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.