Highly successful SF election manager fired for being white

[Hercules56]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks its just for this guy to lose his job so a non-white can get the position, his great credentials be damned.

Anyone?

 

[arayder]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks its just for this guy to lose his job so a non-white can get the position, his great credentials be damned.

Anyone?

He's 57. If he keeps healthy and stays focused these next few years could be some of his best on the job. I'd think the county would want to cherish those years.

Plus this is cruel. He's 57 and he gave then 20 years of service. He's probably not going to start a new career now.

 

[plague311]

I'm curious if anyone here thinks its just for this guy to lose his job so a non-white can get the position, his great credentials be damned.

Anyone?

I'd say I'll probably wait for that to happen before I get all butthurt about it. It's funny because the same right-wingers that piss and moan about how lefties jump to conclusions all the time, are the same ones chicken littling this case so hard.

Here's a question, what if he gets the job again? What if, literally, nothing changes? They go through the process, they evaluate the candidates, and they decide that Arntz is the right man for the job.

Then what?

 

[Warp12]

Here's a question, what if he gets the job again? What if, literally, nothing changes? They go through the process, they evaluate the candidates, and they decide that Arntz is the right man for the job.

Then what?

Then they still announced his job was up for grabs because of his race.

Still unacceptable, believe it or not.

 

[plague311]

Then they still announced his job was up for grabs because of his race.

Still unacceptable, believe it or not.

Ok, and? Then what? Lets say we all agree with that statement. Now what? Where do we go from here? Is that the end of the thread? Can we shut it down or do you need everyone to say it?

 

[arayder]

Ok, from the other side of the fence.

Let's suppose they call a meeting of county officials and when the HR folks walk into the room they are shocked that they didn't realize before the meeting that the room would be full of old white guys.

They freak.

They jump the county commission about it and they don't respond well either.

Nobody seems to have the sense to ask about the existing policy and whether it is being applied or is "open" enough. Nobody asks if the rumor mill says any of the old white guys plan to retire, soon, at which point they can make sure some diversity is encouraged.

They just start lopping heads.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Then they still announced his job was up for grabs because of his race.

Still unacceptable, believe it or not.

Why do you think it is his job when the contract is up?

 

[Darat]

I'd say I'll probably wait for that to happen before I get all butthurt about it. It's funny because the same right-wingers that piss and moan about how lefties jump to conclusions all the time, are the same ones chicken littling this case so hard.

Here's a question, what if he gets the job again? What if, literally, nothing changes? They go through the process, they evaluate the candidates, and they decide that Arntz is the right man for the job.

Then what?

Probably will have cost them a lot to find and interview potential candidates.

 

[lobosrul5]

That's a good point. I don't think there is any doubt that the reason his contract is not being renewed is because he is white, it is clearly discrimination based on race, which if he were an employee I am certain would be illegal. They are going to get away with it because he was a fixed-term contractor, so he hasn't been sacked nor fired, his contract has ended.

In the UK he would have been treated as an employee because he'd been awarded a new contract each time the contract ended on a nod, and it is obviously employment by any other name. But I suspect the USA and the state he is in doesn't have that type of employment right?

Look up Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yes he his protected in the USA and it does apply to state and local government employees.

 

[arayder]

Probably will have cost them a lot to find and interview potential candidates.

I know a law firm that has worked from years to be inclusive. They have a reputation for open, honest, fair and inclusive hiring and promotion practices.

They worked at it.

I am not saying the San Francisco County folks are the opposite, but it sounds to me like they have just decided to be woke inclusive and really don't have the chops.

 

[plague311]

Probably will have cost them a lot to find and interview potential candidates.

Absolutely. In no way am I saying it was a fiscally intelligent decision.

Look up Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yes he his protected in the USA and it does apply to state and local government employees.

To save others some time, here it is:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity) or religion.

Which is ******* useless to bring up. He's not being fired, terminated, or his position eliminated because he's white. His contract is just simply not being renewed before they interview a pool of candidates. Which, if he so desires, he can be apart of.

The only possibility for a lawsuit would be under what Darat posted before:

...Williams’ Berkeley colleague, David Oppenheimer, is the director of the Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law. He says that the Elections Commission potentially cocked up even if you don’t consider the gender and racial element. In many positions, both in the private and the public sector, there is a “presumption of renewal” for employees who are performing at a high level. And the Elections Commission, in both 2020 and 2021, commended Arntz for his excellent work. ...

No one is saying Arntz can't have the position because he's white. He isn't being fired for being white. His contract isn't being renewed by default because they're doing that racial plan thing. If he wants to sue, let him, but he's got about a 50/50 chance at success, in my very non-legal opinion.

 

[Brainster]

I'd say I'll probably wait for that to happen before I get all butthurt about it. It's funny because the same right-wingers that piss and moan about how lefties jump to conclusions all the time, are the same ones chicken littling this case so hard.

Here's a question, what if he gets the job again? What if, literally, nothing changes? They go through the process, they evaluate the candidates, and they decide that Arntz is the right man for the job.

Then what?

Then every liberal in the city pisses and moans about how it was all a charade, that in the end they did not value diversity enough because they kept the white guy. It seems far more likely that the elections commission reverses the decision.

 

[lobosrul5]

Absolutely. In no way am I saying it was a fiscally intelligent decision.



