Law Trump administration proposes rule allowing federal contractors to fire based on race, sex, religion

[Mcountry]

This sounds like an awfully bad idea.

 

[Fawlty]

We should start a Christian Missile Builder's Guild.

 

[Confucamus]

Considering the OP’s history, it’d be wise to be skeptical of any source he uses and how he frames issues. Seek out different sources to educate yourself. There are federally protected classes of people “religion, sex, sexuality, pregnant, veteran, etc” that are not allowed to be discriminated against.

 

[Beaver Brownlee]

This is a huge win for our Muslim and Chinese contractors that have previously been held to Western standards.

 

[Amerikuracana]

If you get fired for being white, then that is illegal (racial discrimination). If you get fired for being male, then that is illegal (sex-discrimination). What you are demanding is already provided by the legal system. You just don't know that.

Reality check.. When other people get fired for ANYTHING they pretend it was discrimination. Also, "at will" jobs can allegedly fire you for no reason, but when victim status class folks get fired for nothing, guess what they are going to attribute that to? I can't say I wouldn't do the same.

There are hundreds of eeoc suits filed every day, how many do you think are filed by white males?

I understand the wording of the law, but I'm living in reality here.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Except that is how it really works

• In July 2007, the EEOC received a favorable jury verdict in its Title VII lawsuit against the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P) alleging that a Black senior manager terminated a White manager because of his race. The jury concluded the White manager was discharged solely because of his race and awarded approximately $85,000 in monetary relief. EEOC v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., C.A. No. 1:05-cv-01211-JFM (D.Md. verdict filed July 30, 2007).

Thank you for finding that outlier example, and I'm sure there are a few more.


Now back to reality.

 

[ShadBo]

You think privately black owned businesses should be forced to hire White people?

You want to live in a country where your candidacy for employment is not based on merit?

You must not be aware of the history of your country.

 

[Trotsky]

Thank you for finding that outlier example, and I'm sure there are a few more.


Now back to reality.

I don't know what you want me to tell you.

There are extremely tight rules and procedures for EEOC findings. All cases go through a fuckload of factual findings. You don't get a judgment just by filing a bad faith claim. If you are a white employee who was discriminated against, your chances are just as good as if you are a black employee who was discriminated against. In fact, I would imagine that white claimants' success rate is substantially higher since they file fewer claims

 

[Strychnine]

We've stepped into a bizarro, crazed, version of some type of insane clown dictator show!

Is this for real?!?!!?

This is BEYOND stupid.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

Well somebody needs to make it so that straight white males aren't thee only people that can be fired without reason. Period. Equal rights or it was all for nothing.

Most anyone can be fired without reason... you just have to be paid the appropriate severance.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Sounds shameful.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

If you get fired for being white, then that is illegal (racial discrimination). If you get fired for being male, then that is illegal (sex-discrimination). What you are demanding is already provided by the legal system. You just don't know that.

But I thought he was a lawyer

 

[Falsedawn]

We've stepped into a bizarro, crazed, version of some type of insane clown dictator show!

Is this for real?!?!!?

This is BEYOND stupid.

Partying like it's 1959.


....in Mississippi

 

[44nutman]

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

This dude was the last True Conservative this country ever had. The current crop are a bunch of dog whistlers that spend tax dollars like a sailor on shore leave.

 

[franklinstower]

Because of course.

The worst part is that this move, which would allow contractors who fire workers to raise the defense of religious liberty, isn't primarily religious bigotry. Primarily, it's just another giveaway to corporations and blow to worker rights.

The Department of Labor proposed a rule Wednesday allowing “religion-exercising organizations” with federal contracts to raise religious exemptions if accused of bias in their hiring practices.

The Labor Department said the proposal, which is set to officially be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, is intended to help companies “make employment decisions consistent with their sincerely held religious tenets and beliefs without fear of sanction by the federal government.”

The Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which regulates federal anti-discrimination requirements for businesses and other organizations that work with the government, said the rule applies to both religious companies as well as “closely held” groups acting in accordance with their owners’ religious beliefs and is based on past laws and court rulings detailing protections for certain groups.

“Today’s proposed rule helps to ensure the civil rights of religious employers are protected,” acting Labor Secretary Patrick Pizzella said in a statement. “As people of faith with deeply held religious beliefs are making decisions on whether to participate in federal contracting, they deserve clear understanding of their obligations and protections under the law.”

The proposal will be open for public comments until Sept. 16.

Advocacy groups have long warned that such protections intend to provide cover for groups with discriminatory hiring practices.

“The Department of Labor just proposed a rule that aims to let government contractors fire workers who are LGBTQ, or who are pregnant and unmarried, based on the employers’ religious views,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tweeted after the proposal was announced. “This is taxpayer-funded discrimination in the name of religion. Period.”

