Highly successful SF election manager fired for being white

[Warp12]

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?

Nobody is saying you can't put the position up for competition. You just can't clearly state you are doing it solely because of race.

Jesus. Let me say that again. Jesus.

 

[arayder]

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.

Ok, the second part is kinda' weak. But the idea that the county is wrong to push out an experienced worker, still in his prime holds water, imho.

 

[lobosrul5]

Nobody is saying you can't put the position up for competition. You just can't clearly state you are doing it solely because of race.

Jesus. Let me say that again. Jesus.

Or gender, or religion or a few other things.

I'm gonna go out on a ledge and say this has nothing to do with diversity. He's not enacting some policy or such that the commission wants him to and his contract specifies that he can't be fired barring certain specified conditions. So, they tried to make it about diversity.

The fact that your going to improve diversity by specifically targeting this one position (a tiny drop in the bucket) instead of saying every job held by a non-diverse person will have to re-apply, makes me think this.

Any white guys on the commission I expect to resign and suggest a diverse person take their position. If its so important that you'll disrupt someone else's life but not your own, then its not really that critical now is it?

 

[Warp12]

I'm gonna go out on a ledge and say this has nothing to do with diversity. He's not enacting some policy or such that the commission wants him to and his contract specifies that he can't be fired barring certain specified conditions. So, they tried to make it about diversity.

That may be true. At the same time, would many be trying to put forth such theories if he were a minority that was told his job was up for grabs solely due to race? Absolutely not. There just seems to be this idea that there is no way a white is really going to be racially discriminated against.

This is not a criticism of your thoughts, mind you. You could be 100% correct.

 

[arayder]

Or gender, or religion or a few other things.

I'm gonna go out on a ledge and say this has nothing to do with diversity. He's not enacting some policy or such that the commission wants him to and his contract specifies that he can't be fired barring certain specified conditions. So, they tried to make it about diversity.

The fact that your going to improve diversity by specifically targeting this one position (a tiny drop in the bucket) instead of saying every job held by a non-diverse person will have to re-apply, makes me think this.

Any white guys on the commission I expect to resign and suggest a diverse person take their position. If its so important that you'll disrupt someone else's life but not your own, then its not really that critical now is it?

I wondered the same thing and hence read a bunch local newspaper articles on the case thinking the "real" problem might get mentioned, but couldn't find any such a thing.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Your personal animus is getting in the way. Please don't seek to speak for me.

I don't even know you. Like the Bible, don't take it literally.

 

[Hercules56]

So far nobody thinks this action is fair, in the name of racial equity. Good to see.

 

[sackett]

This action is fair, in the name of racial equity.

 

[TomB]

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.

I'm not certain about San Francisco or this particular position, "contract" does not always mean the same thing in every context.

For example: every teacher in the public schools is a contract employee. But they are also fully employees. They get vacation and sick leave and benefits. Same with University professors and other professional staff at major public universities. They all have contracts, usually for a one year term. Generally, the only valid reasons to not renew a contract are documented performance issues or lack of funding. (Where I work, if you don't renew the contract due to lack of funding, you cannot legally fill the position for some period of time.)

My point is that often, particularly in government, being on contract and being an employee are the same thing.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'm not certain about San Francisco or this particular position, "contract" does not always mean the same thing in every context.

For example: every teacher in the public schools is a contract employee. But they are also fully employees. They get vacation and sick leave and benefits. Same with University professors and other professional staff at major public universities. They all have contracts, usually for a one year term. Generally, the only valid reasons to not renew a contract are documented performance issues or lack of funding. (Where I work, if you don't renew the contract due to lack of funding, you cannot legally fill the position for some period of time.)

My point is that often, particularly in government, being on contract and being an employee are the same thing.

I'm guessing those contract rules are union negotiated?

 

[lobosrul5]

I'm guessing those contract rules are union negotiated?

Yes, if the teachers are unionized, and most are in public school districts. You may not be aware, but the actual contract is between the employee and employer.Legally it's not really different than an individual negotiating on their own

A union contract is a written agreement between the employer and the employees that details the terms and benefits in a clear and legally-binding way

https://www.ufcw.org/resources/how-negotiations-work/

 

[Darat]

That may be true. At the same time, would many be trying to put forth such theories if he were a minority that was told his job was up for grabs solely due to race? Absolutely not. There just seems to be this idea that there is no way a white is really going to be racially discriminated against.