To save others some time, here it is:



Which is ******* useless to bring up. He's not being fired, terminated, or his position eliminated because he's white. His contract is just simply not being renewed before they interview a pool of candidates. Which, if he so desires, he can be apart of.

The only possibility for a lawsuit would be under what Darat posted before:

...Williams’ Berkeley colleague, David Oppenheimer, is the director of the Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law. He says that the Elections Commission potentially cocked up even if you don’t consider the gender and racial element. In many positions, both in the private and the public sector, there is a “presumption of renewal” for employees who are performing at a high level. And the Elections Commission, in both 2020 and 2021, commended Arntz for his excellent work. ...

No one is saying Arntz can't have the position because he's white. He isn't being fired for being white. His contract isn't being renewed by default because they're doing that racial plan thing. If he wants to sue, let him, but he's got about a 50/50 chance at success, in my very non-legal opinion.

I'm sure there's case law on this very issue*. But I'd be very surprised if it's not 100% opposite of your claims. Saying we're not renewing your contract and you can apply is no different than letting an at-will employee go and saying, well you can always reapply. This commission ****** up by literally saying they aren't renewing due to race.

Really think about if this had been a Jackson, Mississipi black city employee being told, we'd prefer a white guy so we're not renewing your employment contract, but you can always reapply. What would you think then?

*In fact you quoted a law professor essentially saying that

 

[Darat]

Look up Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yes he his protected in the USA and it does apply to state and local government employees.

That’s the crucial point? A contractor in the UK would not be considered an employee, therefore most of the anti-discrimination laws that apply to hiring and firing people don’t apply to contractors.

 

[Darat]

I'm sure there's case law on this very issue*. But I'd be very surprised if it's not 100% opposite of your claims. Saying we're not renewing your contract and you can apply is no different than letting an at-will employee go and saying, well you can always reapply. This commission ****** up by literally saying they aren't renewing due to race.

Really think about if this had been a Jackson, Mississipi black city employee being told, we'd prefer a white guy so we're not renewing your employment contract, but you can always reapply. What would you think then?
*In fact you quoted a law professor essentially saying that

But no one is saying this isn’t racial discrimination? The only bone of contention is whether he should legally be considered an employee or a contractor and what laws then apply.

 

[plague311]

I'm sure there's case law on this very issue*. But I'd be very surprised if it's not 100% opposite of your claims. Saying we're not renewing your contract and you can apply is no different than letting an at-will employee go and saying, well you can always reapply. This commission ****** up by literally saying they aren't renewing due to race.

It's not the same thing, but I'm not going to argue with you. I've kind of reached the end of my giving a **** about something happening in a state that I don't live in, in a city I never want to go to, for elections I'll never participate in. If you think he has a legitimate case for a lawsuit, then we'll see what happens. I don't. That's it. We disagree.

Really think about if this had been a Jackson, Mississipi black city employee being told, we'd prefer a white guy so we're not renewing your employment contract, but you can always reapply. What would you think then?

I don't have to think about some "what if" scenario when there's a scenario right here. I don't have to create random circumstances to imagine something that's happening in reality. The city, also, didn't say they "preferred a" person of color. They said they were pursuing, what appears to me, to be a policy to give everyone a shot at a leadership position. I don't agree with the way they're doing it, how they phrased it, or their methods, but I'm not involved. So...there you go.

*In fact you quoted a law professor essentially saying that

even if you don’t consider the gender and racial element

Sure, if you ignore the part where he's saying "remove the racial element from the equation" then, yes, you're absolutely right.

 

[lobosrul5]

That’s the crucial point? A contractor in the UK would not be considered an employee, therefore most of the anti-discrimination laws that apply to hiring and firing people don’t apply to contractors.

UK and USA employment is different. Most employees in the USA are "at will". Union and some higher end employees have an employement contract. Federal protections apply to all of them. As I understand it, at will employment barely exists in Europe/UK as a whole. Essentially no union workers would have federal protections if only at will employees are covered.

Then there are contractors, which fall under different tax law, 1099 versus W2. They are a business and have fewer rights. There's been a big stink in recent years of miscategorizing employees as 1099 contractors... See Uber.

I'd be very surprised if this guy is a 1099 contractor.

Kind of outside the scope of this thread but a 1099 is essentially a business doing work for a person or another business. In fact in my state you have to register as a business to do 1099 work.

 

[lobosrul5]

Sure, if you ignore the part where he's saying "remove the racial element from the equation" then, yes, you're absolutely right.

.... No he said even if you remove the gender and race issue they cocked up.

 

[Bob001]

Taking a step back, generally speaking, is there a problem with opening a new government contract to public bidding? Some of the worst government financial scandals have resulted from "no bid" or "sole source" contracts, where officials have given contracts to their friends or campaign contributors under the table. Why shouldn't this be a transparent, public process? This guy might be the best candidate and might deserve to keep his post. But is he really the only guy in the country qualified to do the work?

 

[Bob001]

He's 57. If he keeps healthy and stays focused these next few years could be some of his best on the job. I'd think the county would want to cherish those years.

Plus this is cruel. He's 57 and he gave then 20 years of service. He's probably not going to start a new career now.

That's a weak argument: "He deserves to keep his job because he's always had his job." He's not a civil service employee. The only question county officials should be asking is what's best for the county and the citizens who elected them.