Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

The unintended consequences of the '91 civil rights legislation

Posted by   + Show Post

The paper can be downloaded to read here

Here is an overview. 


Mickey Kaus, in linking to this post below (thanks, Mickey!), asks:

If a Hispanic who has performed as poorly and prominently as Patti Solis Doyle can’t be fired without her employer getting grief from Hispanic leaders, isn’t that a pretty big disincentive to hiring a Hispanic in the first place? Message: Stick to white males — if they screw up, you can sack them and nobody will whine.

Actually, that disincentive and that “message” have long been recognized as one of the costs of civil rights enforcement.

A classic example is the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which made it easier for disappointed job seekers to file “disparate impact” claims based on statistical evidence and increased the money-damage awards to plaintiffs.

In this excellent 2003 article, Stuart Taylor Jr. discusses a study by a Stanford economist and a Northwestern management professor, among other evidence, indicating that the 1991 law made “employers in traditionally white-male industries marginally less likely to hire minorities and women.”

How could the risk of high damage awards for discriminating against minorities and women make employers more hesitant to hire them? Because employers know that far more lawsuits are brought, and far greater damages are awarded, for claims of discrimination in firing than in hiring. So the risk of being sued for turning down a minority or female applicant is dwarfed by the risk of being sued later for firing the same applicant after giving him or her a try.

“The increases in potential damage awards,” write Oyer and Schaefer, “coupled with a decades-long trend toward firing-based, and away from hiring-based, employment-discrimination litigation, means the main impact of the act was to increase the costs to employers of dismissing protected workers…. Because [an employer] feels firing-based costs only if it decides to hire, the costs act as an implicit tax on such hiring. Firing-based protections may therefore lead employers to hire fewer protected workers, not more.”

Nor, Taylor continues, were these results unanticipated.

…. In a Stanford Law Review article half a year before Congress passed the legislation, Stanford Law School professor John J. Donohue III and co-author Peter Siegelman documented a major shift in the nature of job-discrimination lawsuits—as well as a spectacular increase in their number—since 1970: “While most cases formerly attacked discrimination in hiring, today the vast majority of all litigation suits challenge discrimination in discharge.” And although the 1964 Civil Rights Act was extremely valuable in breaking down the flagrant discrimination in hiring then practiced by many employers, the authors wrote, the “dramatic shift to firing cases has greatly increased the likelihood that Title VII will create a drag on the hiring of protected workers rather than the positive inducement it originally provided.”

Note that Taylor did not recommend (and, for what it’s worth, neither do I) that Congress eliminate damages for discriminatory firing, “[e]ven if the costs of such lawsuits to minorities and women, not to mention employers, have come to exceed their benefits….”

Racial discrimination is wrong, but that doesn’t mean we should refuse to see the costs of eliminating it. And it is always useful to be reminded that efforts to do good, especially when the power of the state is enlisted in the cause, often do both more and less than the good intended.

Minnow Slayer

by on Aug. 17, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Replies (41-50):
Carpy
by Ruby Member on Aug. 17, 2013 at 9:13 PM


Few political figures in America today arouse as much passion as the Rev. Jesse Jackson. A hero to some in the black community, Jackson is credited with helping to break down barriers to political and economic access. But to other black leaders, Jackson has become a symbol for all that has gone wrong with their community.

“Jesse virtually invented black racism,” the Rev. Johnny Hunter, a black pastor from Virginia Beach, tells me. The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, a black conservative, calls Jackson a “gatekeeper of black progress” and a “race hustler” who has cashed in on white guilt to fund an opulent lifestyle and a personal power base. “He is really just a David Duke in black skin,” Peterson says. On the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday in 2000, Peterson convened the first National Day of Repudiation of Jesse Jackson, which he announced would be “an annual event until Jackson repents or retires.” This repudiation of Jackson by black community and church leaders came almost a full year before Jackson’s public admission that he had fathered a “love child” with an employee.

As if foreseeing Jackson, Booker T. Washington warned two generations earlier against “problem profiteers” within the black community:

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs – partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

“Shakedown” is the first investigative portrait of the Rev. Jesse Jackson since black reporter Barbara Reynolds’ explosive biography was published in 1975. Based on interviews with Jackson friends and foes, federal prosecutors and other law enforcement officials, and on newly released government documents, “Shakedown” examines how Jackson has manipulated the truth to build a false portrait of himself from the moment he burst onto the national scene.

Over the years, he has graduated from street hustling, to prematurely adopting the religious title “Reverend,” to abusing his privileges as a “special presidential envoy.” But through it all he has used the same basic techniques – refining them as he went along – of intimidation, coercion and protection. In so doing he has enriched his family, steered billions of dollars of business to his friends and launched a political dynasty.

