• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Highly successful SF election manager fired for being white

Warp12 said:
Yeah, his job is on the line because he is white. To pretend otherwise is completely disingenuous. Imagine if the scenario were reversed.
Click to expand...

Hercules56 said:
If he was not white his contract would have been automatically renewed
Click to expand...

As much as it pains me to agree with Warp about anything, in this case I have to agree with both him and Hercules56. The Committee's own statements make the motivation clear. I wouldn't be surprised to hear this decision is reversed or that a lawsuit is filed.
 
Stacyhs said:
As much as it pains me to agree with Warp about anything, in this case I have to agree with both him and Hercules56. The Committee's own statements make the motivation clear. I wouldn't be surprised to hear this decision is reversed or that a lawsuit is filed.
Click to expand...
Looks like clear grounds for a Civil Rights Act lawsuit
 
I cannot find a reason that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not apply. Unless he's on a 1099 versus W-2

ETA if his boss whose making this decision is also white, why doesn't he or she resign and suggest a person of another race take their position?
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
As much as it pains me to agree with Warp about anything, in this case I have to agree with both him and Hercules56. The Committee's own statements make the motivation clear. I wouldn't be surprised to hear this decision is reversed or that a lawsuit is filed.
Click to expand...

That's the part that bothers me as well. You can't admit that you're doing it purely for racial reasons and then say that you're not being discriminatory because he can still apply. Disingenuous semantics at it's best.
 
Thirded. It can be hard with all the times things like this have been claimed without merit, but the information we have on this case does appear to be some grade-A stupid with grade-C good intentions.
 
There might be more to this story about the job? Isn't it kind of weird to have the exact same position for 20 years, have great reviews, and just have done the same job for 20 years? No aspirations to do something similar for LA or the state or federal level? No desire to demonstrate that you trained your successor?

From a private sector management perspective, there could totally be reasons you want to open the position to have potential directors develop into good directors to then move on to more senior positions, despite the current director doing an excellent, but stagnant job.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
There might be more to this story about the job? Isn't it kind of weird to have the exact same position for 20 years, have great reviews, and just have done the same job for 20 years? No aspirations to do something similar for LA or the state or federal level? No desire to demonstrate that you trained your successor?

From a private sector management perspective, there could totally be reasons you want to open the position to have potential directors develop into good directors to then move on to more senior positions, despite the current director doing an excellent, but stagnant job.
Click to expand...


They directly stated that it had nothing to do with his job performance and that they were potentially replacing him because of their racial equity policy. I mean, just typing that is ludicrous...but, true.

I don't know how it could be much clearer. There is nothing to interpret.
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
They directly stated that it had nothing to do with his job performance and that they were potentially replacing him because of their racial equity policy. I mean, just typing is ludicrous...but, true.

I don't know how it could be much clearer. There is nothing to interpret.
Click to expand...

...As I said, doing the same job well for 20 years means you did a good job....but they can find issue with the fact you haven't had any ambition beyond that position.
 
BobTheCoward said:
...As I said, doing the same job well for 20 years means you did a good job....but they can find issue with the fact you haven't had any ambition beyond that position.
Click to expand...

If that was indeed a major reason for opening the job up to other applicants, it certainly seems valid. But (assuming the reporting is accurate), that's not what they said. We can only go by what they themselves are claiming.

I see no reason not to say so if that was the reason; it makes more sense then the version we're getting.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
If that was indeed a major reason for opening the job up to other applicants, it certainly seems valid. But (assuming the reporting is accurate), that's not what they said. We can only go by what they themselves are claiming.

I see no reason not to say so if that was the reason; it makes more sense then the version we're getting.
Click to expand...

If you were going to force open a leadership position up for more diverse candidates, the stagnant one might be the best choice? For most positions, you can do it with normal turnover. In general, you wouldn't have to let someone go to do it because ideally their career would advance this past the position.


Anyway, the overall point is the 20 year position seems really odd and makes me wonder how it is structured and if it is contributing to the conflict.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
If you were going to force open a leadership position up for more diverse candidates, the stagnant one might be the best choice? For most positions, you can do it with normal turnover. In general, you wouldn't have to let someone go to do it because ideally their career would advance this past the position.


Anyway, the overall point is the 20 year position seems really odd and makes me wonder how it is structured and if it is contributing to the conflict.
Click to expand...

I understand the purpose of opening up a position to new candidates; my point is that it makes no sense to handle it this way if that was the goal.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Anyway, the overall point is the 20 year position seems really odd and makes me wonder how it is structured and if it is contributing to the conflict.
Click to expand...

It sounds to me you have a poor understanding of how organisations work in the real world. One of the main problems in businesses is where people, after years of holding down a position for many years and performed exceptionally, are then promoted to positions they can’t properly handle.

Organisations of good standing have well developed succession plans, know more or less where an employee is best placed in the organisation and leaves that employee be. Your assumption that a person who doesn’t seek continued promotion is lacking ambition is faulty.

In the absence of any other information, Arntz looks like he has been treated badly.
 
smartcooky said:
- The part about being let go "because he's white"? -- a complete and utter lie, and by repeating it in the title of this thread, you are carrying water for Faux News, and helping to enable their racist agenda.

- The part about Arntz being up for consideration if he wishes to apply? -- left out because the above lie would not work if it was left in.


Let that be a lesson to you Hercules56... never, ever take anything you see, read or hear from Faux News at face value. They will twist, make stuff up, deliberately leave out information and lie in order to spin stories to comply with their right wing extremist politics. Consider everything thing you see there as if the source was something like "Stormfront" or "The Daily Stormer"
Click to expand...

This post is going to age poorly.
 
Darat said:
...Within two hours, the school board had voted to fire the district’s first Black superintendent...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...-county-school-board-superintendent-rcna57528
Click to expand...


Did they announce that they weren't firing him because of his job performance, but because of the color of his skin and in the name of their racial equity policy? Had he been on the job and performing in an outstanding manner for 20 years?

I mean, I get your post, but the situation is not comparable...even if some may consider it quite outrageous. Perhaps that fellow has potential grounds for a lawsuit, as well.

What makes this situation so outrageous is the official announcement that they are putting his job to market because he is white. Like, they said directly that it isn't because of his job-related performance or any such thing...that it is based upon race. They could have found any number of reasons...but they officially announced this one.
 
Last edited:
Reading is fundamental, folks.

The Berkeley County school situation is not analogous to the OP.
 
lionking said:
It sounds to me you have a poor understanding of how organisations work in the real world. One of the main problems in businesses is where people, after years of holding down a position for many years and performed exceptionally, are then promoted to positions they can’t properly handle.

Organisations of good standing have well developed succession plans, know more or less where an employee is best placed in the organisation and leaves that employee be. Your assumption that a person who doesn’t seek continued promotion is lacking ambition is faulty.

In the absence of any other information, Arntz looks like he has been treated badly.
Click to expand...

A) all true

B) 20 years is extreme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom