Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!pesnta!pertec!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.social,net.women,net.flame Subject: Re: Discrimination and Affirmative Action Message-ID: <266@kontron.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 19:18:41 EDT Article-I.D.: kontron.266 Posted: Mon Jun 24 19:18:41 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 05:45:58 EDT References: <566@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP><449@unc.UUCP> <2973@cca.UUCP> <493@ttidcc.UUCP> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 35 Xref: watmath net.politics:9566 net.social:734 net.women:6064 net.flame:10759 > In article <2973@cca.UUCP> diego@cca.UUCP writes: > > > > Sex- and race-biased imbalances in the workplace are not accidental > >nor unconscious. They are, in fact, the result of very deliberate > >selective hiring practices (you could call it "the principle of hiring > >for similarity"). > > Absolutely true. Let me give an example from my real-world experience: > > Back in the early '70s I was working for the Los Angeles County Engineer, > Aviation Division. At that time, _all_ airport attendants were male, by > Division policy. Then the Board of Supervisors handed down an edict > prohibiting sexual discrimination in hiring practices ... > > You wouldn't have believed the confusion. Two division chiefs and six > airport managers were running around for weeks trying to figure a way to > legally _not_ comply with the edict. They asked _everyone_, including me > and some of the (female) secretaries(!), to dream up excuses for them. > > Typical excuse: "There aren't any women's showers at the airports." > > Pretty lame, right? Well, they used it. > > Note that we're not talking about a highly skilled position here. An > airport attendant was a not-very-glorified gas pump jockey. In between > fueling planes, they'd weed the median strips and perform miscellaneous > janitorial tasks. Not what you'd call Doctorate level stuff. Nor did the > job call for great physical strength. > > If this goes on in the Civil Service, imagine what happens in private > business. > -- Why do you assume that Civil Service is less prone to discrimination than the private sector? From what I've read, the private sector has a better track record over the last 50 years than the public sector.