For all the press Jackson has attracted over the years, there is much about him that has remained a mystery. One of the most troubling questions is how Jackson, often flaunting the law, has managed to escape even the threat of prosecution. During the Carter administration, civil servants at the Department of Education amassed a huge investigative file on Jackson’s Operation PUSH (People United to Save Humanity), which they believed was defrauding the government of millions of dollars in federal grants. Reagan officials terminated the grants but never prosecuted Jackson for fear of a racial backlash. The support Jackson has won from the liberal establishment, the media and even the criminal justice system defies logic – and ignores the facts of his malfeasance.

For there is a dark side to Jesse Jackson, and it has gone unreported from the very start. It began in Chicago in the late 1960s, when Jackson began consorting with a street gang known as the Black P Stone Rangers, whose leaders one by one were thrown in jail with life sentences for murder, extortion and racketeering. Among them was Jackson’s own half brother and early partner in the shakedown game, Noah Robinson Jr.

Also ignored in those early days was the extraordinary influence exerted on Jackson by a known Communist Party organizer. Hunter Pitts O’Dell had been hauled before congressional investigating committees on three separate occasions because of his prominent role in the clandestine apparatus of the pro-Soviet Communist Party in the United States. Later known simply as “Jack,” he became Jackson’s international affairs adviser. Under Jack O’Dell’s watchful eye, Jackson actively endorsed virtually every hard-left Third World leader promoted by Soviet intelligence at the time, from Fidel Castro to Syria’s Hafez al Assad.

But getting from these beginnings to a position from which he could shake down Wall Street was a giant step that required Jackson’s own special genius.

Jackson’s stint as “presidential special envoy” to Africa during Bill Clinton’s second term is without a doubt the least reported disgrace of the Clinton years. Not only did Jackson broker a disastrous peace agreement for Sierra Leone that brought a serial murderer into government, he helped block an international accord cracking down on the trafficking of “war diamonds” that were fueling the conflict.

But clearly the event that precipitated Jackson’s fall from grace was the revelation in January 2001 that he had sired an illegitimate child with a former aide, Karin Stanford, and had been using funds from his tax-exempt empire to pay her personal expenses. For years, Jackson’s amorous adventures had elicited winks and nods among his supporters and friends. Now, for the first time, a crack in his circle of friends allowed the scandal to leak to the mainstream press.

A sexual scandal is an embarrassment, and the misuse of tax-exempt funds is illegal, but there are far more serious charges to be laid against Jackson – charges which reveal the depth of his fundamental hypocrisy. “Me First Jackson,” as some Chicago commentators called him, put himself before family, before friends, before country and – as shown by his support for the butchers in Liberia and Sierra Leone who made sport of amputating the hands of errant children – even before humanity.

If Jesse Jackson wants our respect, he deserves our scrutiny. It is my hope that Americans, provided with this new information on a major political figure, can now better evaluate his claims to have advanced the cause of racial healing. …

Jesse finds new scheme

With the end of the Carter era grants and strong pressure from the Reagan administration, Jackson needed to find a new scheme to finance his operations. When no new money flowed into PUSH-Excel he simply jettisoned the school programs and revived the tried and true tactics of Operation Breadbasket. So much for his dedication to improving the quality of inner-city schools. Jackson was sending his own children to exclusive schools such as St. Albans, so why should he care?

Breadbasket’s main drawback was its limited scope and financial benefits. When Jackson had turned to government grants, his base of black business backers in Chicago had been tapped out. He couldn’t have squeezed greater contributions from them.

But now, in the 1980s, there were thriving black businesses all over the country, and Jackson had rich and powerful new friends. He decided to adapt the Breadbasket techniques to the big leagues and become the broker for black businesses in their dealings with major U.S. corporations.

This went way beyond the minority set-asides that were becoming Noah Robinson’s specialty. Jackson used his experience with the early boycotts by Operation Breadbasket to pressure large corporations to sign “trade agreements” and “covenants” with PUSH that established racial quotas across the entire spectrum of corporate activities, not just government contracting.

Targeting Coca-Cola

His first target was Coca-Cola. Based in Atlanta, where former U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young was now running for mayor, Coke prided itself as an equal-opportunity employer and charitable donor to the majority black community. Coke thought it had nothing to fear from Jackson’s threatened boycott. But Jackson was planning to beat Coke with another stick: its business dealings in apartheid South Africa. It was mau-mauing, 1980s style.

“Jesse brings up South Africa and the whole pressure in the negotiation shifts,” a longtime PUSH operative told biographer Marshall Frady. “This is one of the areas where they’re most vulnerable, because they’ve got big operations in South Africa.”

