Sotomayor, good or bad for HR?
Sharon McKnight SPHR
737 Posts
What do you think of Obama's candidate for the next Supreme Court Justice?
Sharon
Sharon
Comments
[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354041637563491.html[/URL]
I am opposed to Obama (or any president) choosing a supreme court justice solely based on race or gender. However, if she is a qualified candidate who happens to be a HIspanic female, that's great. Its a wonderful example to other younger Hispanic females in our country.
[B][URL]http://tinyurl.com/krg894[/URL][/B]
Democrat + liberal = good for employees.
Just my opinion...
Hmmm, 27 eligible black firefighters were able to take the test... so I am gonna go out on a limb and say there was not a lack of minority candidates, just a lack of minority candidates who passed with a decent score. It is unfair to those who studied for months to have their scores dismissed. When you took the PHR how would you have felt if they had said, "Nah, he is a white male - so even though he passed, he won't get the designation because too many minorities didn't pass"? It is reverse discrimination.
In this case all 3 judges ruled the same. That alone makes me wonder about the quality of the test. Either way, the city messed up. They should have made sure their test was good to start with, and if it was, stick with the results. The guy who quit his second job to study for the test only to have it thrown out has been cheated.
Just my 2 cents.
Two points:
The decision went against the union; [I]and[/I] the decision affirmed the rights of local governments.
The last time I checked, those were considered [B]conservative[/B] goals.
Another point that's probably more important... The appeals court (or even the Supreme Court) does not necessarily rule on the merits of the original case. The court frequently rules only on whether the original court/judge handled the case according to law or the constitution. The original judge in this case dismissed the white firefighters' suit, if I recall. I believe the appeals court merely upheld that the dismissal was within reason. Again - that is the opposite of judicial activism.
I don't know about this case. . but not sure it would be the city's fault.
Here, we get promotional tests from company's who specialize in testing. .
If the city "made up" the test I can agree with you, but if the city purchased it from one of these companys, in my opinion, the owness falls to them as to validity etc.
I assumed the test was probably purchased. They should have done their research before they bought the tests. If the tests are fine, then why throw them out? If not, then why buy them?
This may really come down to a good test that produced unhappy results. It may just be a city trying to avoid a lawsuit (and it didn't work). Either way, the city had an obligation to make sure they were giving a fair test.
It could be that they did their research and thought the tests would be good. If so, why are they so quick to throw out the results? We need to see some evidence that there was something they hadn't realized was in the test...something [I]anyone[/I] could have missed. It sounds like they just didn't like the results and were afraid of a lawsuit and so over-reacted. I could be wrong though. The only way to know for sure is to see the test and also to see if it has had a disparate impact when other organizations used it.
Democrat + liberal = good for employees.[/QUOTE]
By this reasoning, it follows that : good for employee = bad for HR.
That may be true if you practice HR from an administrative perspective (what is easy to administer and won't cause a lot of work for HR). But, it is not true if you practice HR from an operational perspective (what will help the organization and its work units accomplish their goals, even if it means more work for HR).
I agree that, at times, what is good for employees (e.g., a flexible schedule), may make it difficult for a supervisor to get the work done in a timely manner (e.g., manage the work force); but I truly believe that you can always find the happy medium that provides for happy employees and efficient work processes. How all of this impacts HR is not irrelevant, but it is secondary to the success of the organization.
Sorry for going off the main topic of this thread.
John Phillips has posted the first of a series of posts he'll make on Sotomeyer's background from the labor and employment perspective over at The Word on Employment Law.
[url]http://tinyurl.com/ko3vcz[/url]
That may be true if you practice HR from an administrative perspective (what is easy to administer and won't cause a lot of work for HR). But, it is not true if you practice HR from an operational perspective (what will help the organization and its work units accomplish their goals, even if it means more work for HR).
I agree that, at times, what is good for employees (e.g., a flexible schedule), may make it difficult for a supervisor to get the work done in a timely manner (e.g., manage the work force); but I truly believe that you can always find the happy medium that provides for happy employees and efficient work processes. How all of this impacts HR is not irrelevant, but it is secondary to the success of the organization.
Sorry for going off the main topic of this thread.[/quote]
David, I agree with you that finding the happy medium is the goal but I don't think how HR is impacted is irrelevant. HR generally has to be a facilitator and HR needs are usually secondary to employer/employee needs, but far from irrelevant.
Generally, if whatever the issue is doesn't work for HR then, long term, it won't work for the company or for the employee. Laws, policies, practices, etc. all have to consider how/if they can be administered. And, let's face it, HR is usually the administrator that has to make it work.
Sharon
Frank. .we are not bound by CBA but by Civil Service regulations, ordinance driven. We used to have entry level police and fire in addition to promotional exams in both departments. If you passed you got on an eligibilty list to be hired/promoted. The score was only one factor under consideration in hiring. . the lowest score could be hired and the highest not. The Chiefs successfully argued to the Civil Service Board to get rid of entry level tests. Fine with me. We still do promotional, but again, not obligated to promote the highest score.
Yesterday, I received an invite to sit in the audience for a panel discussion - starring Newt Gingrich - on how Obama's health care reform is going to destroy the country. It's being sponsored by one of our group insurance carriers. Gee... lots of credibility there.
Also, I would venture to say that many of us work for organizations that wouldn't even have an HR department if it weren't for Title VII, Equal Pay Act, FMLA, ADA, COBRA, ERISA, ADEA, EEO, etc. When it comes to legislated equality or fairness, we can choose to look at it as creating more work for us, or we can choose to look at it as creating job security for our profession.
Edited part - I also meant to say that David S. hit the nail on the head. (Sharon, re your reply to David, he said it is [I]not[/I] irrelevant to HR.)
You're absolutely correct. I probably wouldn't jump up on that soap box nearly as often if I'd just wash my contacts more frequently.
Sharon
[B][URL]http://tinyurl.com/kl5opn[/URL][/B]
[URL]http://employmentlawpost.com/theword/2009/06/29/sotomayor-reversed-by-supreme-court/[/URL]
Updated mid-day on 6/30/09: John has now posted more in-depth comments looking at a possible "new world order" for discrimination claims and diversity matters after [I]Ricci[/I] and what the ruling means for employers.
[url]http://employmentlawpost.com/theword/2009/06/30/supreme-court-rules-for-white-firefighters-in-discrimination-case/[/url]
[B][URL]http://tinyurl.com/l2xrq5[/URL][/B]