Highly successful SF election manager fired for being white

[Darat]

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.

I think they will get away with it because this is for a 5 year fixed-term contract and he is at the end of his term, so he is not being let go because he isn't "diverse" or white, rather his contract has come to an end. (I suspect there is no automatic renewal clause in his contract.)

Rather than simply award him with a new fixed term contract without any competition for the role - they are saying they are going to put it out to tender.

Here in the UK a local authority would have a legal obligation to put such a contract back out to tender at the end of the term, they wouldn't be able to give him a new contract on the nod*.



(*Of course, corruption does happen, and such contracts are awarded without due process taking place.)

 

[BobTheCoward]

I think they will get away with it because this is for a 5 year fixed-term contract and he is at the end of his term, so he is not being let go because he isn't "diverse" or white, rather his contract has come to an end. (I suspect there is no automatic renewal clause in his contract.)

Rather than simply award him with a new fixed term contract without any competition for the role - they are saying they are going to put it out to tender.

Here in the UK a local authority would have a legal obligation to put such a contract back out to tender at the end of the term, they wouldn't be able to give him a new contract on the nod*.



(*Of course, corruption does happen, and such contracts are awarded without due process taking place.)

I wonder why it is a contract and not an employee or appointment position. Maybe that informs why the council feels free to experiment?

 

[Warp12]

I think they will get away with it because this is for a 5 year fixed-term contract and he is at the end of his term, so he is not being let go because he isn't "diverse" or white, rather his contract has come to an end. .

But they literally said they are putting his job out there because of their racial equity plan. If they had simply said nothing, they would have been better off.

"Our decision wasn’t about your performance, but after twenty years we wanted to take action on the City’s racial equity plan and give people an opportunity to compete for a leadership position," the Commission’s president Chris Jerdonek wrote in an email to Arntz, according to various local news outlets.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But they literally said they are putting his job out there because of their racial equity plan. If they had simply said nothing, they would have been better off.

It isn't his job when the contract is up....so he isn't being let go

 

[Darat]

But they literally said they are putting his job out there because of their racial equity plan. If they had simply said nothing, they would have been better off.

Putting the contract out there not his job.

 

[Warp12]

Putting the contract out there not his job.

Sorry, I just can't see how one can justify this. Yes, putting the contract up is fine. But to announce it is due to race? Nope.

That is where they ****** up, by being honest. They need to learn from more experienced racists.

 

[Darat]

Sorry, I just can't see how one can justify this. Yes, putting the contract up is fine. But to announce it is due to race? Nope.

That is where they ****** up, by being honest. They need to learn from more experienced racists.

I'm not trying to justify nor excuse their decision - I was saying why I think they will get away with it without falling foul of your employment laws and human rights.

 

[Mike!]

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.

If this isn't a sign the Apocalypse is upon us, I don't know what is.

 

[Warp12]

I'm not trying to justify nor excuse their decision - I was saying why I think they will get away with it without falling foul of your employment laws and human rights.

I think they could have, easily. But they tipped their hand.

We will see. I doubt it would be in the news if there wasn't something brewing on the legal front.

 

[Darat]

Another way they may get away with it is if it is the case that all such "leadership" contracts are being put up for competition when they come to the end of their term.

 

[Warp12]

Another way they may get away with it is if it is the case that all such "leadership" contracts are being put up for competition when they come to the end of their term.

That could have worked. If they had not announced it was a decision made due to race. But it wouldn't surprise me if they manage to weasel out of being accountable, considering the social climate.

Given the same circumstances here, nobody would dare an announcement of intent/justification such as they made, with an accomplished minority in that role. I'm fairly certain.

 

[bluesjnr]

- 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"

This post is going to age poorly.

Indeed. An abject lesson in jumping the gun.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That could have worked. If they had not announced it was a decision made due to race. But it wouldn't surprise me if they manage to weasel out of being accountable, considering the social climate.

Given the same circumstances here, nobody would dare an announcement of intent/justification such as they made, with an accomplished minority in that role. I'm fairly certain.

Can we start at one end of the spectrum at work back?

Do you think a city council could be justified in considering having diverse leadership in city government improves the function of government of being representative of the citizens?

 

[Warp12]

Can we start at one end of the spectrum at work back?

Do you think a city council could be justified in considering having diverse leadership in city government improves the function of government of being representative of the citizens?

I don't think that they can justify clearly stating that they are putting someone's job up for grabs because they aren't the right color.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I don't think that they can justify clearing stating that they are putting someone's job up for grabs because they aren't the right color.

That wasn't my question...we will get there don't worry. I'm trying to figure out if you are even open to the idea that it can be considered

(also, not his job at time of contract expiration)

 

[Warp12]

That wasn't my question...we will get there don't worry. I'm trying to figure out if you are even open to the idea that it can be considered

(also, not his job at time of contract expiration)

There is no "getting there", lol. We arrived already.

 

[BobTheCoward]

There is no "getting there", lol. We arrived already.

It is a very different conversation if you think diversity in leadership can never be a goal of council or you think it can but has to be done differently, right? If I talk you you thinking you believe one of those, and you believe the other one, we are not having the same conversation.

 

[Hercules56]

Diversity in leadership is a wonderful goal. Only forcing white people to reapply for their jobs in order to achieve that goal is disgusting and a federal crime.

Instead they should use advertising and recruitment and other legal ways to expand the pool of applicants.

 

[Hercules56]

Another way they may get away with it is if it is the case that all such "leadership" contracts are being put up for competition when they come to the end of their term.

If they go full Woke, they will not apologize at all for what they have done and instead say that the goal of racial equity is a just one and all means are acceptable. Even if it means violating federal anti-discrimination law.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Diversity in leadership is a wonderful goal. Only forcing white people to reapply for their jobs in order to achieve that goal is disgusting and a federal crime.

Instead they should use advertising and recruitment and other legal ways to expand the pool of applicants.

Okay, well this appears to be a contract...it isn't his job when the contract expires is it?