Coca-Cola came to terms in August 1981 and offered distributorships of the patented Coke syrup to blacks. Coke shareholders were furious. A Coke spokesman, Carlton Curtis, said, “There’s been a strong reaction in the marketplace that this is outright blackmail, that this is a $30-million give-away plan.” But Coke management went along and soon downplayed the dollar value of the concessions they made to Jackson, claiming they barely reached $11 million and consisted of already planned expenditures.

But for Jackson the lesson was clear: Public shaming worked better than the threat of boycott and was much less work. The first to benefit was Jesse’s half brother Noah Robinson. Covenant in hand, he won the first black syrup distributorship from Coca-Cola just one month later. Shortly afterwards, Coke also granted a distributorship to Cecil Troy, a major financial backer of Operation PUSH.

In March 1982, Jackson signed a similar covenant with Heublein Corp., a wine and spirits company that owned Kentucky Fried Chicken. Under the deal, Heublein pledged it would spend $360 million over five years with black banks, advertising agencies, and newspapers, and would expand the number of minority franchise owners.

Once again, Noah Robinson cashed in, using the covenant to lock in a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise that would become the launching pad for a fast food empire. “I told Jesse, ‘If you just do the talking for us – and I handle the financial operations – we can rival the Rockefellers in riches,’” Robinson said.

Cirilo McSween, Jackson’s treasurer and early financial supporter, denies receiving any financial assistance from Jackson. “I’m certainly one of his friends – one of his closest friends – and there is no evidence that I ever benefited from Jesse,” McSween says today. “I’ve always had business. He needed me, not the other way around.” Nevertheless, in the early 1980s, McSween’s Independence Bank of Chicago won several accounts from Burger King as a result of the PUSH covenant, a company spokesman said. And the list went on.

Jackson and friends benefit

Jackson benefited from the covenants at both ends, not just through his brother and his friends. Heublein spokesman Erik Pierce told the Washington Post that Heublein gave $5,000 to Jackson in 1982 to help underwrite the annual PUSH convention and another $10,000 in November 1983. 7-Up and Coca-Cola also made cash contributions to Jackson’s groups.

Jackson and his new corporate partners were careful to avoid any appearance of impropriety. “We felt the covenant was a smart business decision, a marketing decision at that,” said a Burger King spokesman. A 7-Up vice president added, “We did not feel at any time extorted, blackmailed, any of those things.”

But another corporate executive who spoke on condition his name and company not be disclosed paints a very different picture. “It seemed like a shakedown to me. They had lists of people they wanted us to do business with, lists of things they wanted us to do, donations and things like that.” Jackson described the covenants as “moving corporate America into the black for the good of America,” and denied benefiting personally from the practice.

Other Jackson friends and cronies also prospered as a direct result of the covenants. Among them: Alexis Herman and Ernest Green, the Carter-era Labor Department officials who shoveled so much government money his way. The PUSH covenants created a whole new profession, that of “diversity consultant,” and corporations scrambled to find individuals friendly with Jackson who could devise plans he would find acceptable.

Green told the Washington Post in 1984 that his consulting firm derived 30 percent of its business from contracts with Jackson targets Heublein, Coca-Cola and Southland Corp., which owned the 7-Eleven chain. But he quickly added that any suggestion he was profiteering was “hogwash.”

Jackson grows defensive when challenged about requiring companies to hire his friends as consultants. “The companies choose the consultant of their choice. We don’t appoint them. … We recommend a list of them.” Ernest Green soon joined the board of directors of Operation PUSH and, along with Alexis Herman, went to work for Jackson’s 1984 presidential campaign. It was Jackson’s way to hold close to him those who benefited the most, binding them through dependence and loyalty.

Just as Jackson’s school programs benefited from perfect timing during the Carter administration, when the federal government was seeking ways of improving performance and combating violence in predominantly black inner-city schools, his new emphasis on winning concessions for black businesses fit well with the entrepreneurial 1980s.

According to a U.S. Census Bureau survey, the black business sector was booming. The number of black-owned businesses jumped nationwide by nearly 50% during the five years from 1977 to 1982, from 230,000 to 340,000. Gross receipts for black businesses reached $12.4 billion in 1982, a 44% gain from just five years earlier. The majority of these firms were either service or retail trade. Auto dealers and service stations accounted for the largest dollar volume with $1.3 billion. Next were “miscellaneous retail firms” with total receipts of $993 million. These were followed by food stores with $883 million in total income, food and drink establishments with $675 million in receipts, and health services with $595 million gross. Jackson would ride the wave.

Creating PUSH dependency

Ironically, the biggest constraint on the growth of minority businesses was the practice of minority set-asides, or quotas, which made black firms dependent on federal largesse and less able to compete in the private market.