This is not a criticism of your thoughts, mind you. You could be 100% correct.

Not in this thread.

 

[mgidm86]

I'm not certain about San Francisco or this particular position, "contract" does not always mean the same thing in every context.

For example: every teacher in the public schools is a contract employee. But they are also fully employees. They get vacation and sick leave and benefits. Same with University professors and other professional staff at major public universities. They all have contracts, usually for a one year term. Generally, the only valid reasons to not renew a contract are documented performance issues or lack of funding. (Where I work, if you don't renew the contract due to lack of funding, you cannot legally fill the position for some period of time.)

My point is that often, particularly in government, being on contract and being an employee are the same thing.

Really doesn't matter. They stated the exact reason his contract would not be renewed and it's due to his race. He could be an unpaid intern, makes no difference. Legal or not it was a racially motivated decision.

 

[smartcooky]

That may be true. At the same time, would many be trying to put forth such theories if he were a minority that was told his job was up for grabs solely due to race? Absolutely not. There just seems to be this idea that there is no way a white is really going to be racially discriminated against.
This is not a criticism of your thoughts, mind you. You could be 100% correct.

I have no argument with the idea that white people have been and are racially discriminated against... but it is a very, very rare thing, and in this case, its not directly against him "because he's white". To quote original SFC article, this was being done "in an effort to advance its racial equity plan". If the work force was almost exclusively Black or Latino and this man was Black, this would not have even appeared on Faux News' radar, and your comments on it would be conspicuous by their total absence.

Discrimination against white people is singular
Discrimination against Black people is systemic!

ETA: For clarity, I am all for the idea that an electoral board should fairly reflect the demographics of the district/area it represents - but this emphatically IS NOT the way to go about achieving it!

 

[Warp12]

its not directly against him "because he's white". To quote original SFC article, this was being done "in an effort to advance its racial equity plan".

Does not compute.

 

[smartcooky]

Does not compute.

Well of course it doesn't, to you, when you ignore and snip out the parts of the post that give it context

 

[Warp12]

its not directly against him "because he's white". To quote original SFC article, this was being done "in an effort to advance its racial equity plan".

Does not compute.

Well of course it doesn't, to you, when you ignore and snip out the parts of the post that give it context

I don't think there is any context that makes your statement work. I mean, it doesn't matter whether FOX would have carried the news under a different circumstance. It doesn't matter how I would theoretically respond. It doesn't even matter whether it is a systemic problem, in this case. All of that is just irrelevant noise.

We are looking at this case in isolation, and the provided reasoning given by the officials. I'm interested to see what the endgame turns out to be. Because they really screwed the pooch with their own words.

 

[Brainster]

I have no argument with the idea that white people have been and are racially discriminated against... but it is a very, very rare thing, and in this case, its not directly against him "because he's white". To quote original SFC article, this was being done "in an effort to advance its racial equity plan". If the work force was almost exclusively Black or Latino and this man was Black, this would not have even appeared on Faux News' radar, and your comments on it would be conspicuous by their total absence.

The amount of hair-splitting here is quite revealing. Suddenly it's "well, they're doing it for racial equity, not because he's white." Amazing how many dogs around here who can hear racist dog-whistles in any Republican's speech suddenly have gone deaf.

 

[Warp12]

The amount of hair-splitting here is quite revealing. Suddenly it's "well, they're doing it for racial equity, not because he's white." Amazing how many dogs around here who can hear racist dog-whistles in any Republican's speech suddenly have gone deaf.

Word.

 

[arayder]

The amount of hair-splitting here is quite revealing. Suddenly it's "well, they're doing it for racial equity, not because he's white." Amazing how many dogs around here who can hear racist dog-whistles in any Republican's speech suddenly have gone deaf.

This is the stupidest thing I have seen in a long while.

If I was one of the county commissioners I'd look down the administrative ranks below this guy (where his eventual replacement is likely to come from) and if I didn't see diversity then I'd do something.