM | |||
| Immortal Goat | Vince, do you even know what FUBU stands for? If not, then I will enlighten you. It is a company owned by black people, and the company name stands for "For Us, By Us", referring to a predominantly African-American target audience. THAT is why the FUBU catalogue does not have tons of non-blacks in it. | ||
| Jun 21st, 2003 06:04 PM | |||
| VinceZeb |
Does FUBU feature tons of non-blacks in their clothing ads? This question was presented to someone on Scarbrough Country and the Malcom X wannabe couldn't answer the question. He just kinda went on about racism. Hell, I think the only thing he talked bout was racist America. |
||
| Jun 21st, 2003 04:43 PM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
I'm going to make my views on this extremely simple, but first, let me state that after the first few responces, I stopped reading them as they seemed to be rather silly. Have any of you ever seen the signs which say "We Refuse The Right To Refuse Service"? Some places still have them, though laregly, they are a thing of another time. What it comes down to is the right of the corporate body vs the right of the individual. Noone has the right to work, let alone whereever they desire. You will not find any such right in the Consitution, nor will you find it in any state charter. While it is unfair for a corporate body to judge an applicant by their race, creed or religion, I feel, they are completely within their own rights to do so. It is an ugly thing, but it is there perogative. When you have invested as much time and money as those which created the corporation in question have, then you have a right to see to it that the individuals which work there meet whatever requirements you have to ensure success. That is capitalism. If he had waged a boycott, I would I would have sympathized, and applauded his civic duty as an example to be embraced by others. As it stands, I hold him in contempt. He is a self-seeking individual who is more concerned with his own wealth and betterment than improving conditions. The courtroom is the last place true change comes from. As it is, I think I may actually be shopping at A&F more often from now on. |
||
| Jun 21st, 2003 03:19 PM | |||
| WorthlessLiar |
re I don't see exactly how the consumer check on discrimination will work. If it were suddenly legal to discriminate and one could not sue against discrimination, then people would not be aware of such business practices in many areas. If the Gap in my 99.9% white suburb were to have a policy against hiring blacks, odds are the consumers wouldn't know about it whether they agreed with such a policy or not. Furthermore, I am dismayed with some of your priorities. The ideals of free enterprise and capitalism should not be held so sacred that we can't show initiative in making sure people can't be unfairly discriminated against in finding a means to make a living. And Jebus, if the pops wants his son to run the donut shop, odds are the kid would get some donut training by the time he needed to take over. |
||
| Jun 19th, 2003 02:51 PM | |||
| GAsux |
I see.... So let's say you Dad opens up a donut shop. Because, you know, you and your family are big fans of free enterprise and all so owning a family business is part of the plan. So let's say pops has the shop up and running, and decides that since he's not getting any younger, he ought to start training the heir to his donut throne. And nothing would make him happier than to pass off the family business to his beloved son. But alas, you have no donut makin experience. All you know about donuts is what you've seen in a Kryspe Kreme box. I'm sure you could learn though right? But unfortunately, because of government mandated "competency" laws, your pops will have to hire the person most suited for the job, which is obviously not you. Do you suppose it's fair for the government to decide who you will employ in your own PERSONAL business? |
||
| Jun 19th, 2003 02:24 PM | |||
| Immortal Goat |
If you seem to think I am Communist, then there is something wrong with you. I believe in free enterprise and all that stuff, but I do NOT think that employers have the right to keep people out of jobs that will provide them with money due to the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation. Obviously there are going to be exceptions, like the guy that wanted to work at Hooters, but all in all, EVERY business should be equal-opportunity. Just because someone is a different color does NOT mean that they are less qualified for a job. Simple as that. |
||
| Jun 19th, 2003 10:57 AM | |||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
||
| Jun 19th, 2003 10:46 AM | |||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
||
| Jun 18th, 2003 05:20 PM | |||
| Vibecrewangel |
A & F I think that the men getting hired at Hooters was one of the stupidest things ever. Flat chested woman I can almost accept, but men......total B/S Not that it is anything new. Anyone remember the Hot Dog on a Stick suit? |
||
| Jun 18th, 2003 04:33 PM | |||
| GAsux |
Word I'm with the Capt. here. If you own your own business, and hate blacks/whites/women/gays/donkeys/whatever, then it is your perogative to not employ said folks. The government CANNOT/SHOULD NOT compell you to do otherwise. It's not the role of the government to tell a business who it should or should not hire. As Capt. Bubba mentioned, if an employer chooses to hire a less qualified applicant, that employer to some degree has already punished himself. The remedy for this is simple. It must come from the consumer. Not the government. Just as the employer has the freedom to choose his employees, you as the consumer have the right to choose your retailer. Don't shop there. |
||
| Jun 18th, 2003 04:22 PM | |||
| CaptainBubba |
My god. I'm not one for open insults but you are an absolute retard. By not hiring someone the employer is deciding that they do not wish to pay for the services that someone has offered. That is not interfering with the persons well being and to construe it as such your point of view would have to be so skewed that I can hardly imagine you even considering listening to an opposing argument. It is your opinion that the most qualified should get the job. An employer should have the right to hire emplyees in his OWN business that are not the most qualified, but rather the employees he wishes to hire. It is the employers business, not everyone elses. What you're suggesting is communism. I will now move on to your affirmitave action thread and let this one resume its specific case. |
||
| Jun 18th, 2003 03:50 PM | |||
| Immortal Goat |
Quote:
|
||
| Jun 18th, 2003 02:08 PM | |||
| CaptainBubba |
Another case of the government interfering with the natural order of the business world. An employer has the right to hire whomever he wants and should have the right to deny a job opportunity within his own business to whomever he chooses, for WHATEVER reason. If it is true that people of all races, sexes, cultures, and physical conditions have the same potential to do the same jobs, then the employer is already being punished by self sabotage. Lets say an employer won't hire black employees during the day (the reason is irrelevant). Now lets say that the white employees he hires are not as productive as the black employees would have been. Hes hurting his own business by limiting his choices in employees. But what if by hiring the black employees during the day the employer begins to lose customers because the demographic he is attempting to appeal to does not like fashion that is assosiated with black people? Is it not his right to protect his OWN business by hiring those whom he chooses? Or we could be communist and the gov. could control all businesses, I dunno, you guys are the smart ones. Lol. 
|
||
| Jun 18th, 2003 12:26 PM | |||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
Its horrible how looks are used to discriminate against those ugly people....which I'm not one of......er...ya, thats what I meant crap |
||
| Jun 18th, 2003 11:13 AM | |||
| mburbank |
I don't think ANYONE has a point yet. There's a charge, there's been no trail, no evidence has been presnetd one way or another. The problem would be an actual policy. It would be VERY hard to prove intent regardless of their staff distribution. But intent has been proven before in similar cases, so it could be found here. Denny's had actual, provable policies about seating Black customers. Lets all wait and see what evidence is introduced. |
||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |||