In 1980, for example, only one black-owned firm managed to “graduate” to self-sufficiency in the private market. Jackson’s “covenants” with large corporations did not seem aimed at growing healthy black businesses, but rather at generating dependence on Operation PUSH by extending the federal set-aside program to the private sector. He became the broker, the intermediary, and he made it clear that he wanted to be paid for his services. This was the fundamental operating principle of Jesse’s new scheme. Some considered it illegal.

KhloesMom2009
by on Aug. 17, 2013 at 9:31 PM

In the age of political correctness integrity and merit seemingly mean zilch if you're not a minority

FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Aug. 17, 2013 at 9:35 PM


Quoting Carpy:


Rev. Jackson's extortion racket
by Paul Campos
Rocky Mountain News

Anyone interested in how the American civil rights movement has largely degenerated into a series of shakedown schemes that would make the Mafia blush needs to read Jesse Jackson's recent interview in the Chicago Sun-Times.

The interview itself is one of those texts that, like Shakespeare and the Bible, should be read more than once. No single reading can do justice to the picture of hypocrisy, greed, megalomania and corruption the Rev. Jackson unwittingly paints when discussing his increasingly tangled affairs. Here are some highlights:

Last year, Jackson billed the charities he controls $614,000 for "travel expenses." When asked to explain this extraordinary figure, he says that he often spends more than 200 days per year traveling on charitable business. Yet even if we make the charitable assumption that this figure doesn't include any direct padding of Jackson's self-reported $430,000 annual income, this still works out to nearly $3,000 per day.

Do the contributors to Jackson's charities (who include everyone who pays taxes) realize the reverend claims to spend the bulk of his working days traveling in a style that would embarrass the Rolling Stones?

In recent years, Jackson has spent much of his time opposing mergers in the broadcast and telecommunications industries -- mergers that require federal approval. The Sun-Times explains that Jackson "withholds his approval until the companies meet his demands for greater minority participation."

On a remarkable number of occasions, "minority participation" ends up meaning "Jesse Jackson's friends and business associates." For example, Jackson opposed the CBS-Viacom merger, but let it be known that his opposition would disappear if Viacom were to sell its UPN network to Chester Davenport or Percy Sutton, both long-time friends of his.

The Sun-Times reports "Jackson also blocked the SBC-Ameritech merger until Ameritech agreed to sell part of its cellular phone business to a minority owner, who turned out to be Davenport." "The price you pay for our support," Jackson says, "is to include us."

Of course the reverend wants people to think he means "the African-American community" when he refers to "us." A mountain of evidence suggests the pronoun should be given a somewhat more limited meaning. (In yet another example of what Jackson means by the politics of inclusion, his Citizenship Education Fund has gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from telecommunications companies whose mergers he initially opposed.)

Charity, as they say, begins at home. One of Jackson's highest-profile boycotts was of Anheuser-Busch. Three years ago, Anheuser-Busch's warm feelings for the Jackson family overflowed to the point where the corporation gave Jackson's sons a beer distributorship.

When the Sun-Times asks if there might be any connection between the boycott and the awarding of the distributorship the reverend becomes mightily offended. "If Bush is qualified to run the country, they are qualified to run a beer distributorship" he thunders, employing a typically spurious bit of illogical demagoguery. "They should not be profiled or otherwise suggestions dropped that they are less than able to do what they do. That is very insulting to me. Very insulting."

This is a truly priceless bit of racialist bluster. Notice Jackson doesn't even bother to deny that the distributorship was a payoff. Instead, he switches the topic to the racially loaded question of whether his sons were "qualified." Qualified for what -- to join their father in enjoying the fruits of the racial protection racket? There's no need to feel insulted, Reverend: Nobody doubts they were.

There is much more along these lines, including details of how Illinois' Republican Gov. George Ryan appears to have bought Jackson's political support. All this leads to a simple question: How can a man who at this point retains all the moral authority of a professional extortionist continue to hold himself out as one of America's political and spiritual leaders?

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be contacted at paul.campos@colorado.edu.

March 13, 2001

**And here's a link to the column in the Chicago Sun-Times that he refers to: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/jesse08x.html

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

In other words , you can find no evidence of your assertion

You manage to post all over cafemom during your move...even posting this article

Yet you can find zero stories backing up your claim

That's what I thought


Quoting Carpy:

Right now I am in the midst of trying to move half a million fireworks from an old restaurant building that was serving as my warehouse and stuff them all over my store so we can tear it down and build a new store. I am sure you can Google.



Quoting sweet-a-kins:Please provide sources showing Al or Jesse doing this getting involved because someone was falsely saying they were fired for their race



Quoting Carpy:Nope.



Quoting sweet-a-kins:A lie of course



And a tired one at that







Quoting Carpy:Until Jackson and Sharpton step in.





