[MrQ1701]

Just to be clear, if a father makes the same amount of money as the mother, and they choose HE is to stay home. When he goes back to work and has missed out on pay increases based on time in service, is he entitled to those increases? I don't think so.

Yes, family and children are an important part of many people's lives, but it is just another variable in the equation. If staying at home will cost you too much loss at work, then don't stay at home, find another solution. There is daycare. If they can't afford daycare, then can they afford for one parent to stay home? All of this needs to be weighed by each couple having children. In the end, not having children IS an option.

I acknowledge that there is discrimination. I just think that there are many cases where it appears there is discrimination, but there is in fact none. Let's say you have two bankers, both with the same degree. One guy is fresh out of school and the other has 20 years experience under his belt. I see a situation where the guy with more experience may be hired at a higher wage or salary, even for the same kind of position. I see job advertisements all the time that say "wage based on...". Also the time in service aspect is another thing. You can have two people that basically do the same work, but one guy makes more because of experience (either at that company or somewhere else)

I just hit my third year at work this January. My vacation accrual just went up. My wage also went up after I completed my first year. When I hit year five my sick leave accrual will go up. My wage will not go up again till again I hit year 9 (relative to others) All of this and everyone from the first year guy to the 25 year guy all do the same work! I see nothing wrong with making benefits and wages part of the incentive to stay at the same employer.

[Elizadolots]

Going back to the original case, in fact, 9 blacks did pass the test. However, there were only 23 positions available and none of the blacks were in the top 23. It seems to me that once you've hit the mark for "passing the test" other factors should be used to determine who, among the qualified, get the job.

If a job requires you to score 5 out of 10 on a test, then everyone who scored 5 out of 10 is qualified. It is not necessarily true that the person who scored 9 out of 10 is "more" qualified for the job. In fact, that person might be seen as over qualified for the job and so not likely to stay. There may be someone who scored 5 out of 10 who brings something else that was not in the job description, but the employer finds desirable. For instance, the person might have experience in another area that could prove useful in covering absences.

To clarify: I'm looking to hire a data entry clerk. I advertise that all candidates will have to pass a standardized test to be considered. Once I get my candidates who passed, I might find there is one who has experience working in customer service. I wasn't looking for a customer service person, but those positions do open up and occassionally people will be sick and I need someone to cover their jobs. I might chose the person who just barely passed the test but has the customer service experience over someone who totally aced the test, but has no other job experience.

In this case, Ricci argues that it should be the people who scored the highest, regardless. For some reason the Supreme Court went along with that.

[Saquist]

That was solid reasoning.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Elizadolots

Going back to the original case, in fact, 9 blacks did pass the test. However, there were only 23 positions available and none of the blacks were in the top 23. It seems to me that once you've hit the mark for "passing the test" other factors should be used to determine who, among the qualified, get the job.

If a job requires you to score 5 out of 10 on a test, then everyone who scored 5 out of 10 is qualified. It is not necessarily true that the person who scored 9 out of 10 is "more" qualified for the job. In fact, that person might be seen as over qualified for the job and so not likely to stay. There may be someone who scored 5 out of 10 who brings something else that was not in the job description, but the employer finds desirable. For instance, the person might have experience in another area that could prove useful in covering absences.

To clarify: I'm looking to hire a data entry clerk. I advertise that all candidates will have to pass a standardized test to be considered. Once I get my candidates who passed, I might find there is one who has experience working in customer service. I wasn't looking for a customer service person, but those positions do open up and occassionally people will be sick and I need someone to cover their jobs. I might chose the person who just barely passed the test but has the customer service experience over someone who totally aced the test, but has no other job experience.

In this case, Ricci argues that it should be the people who scored the highest, regardless. For some reason the Supreme Court went along with that.

Yes, I think I see your point. The individual who aces the standardised 'theory' test might still not be able to respond to the 'real' requirements of the position and any other roles that may be required in addition.

I used to work in customer service myself and saw plenty of people who were, in terms of intelligence, way smarter than other colleagues, but who folded in certain actual customer service roles because they had no experience in how to deal with them.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by Elizadolots

Going back to the original case, in fact, 9 blacks did pass the test. However, there were only 23 positions available and none of the blacks were in the top 23. It seems to me that once you've hit the mark for "passing the test" other factors should be used to determine who, among the qualified, get the job.

If a job requires you to score 5 out of 10 on a test, then everyone who scored 5 out of 10 is qualified. It is not necessarily true that the person who scored 9 out of 10 is "more" qualified for the job. In fact, that person might be seen as over qualified for the job and so not likely to stay. There may be someone who scored 5 out of 10 who brings something else that was not in the job description, but the employer finds desirable. For instance, the person might have experience in another area that could prove useful in covering absences.

To clarify: I'm looking to hire a data entry clerk. I advertise that all candidates will have to pass a standardized test to be considered. Once I get my candidates who passed, I might find there is one who has experience working in customer service. I wasn't looking for a customer service person, but those positions do open up and occassionally people will be sick and I need someone to cover their jobs. I might chose the person who just barely passed the test but has the customer service experience over someone who totally aced the test, but has no other job experience.

In this case, Ricci argues that it should be the people who scored the highest, regardless. For some reason the Supreme Court went along with that.

You make wonderful points. It is true that employers consider many aspects of a person's experience and character when making a decision regarding whom to hire. This is what I think blurs the lines so much when it comes to what is seen as discrimination by some and NOT by others.

[FanWriter45]

There's also another reason why the african american applicants might make better fire fighters in these particular positions... they're living in the neighborhood where this fire station is located.... I can see where that MIGHT be a consideration...

"Hey! We need more help! Call in some extra guys who are off duty!"
"Right, they'll be here in an hour or so..."
"What?!"
"Well, they're coming from the other side of the county... They live in that posh gated development on the other side of town...and it IS rush hour..."
(Meanwhile, the orphanage-hospital goes up in flames.)

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by jerhanner

In this case, I must agree with the decision. A test was given and the results thrown out for political reasons. That's illegal as ****!

Not really political reasons. The court looked at the case and at the justification the city gave in their legal battles. The city said it feared lawsuits, no more no less. Thats how they worked it in the court system anyways, regardless of any other agenda. The supreme court said fear of lawsuits is not a valid justification for what the city did. It didnt touch any other issue and the decision goes far beyond affirmative action. It conceivably covers every decision negating standard procedure that a city makes based on fear of being sued.

[FanWriter45]

Still, you have to wonder... all the GOP identified justices vote to overturn, while the Dem justices all voted that the original decision was fine...

Yet, no one thinks this is a political move to make Sotamyor look bad? Give me a break!

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by FanWriter45

Still, you have to wonder... all the GOP identified justices vote to overturn, while the Dem justices all voted that the original decision was fine...

Yet, no one thinks this is a political move to make Sotamyor look bad? Give me a break!

I don't see what this has to do with Sotomayor. Could you explain? No Sarcasm intended, I really don't understand.

[Samuel]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I don't see what this has to do with Sotomayor. Could you explain? No Sarcasm intended, I really don't understand.

She was part of the lower court decisions to uphold the cities position. Therefore she has a direct relationship to the case and like every other candidate it is perfectly valid for debate... unlike hypotheticals about the usual ones like abortion or gun laws. She cannot say she has no opinion.

On these kinds of things its always informative to see how the swing vote goes. In this case he sided against the city. Despite what Bush wanted he couldnt get 5 conservatives. Obama this time will probably get his first choice because of the supermajority and because she will be replacing a stanch liberal. So it will remain 4-4-1.