“This rule seeks to undermine our civil rights protections and encourages discrimination in the workplace — and we will work to stop it,” the group added.



https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...abor-grants-businesses-with-federal-contracts

​

Importantly, this doesn't only apply to expressly religious organization, but rather any that purports to have a religious purpose, even if it's not central to their charter:

The 46-page draft rule from the Labor Department would apply to a range of so-called religious organizations — including corporations, schools, and societies — provided that they claim a “religious purpose.”

But the Trump administration makes clear in the draft rule that a corporation needn’t focus entirely on religion to qualify, saying, “The contractor must be organized for a religious purpose, meaning that it was conceived with a self-identified religious purpose. This need not be the contractor’s only purpose.”

“A religious purpose can be shown by articles of incorporation or other founding documents, but that is not the only type of evidence that can be used,” says the rule, which grants companies many opportunities to claim that faith or morals guide their purpose.

Labor Department spokesperson Megan Sweeney confirmed to BuzzFeed News on Wednesday that the rule could protect for-profit corporations with federal contracts if they discriminate, given they make a religious claim.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...st-proposal-would-let-businesses-discriminate

​

Perhaps most concerning of all, this presents another fulcrum for the Trump Justice Department to try to force the EEOC to take their anti-worker stances in an attempt to weaponize the worker protection organization against workers like the EPA has been weaponized against the environment:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department are split on the issue. The DOJ has recently tried to pull the worker civil rights agencyinto line with its opinion.

The EEOC enforces federal anti-discrimination laws against a wide range of employers and federal contractors. The OFCCP specifically focuses on an executive order banning discrimination by contractors. Unlike Title VII, the order explicitly outlaws workplace bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

“OFCCP is consistently looking for ways to bring clarity and certainty to federal contractors, and this proposal falls squarely within that effort,” OFCCP Director Craig Leen said in an Aug. 14 statement. “The rulemaking process allows the public opportunity to comment on the proposal and impact any potential final rule.”

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily...says-religious-contractors-free-from-bias-law​

I run a religious non profit educational center. Lets say I decide to hire a receptionist at some point in the future. What would be so bad about me wanting that person to be following the same spiritual path as what is taught at the educational center? If I don't have the right to do this then potentially I could end up having to hire someone who is hostile towards what we are doing right?

Or lets say we decide to have Childcare for the kids of parents who attend out seminars, classes etc. What is wrong with me wanting that person to be following the same path as what we are teaching?

 

[Quipling]

Reality check.. When other people get fired for ANYTHING they pretend it was discrimination. Also, "at will" jobs can allegedly fire you for no reason, but when victim status class folks get fired for nothing, guess what they are going to attribute that to? I can't say I wouldn't do the same.

There are hundreds of eeoc suits filed every day, how many do you think are filed by white males?

I understand the wording of the law, but I'm living in reality here.

This is ridiculous.

Your claim was that white men aren't protected under these laws. They are. You've acknowledged they are. The courts function to protect them in a similar fashion that they protect others. One of the most famous sex-discrimination cases was discrimination against young men.

You were calling for a change in the law. It's been pointed out that the law already incorporates that change. So you retreated into "how it actually works in the real world."

Trotsky brought up a specific example in the real world of the law working in the way you claimed it didn't. There are more examples. You don't get to retreat into a defense that his example is an exception, because that requires statistics that you don't have.

At this point, maybe you should be reevaluating your beliefs about these laws and how they work instead of going back to debunked ground about "victim classes." There's no need to hang on to that kind of pet peeve.

If you're upset about bullshit lawsuits, fine, but white men file those too, including in the employment discrimination context. The law doesn't treat them differently.

 

[Trotsky]

I run a religious non profit educational center. Lets say I decide to hire a receptionist at some point in the future. What would be so bad about me wanting that person to be following the same spiritual path as what is taught at the educational center? If I don't have the right to do this then potentially I could end up having to hire someone who is hostile towards what we are doing right?

Or lets say we decide to have Childcare for the kids of parents who attend out seminars, classes etc. What is wrong with me wanting that person to be following the same path as what we are teaching?

There are already exemptions for that. It's called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).

 

[franklinstower]

There are already exemptions for that. It's called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).

Thanks for that clarification Trotsky.

 

[Ophydian]

You think privately black owned businesses should be forced to hire White people?

Businesses should not be forced to hire anyone but they should not discriminate either. No one is telling anyone to hire someone all they are saying is you cannot discriminate based on sex race or religion.

 

[Ophydian]

Businesses should not be forced to hire anyone but they should not discriminate either. No one is telling anyone to hire someone all they are saying is you cannot discriminate based on sex race or religion.

What this change does is allows corporations or privately own businesses to discriminate and be able to get away with it by claiming an exemption

Good job quoting myself