Quoting sweet-a-kins:

for 12 years I hired and fired people. I never worried about firing any race or sex because they were ALWAYS backed with the correct paperword

I guess lazy people who don't handle their business properly may not like it, they actually have to abide by laws...

and OP, I am sure no white people ever claim they were fired for BS reasons...o wait they do as well! lol

I once has a white man tell me and my boss that I fired him because I was afraid he would take my job one day....and threatened to sue

Too bad so sad for him. Not only did I document all his performance reviews (with his own comments admitting to bad behavior) but I had video of his drunk work shifts I had to send him home from..

Being a good leader means you can back your decisions, period


Quoting quickbooksworm:

I have never been nervous to fire a minority for doing shit work. I even fired a pregnant woman once (for good reason).



I've never cared for this man.  Or Sharpton, for that matter.

Question.  Help me out.  I'm tired.

Our tax dollars go to this man's charities............how, exactly?

FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Aug. 17, 2013 at 9:39 PM
1 mom liked this

Blanket statements are hard to make when it comes to individual circumstances.

I do recall, this past year..................

A former employee, a hispanic man, was fired for being late on a consistent basis, for missing work too much and poor work showing.

It took over a year of putting up with this man in order for the paperwork to be enough so that he could not come back claiming any type of discrimination.

Another man, a white man, fell in to this lazy line of work ethic as well.  Four months later he was sent packing.

Now, if the 'rumors' are true, the hispanice man claimed he would cry discrimination if he was EVER fired.  So, of course, the company wanted to ensure they had enough on him, all I's dotted and T's crossed.  

That time cost the company a hell of a lot of money and time, babysitting, and ensuring they could scrap this man without worry.

Carpy
by Ruby Member on Aug. 17, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Tax exempt and used rainbow/push money for personal gain, and LOTS of it, including shutting up the mother of his illegitimate child.

Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting Carpy:


Rev. Jackson's extortion racket
by Paul Campos
Rocky Mountain News

Anyone interested in how the American civil rights movement has largely degenerated into a series of shakedown schemes that would make the Mafia blush needs to read Jesse Jackson's recent interview in the Chicago Sun-Times.

The interview itself is one of those texts that, like Shakespeare and the Bible, should be read more than once. No single reading can do justice to the picture of hypocrisy, greed, megalomania and corruption the Rev. Jackson unwittingly paints when discussing his increasingly tangled affairs. Here are some highlights:

Last year, Jackson billed the charities he controls $614,000 for "travel expenses." When asked to explain this extraordinary figure, he says that he often spends more than 200 days per year traveling on charitable business. Yet even if we make the charitable assumption that this figure doesn't include any direct padding of Jackson's self-reported $430,000 annual income, this still works out to nearly $3,000 per day.

Do the contributors to Jackson's charities (who include everyone who pays taxes) realize the reverend claims to spend the bulk of his working days traveling in a style that would embarrass the Rolling Stones?

In recent years, Jackson has spent much of his time opposing mergers in the broadcast and telecommunications industries -- mergers that require federal approval. The Sun-Times explains that Jackson "withholds his approval until the companies meet his demands for greater minority participation."

On a remarkable number of occasions, "minority participation" ends up meaning "Jesse Jackson's friends and business associates." For example, Jackson opposed the CBS-Viacom merger, but let it be known that his opposition would disappear if Viacom were to sell its UPN network to Chester Davenport or Percy Sutton, both long-time friends of his.

The Sun-Times reports "Jackson also blocked the SBC-Ameritech merger until Ameritech agreed to sell part of its cellular phone business to a minority owner, who turned out to be Davenport." "The price you pay for our support," Jackson says, "is to include us."

Of course the reverend wants people to think he means "the African-American community" when he refers to "us." A mountain of evidence suggests the pronoun should be given a somewhat more limited meaning. (In yet another example of what Jackson means by the politics of inclusion, his Citizenship Education Fund has gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from telecommunications companies whose mergers he initially opposed.)

Charity, as they say, begins at home. One of Jackson's highest-profile boycotts was of Anheuser-Busch. Three years ago, Anheuser-Busch's warm feelings for the Jackson family overflowed to the point where the corporation gave Jackson's sons a beer distributorship.

When the Sun-Times asks if there might be any connection between the boycott and the awarding of the distributorship the reverend becomes mightily offended. "If Bush is qualified to run the country, they are qualified to run a beer distributorship" he thunders, employing a typically spurious bit of illogical demagoguery. "They should not be profiled or otherwise suggestions dropped that they are less than able to do what they do. That is very insulting to me. Very insulting."

This is a truly priceless bit of racialist bluster. Notice Jackson doesn't even bother to deny that the distributorship was a payoff. Instead, he switches the topic to the racially loaded question of whether his sons were "qualified." Qualified for what -- to join their father in enjoying the fruits of the racial protection racket? There's no need to feel insulted, Reverend: Nobody doubts they were.

