smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Highly successful SF election manager fired for being white
- Thread starter Hercules56
- Start date
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Are you ok with a contractor not being automatically renewed simply due to their race?
Well, you are correct in that an independent contractor is not covered by the civil rights act. Quite surprising, tbh...I mean it makes sense it certain contexts, but not in others. I once worked as an independent, but was still required to take direction from a manager/supervisor at the place of business, and had office space. I was not under a contract with a set term. But I can't imagine being told to hit the bricks because I was white...seems like that should not be appropriate under law.
https://www.slotelaw.com/practice-a...le-vii-does-not-apply-independent-contractors
However, I think there is going to be some question as to whether this fellow was acting as an independent contractor:
https://edd.ca.gov/siteassets/files/pdf_pub_ctr/de38.pdf
If I am reading this right, he would need to have total autonomy in order to be considered an independent contractor?
If he did, then it would seem the city is safe. Although still reeking of vinegar, water, and racism.
Last edited:
I refer my honourable friend to my previous posts on the topic.
Your posts about your experience in the UK are irrelevant. I addressed this on page one where I asked whether it was typical for US contracts to be renewed when the incumbent was performing well. In #40 Bobthecoward confirmed that this was true.
So please stop with your “this contract was merely put out for tender” nonsense. Your UK experience differs from the experience of others in the US, and also Australia for what it’s worth.
As I said throughout the thread my only point has been to ensure 1) it is discussed accurately and 2) whether them being a fixed-term contractor means they fall under the usual employment rights and protection from racial discrimination as exists in SF.
No matter which way you try to slice it their decision is a racist decision and I think they should be robustly challenged on making such a decision. Indeed perhaps their contract renewals should be looked at given their proven racism in making decisions for the LA. Even if not via legislation surely the LA has policies against people making racist decisions when deciding what contracts to award?
Please follow the links I have provided - they demonstrate that laws regarding USA contracting are pretty much in line with the UK.
You entirely ignore the point that “contracting” and “having a contract” are entirely different things. The fact of the matter is that the person this whole thread is about has had his contract renewed for 20 years. But no longer.
You are wrong.
I am wrong about what?
That he was on a fixed-term 5 year contract?
That depending on what type of contract he had he may not have the recourse an employee would for racial discrimination?
That the decision to not renew his contract was racist?
Love to know which of those 3 facts you think I am wrong about.
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Fact: if he was not white his contract would have been immediately renewed without any fanfare.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Whatever else, I think we can say maybe he wishes he hadn't been quite so successful at getting people like this elected. Imagine dedicating your career to advancing the cause of people who don't think you deserve that career.
Also, it was clever of them to wait until after the election. Use whitey up, then throw him away, has solid social justice cred. Maybe now he knows a little bit about what it's like to be a slave.
Also, it was clever of them to wait until after the election. Use whitey up, then throw him away, has solid social justice cred. Maybe now he knows a little bit about what it's like to be a slave.
Nothing to do with the post you seemed to be replying to but here goes.
The term of the contract of course - that is why it is known as a "fixed-term contract". You can and do get employees that are in fact employed on a fixed-term contract - a classic example would be extra staff taken on in retail just for the Christmas period.
This is why I have said time and time again and that you simply can't seem to understand that what laws will affect what the commission has done will be based on what type of contract he had!
Do you understand that yet?
"Poor decision" - what a feeble criticism of this racist decision. As reported it is a
terrible decision and I would go as far as saying it is a disgusting decision. I would hope that their bosses are looking at their employment and seeing if they have breached any SF policies even if they haven't legally done anything wrong. I can't believe there aren't disciplinary processes that deal with people making racist decisions.
As my links showed no they weren't.
And now - do you think you could answer the question I asked about the claim you made about my posts? I'll repeat your post here for context.
I am wrong about what?
That he was on a fixed-term 5 year contract?
That depending on what type of contract he had he may not have the recourse an employee would for racial discrimination?
That the decision to not renew his contract was racist?
Which of those facts have I been wrong about?
The term of the contract of course - that is why it is known as a "fixed-term contract". You can and do get employees that are in fact employed on a fixed-term contract - a classic example would be extra staff taken on in retail just for the Christmas period.
This is why I have said time and time again and that you simply can't seem to understand that what laws will affect what the commission has done will be based on what type of contract he had!
Do you understand that yet?
"Poor decision" - what a feeble criticism of this racist decision. As reported it is a
terrible decision and I would go as far as saying it is a disgusting decision. I would hope that their bosses are looking at their employment and seeing if they have breached any SF policies even if they haven't legally done anything wrong. I can't believe there aren't disciplinary processes that deal with people making racist decisions.
As my links showed no they weren't.
And now - do you think you could answer the question I asked about the claim you made about my posts? I'll repeat your post here for context.
I am wrong about what?
That he was on a fixed-term 5 year contract?
That depending on what type of contract he had he may not have the recourse an employee would for racial discrimination?
That the decision to not renew his contract was racist?
Which of those facts have I been wrong about?
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
technically a conclusion based on evidence, not a fact itself
Last edited:
You seem rather confused as to what his role was - it wasn't to get "people like this" whatever the "this" is elected, it was to run efficient and accurate polls according to the legal requirements for such polls.
He's been there 20 years... seems a long time to be holding on for a certain election result...
Plus which is "the" election you are talking about? The articles show that there are elections pretty much constantly given how SF is governed. So which is "the" election they waited for?
You can't call that a fact, as we can't know that unless we can rerun his 20 year tenure with someone else. I would say - it very much does seem as if that would have been the case.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Ah. Yes, I was confused. Thanks for clearing that up.
Hercules56
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2013
- Messages
- 17,176
Please stop making excuses for the inexcusable.