There is much more along these lines, including details of how Illinois' Republican Gov. George Ryan appears to have bought Jackson's political support. All this leads to a simple question: How can a man who at this point retains all the moral authority of a professional extortionist continue to hold himself out as one of America's political and spiritual leaders?

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be contacted at paul.campos@colorado.edu.

March 13, 2001

**And here's a link to the column in the Chicago Sun-Times that he refers to: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/jesse08x.html

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

In other words , you can find no evidence of your assertion

You manage to post all over cafemom during your move...even posting this article

Yet you can find zero stories backing up your claim

That's what I thought


Quoting Carpy:

Right now I am in the midst of trying to move half a million fireworks from an old restaurant building that was serving as my warehouse and stuff them all over my store so we can tear it down and build a new store. I am sure you can Google.



Quoting sweet-a-kins:Please provide sources showing Al or Jesse doing this getting involved because someone was falsely saying they were fired for their race



Quoting Carpy:Nope.



Quoting sweet-a-kins:A lie of course



And a tired one at that







Quoting Carpy:Until Jackson and Sharpton step in.





Quoting sweet-a-kins:

for 12 years I hired and fired people. I never worried about firing any race or sex because they were ALWAYS backed with the correct paperword

I guess lazy people who don't handle their business properly may not like it, they actually have to abide by laws...

and OP, I am sure no white people ever claim they were fired for BS reasons...o wait they do as well! lol

I once has a white man tell me and my boss that I fired him because I was afraid he would take my job one day....and threatened to sue

Too bad so sad for him. Not only did I document all his performance reviews (with his own comments admitting to bad behavior) but I had video of his drunk work shifts I had to send him home from..

Being a good leader means you can back your decisions, period


Quoting quickbooksworm:

I have never been nervous to fire a minority for doing shit work. I even fired a pregnant woman once (for good reason).



I've never cared for this man.  Or Sharpton, for that matter.

Question.  Help me out.  I'm tired.

Our tax dollars go to this man's charities............how, exactly?


Minnow Slayer

sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Aug. 17, 2013 at 10:18 PM
And again I say you can find no evidence of them protesting because someone got fired falsely because of race

You presented an article where Jackson is being discussed as being opposed to the mergers of large buniness...

You fail an fail hard lately


Quoting Carpy:



Rev. Jackson's extortion racket

by Paul Campos

Rocky Mountain News


Anyone interested in how the American civil rights movement has largely
degenerated into a series of shakedown schemes that would make the Mafia
blush needs to read Jesse Jackson's recent interview in the Chicago
Sun-Times.


The interview itself is one of those texts that, like Shakespeare and the
Bible, should be read more than once. No single reading can do justice to
the picture of hypocrisy, greed, megalomania and corruption the Rev. Jackson
unwittingly paints when discussing his increasingly tangled affairs. Here
are some highlights:


Last year, Jackson billed the charities he controls $614,000 for "travel
expenses." When asked to explain this extraordinary figure, he says that he
often spends more than 200 days per year traveling on charitable business.
Yet even if we make the charitable assumption that this figure doesn't
include any direct padding of Jackson's self-reported $430,000 annual
income, this still works out to nearly $3,000 per day.


Do the contributors to Jackson's charities (who include everyone who pays
taxes) realize the reverend claims to spend the bulk of his working days
traveling in a style that would embarrass the Rolling Stones?


In recent years, Jackson has spent much of his time opposing mergers in the
broadcast and telecommunications industries -- mergers that require federal
approval. The Sun-Times explains that Jackson "withholds his approval until
the companies meet his demands for greater minority participation."


On a remarkable number of occasions, "minority participation" ends up
meaning "Jesse Jackson's friends and business associates." For example,
Jackson opposed the CBS-Viacom merger, but let it be known that his
opposition would disappear if Viacom were to sell its UPN network to Chester
Davenport or Percy Sutton, both long-time friends of his.


The Sun-Times reports "Jackson also blocked the SBC-Ameritech merger until
Ameritech agreed to sell part of its cellular phone business to a minority
owner, who turned out to be Davenport." "The price you pay for our support,"
Jackson says, "is to include us."


Of course the reverend wants people to think he means "the African-American
community" when he refers to "us." A mountain of evidence suggests the
pronoun should be given a somewhat more limited meaning. (In yet another
example of what Jackson means by the politics of inclusion, his Citizenship
Education Fund has gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from
telecommunications companies whose mergers he initially opposed.)


Charity, as they say, begins at home. One of Jackson's highest-profile
boycotts was of Anheuser-Busch. Three years ago, Anheuser-Busch's warm
feelings for the Jackson family overflowed to the point where the
corporation gave Jackson's sons a beer distributorship.


When the Sun-Times asks if there might be any connection between the boycott
and the awarding of the distributorship the reverend becomes mightily
offended. "If Bush is qualified to run the country, they are qualified to
run a beer distributorship" he thunders, employing a typically spurious bit
of illogical demagoguery. "They should not be profiled or otherwise
suggestions dropped that they are less than able to do what they do. That is
very insulting to me. Very insulting."


This is a truly priceless bit of racialist bluster. Notice Jackson doesn't
even bother to deny that the distributorship was a payoff. Instead, he
switches the topic to the racially loaded question of whether his sons were
"qualified." Qualified for what -- to join their father in enjoying the
fruits of the racial protection racket? There's no need to feel insulted,
Reverend: Nobody doubts they were.


There is much more along these lines, including details of how Illinois'
Republican Gov. George Ryan appears to have bought Jackson's political
support. All this leads to a simple question: How can a man who at this
point retains all the moral authority of a professional extortionist
continue to hold himself out as one of America's political and spiritual
leaders?


Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be
contacted at paul.campos@colorado.edu.


March 13, 2001


**And here's a link to the column in the Chicago Sun-Times that he
refers to:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/jesse08x.html

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

In other words , you can find no evidence of your assertion



You manage to post all over cafemom during your move...even posting this article



Yet you can find zero stories backing up your claim



That's what I thought




Quoting Carpy:

Right now I am in the midst of trying to move half a million fireworks from an old restaurant building that was serving as my warehouse and stuff them all over my store so we can tear it down and build a new store. I am sure you can Google.





Quoting sweet-a-kins:Please provide sources showing Al or Jesse doing this getting involved because someone was falsely saying they were fired for their race





Quoting Carpy:Nope.





Quoting sweet-a-kins:A lie of course





And a tired one at that











Quoting Carpy:Until Jackson and Sharpton step in.








Quoting sweet-a-kins:

for 12 years I hired and fired people. I never worried about firing any race or sex because they were ALWAYS backed with the correct paperword

I guess lazy people who don't handle their business properly may not like it, they actually have to abide by laws...

and OP, I am sure no white people ever claim they were fired for BS reasons...o wait they do as well! lol

I once has a white man tell me and my boss that I fired him because I was afraid he would take my job one day....and threatened to sue

Too bad so sad for him. Not only did I document all his performance reviews (with his own comments admitting to bad behavior) but I had video of his drunk work shifts I had to send him home from..

Being a good leader means you can back your decisions, period


Quoting quickbooksworm:

I have never been nervous to fire a minority for doing shit work. I even fired a pregnant woman once (for good reason).



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Aug. 17, 2013 at 10:19 PM
He is a disgusting pig of a man

Now show me where he did what you said pertaining to employee fired for race


Quoting Carpy:

Tax exempt and used rainbow/push money for personal gain, and LOTS of it, including shutting up the mother of his illegitimate child.

Quoting FromAtoZ:


Quoting Carpy:



Rev. Jackson's extortion racket

by Paul Campos

Rocky Mountain News


Anyone interested in how the American civil rights movement has largely
degenerated into a series of shakedown schemes that would make the Mafia
blush needs to read Jesse Jackson's recent interview in the Chicago
Sun-Times.


The interview itself is one of those texts that, like Shakespeare and the
Bible, should be read more than once. No single reading can do justice to
the picture of hypocrisy, greed, megalomania and corruption the Rev. Jackson
unwittingly paints when discussing his increasingly tangled affairs. Here
are some highlights:


Last year, Jackson billed the charities he controls $614,000 for "travel
expenses." When asked to explain this extraordinary figure, he says that he
often spends more than 200 days per year traveling on charitable business.
Yet even if we make the charitable assumption that this figure doesn't
include any direct padding of Jackson's self-reported $430,000 annual
income, this still works out to nearly $3,000 per day.


Do the contributors to Jackson's charities (who include everyone who pays
taxes) realize the reverend claims to spend the bulk of his working days
traveling in a style that would embarrass the Rolling Stones?


In recent years, Jackson has spent much of his time opposing mergers in the
broadcast and telecommunications industries -- mergers that require federal
approval. The Sun-Times explains that Jackson "withholds his approval until
the companies meet his demands for greater minority participation."


On a remarkable number of occasions, "minority participation" ends up
meaning "Jesse Jackson's friends and business associates." For example,
Jackson opposed the CBS-Viacom merger, but let it be known that his
opposition would disappear if Viacom were to sell its UPN network to Chester
Davenport or Percy Sutton, both long-time friends of his.


The Sun-Times reports "Jackson also blocked the SBC-Ameritech merger until
Ameritech agreed to sell part of its cellular phone business to a minority
owner, who turned out to be Davenport." "The price you pay for our support,"
Jackson says, "is to include us."


Of course the reverend wants people to think he means "the African-American
community" when he refers to "us." A mountain of evidence suggests the
pronoun should be given a somewhat more limited meaning. (In yet another
example of what Jackson means by the politics of inclusion, his Citizenship
Education Fund has gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from
telecommunications companies whose mergers he initially opposed.)


Charity, as they say, begins at home. One of Jackson's highest-profile
boycotts was of Anheuser-Busch. Three years ago, Anheuser-Busch's warm
feelings for the Jackson family overflowed to the point where the
corporation gave Jackson's sons a beer distributorship.


When the Sun-Times asks if there might be any connection between the boycott
and the awarding of the distributorship the reverend becomes mightily
offended. "If Bush is qualified to run the country, they are qualified to
run a beer distributorship" he thunders, employing a typically spurious bit
of illogical demagoguery. "They should not be profiled or otherwise
suggestions dropped that they are less than able to do what they do. That is
very insulting to me. Very insulting."


This is a truly priceless bit of racialist bluster. Notice Jackson doesn't
even bother to deny that the distributorship was a payoff. Instead, he
switches the topic to the racially loaded question of whether his sons were
"qualified." Qualified for what -- to join their father in enjoying the
fruits of the racial protection racket? There's no need to feel insulted,
Reverend: Nobody doubts they were.


There is much more along these lines, including details of how Illinois'
Republican Gov. George Ryan appears to have bought Jackson's political
support. All this leads to a simple question: How can a man who at this
point retains all the moral authority of a professional extortionist
continue to hold himself out as one of America's political and spiritual
leaders?


Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be
contacted at paul.campos@colorado.edu.


March 13, 2001


**And here's a link to the column in the Chicago Sun-Times that he
refers to:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/jesse08x.html

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

In other words , you can find no evidence of your assertion



You manage to post all over cafemom during your move...even posting this article



Yet you can find zero stories backing up your claim



That's what I thought




Quoting Carpy:

Right now I am in the midst of trying to move half a million fireworks from an old restaurant building that was serving as my warehouse and stuff them all over my store so we can tear it down and build a new store. I am sure you can Google.





Quoting sweet-a-kins:Please provide sources showing Al or Jesse doing this getting involved because someone was falsely saying they were fired for their race





Quoting Carpy:Nope.





Quoting sweet-a-kins:A lie of course





And a tired one at that











Quoting Carpy:Until Jackson and Sharpton step in.








Quoting sweet-a-kins:

for 12 years I hired and fired people. I never worried about firing any race or sex because they were ALWAYS backed with the correct paperword

I guess lazy people who don't handle their business properly may not like it, they actually have to abide by laws...

and OP, I am sure no white people ever claim they were fired for BS reasons...o wait they do as well! lol

I once has a white man tell me and my boss that I fired him because I was afraid he would take my job one day....and threatened to sue

Too bad so sad for him. Not only did I document all his performance reviews (with his own comments admitting to bad behavior) but I had video of his drunk work shifts I had to send him home from..

Being a good leader means you can back your decisions, period


Quoting quickbooksworm:

I have never been nervous to fire a minority for doing shit work. I even fired a pregnant woman once (for good reason).



I've never cared for this man.  Or Sharpton, for that matter.

Question.  Help me out.  I'm tired.

Our tax dollars go to this man's charities............how, exactly?


Posted on CafeMom Mobile
sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Aug. 17, 2013 at 10:21 PM
You don't know what happened as its rumor

However I would say the company is at fault for not having their shit together from the beginning


Quoting FromAtoZ:

Blanket statements are hard to make when it comes to individual circumstances.

I do recall, this past year..................

A former employee, a hispanic man, was fired for being late on a consistent basis, for missing work too much and poor work showing.

It took over a year of putting up with this man in order for the paperwork to be enough so that he could not come back claiming any type of discrimination.

Another man, a white man, fell in to this lazy line of work ethic as well.  Four months later he was sent packing.

Now, if the 'rumors' are true, the hispanice man claimed he would cry discrimination if he was EVER fired.  So, of course, the company wanted to ensure they had enough on him, all I's dotted and T's crossed.  

That time cost the company a hell of a lot of money and time, babysitting, and ensuring they could scrap this man without worry.

Posted on CafeMom Mobile
joey125
by Silver Member on Aug. 17, 2013 at 11:03 PM
1 mom liked this

That is true about most federal workers, regardless of race,   they cannot be fired that easily .

RandRMomma
by Maya on Aug. 18, 2013 at 1:43 AM
1 mom liked this
That would require that people see you for who you are, and not judge you based off the color of your skin.

Quoting mamavalor:

So sad for the future of our nation.  What happened to getting the job based on merit?

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN