BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
Except he is not getting kicked out of his job.
Highly successful SF election manager fired for being white
- Thread starter Hercules56
- Start date
Except he is not getting kicked out of his job.
Maybe, maybe, maybe. Sorry good businesses do not operate on this basis. I, and most of my fellow workers, were on contracts of one or two years. Performers always had their contracts renewed. I think my contract was renewed over a dozen times. Maybe more, as I simply assumed it would happen.
Businesses do not go out and seek other candidates just because they think they might get a better candidate. Know why? It revolves around the word “might”. Anyone who knows anything about the recruitment process knows that interviews are a poor method of selection. It gets better with aptitude tests (only in a minor way) and other techniques I won’t go into. But at the end of the day the chances you will get a better candidate is no better (and often worse) than even money.
I don’t really want to play the argument from authority card, but not only have I experienced this countless times, I did a successful Masters thesis on this.
So, no. The motive was not to “test the market” or whatever, it was to meet equity targets. Which is admirable, if it didn’t result in a good worker losing his job.
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
You're trying a tad too hard to be "controversial" now. Nobody cares what you think.
You're trying a tad too hard to be "controversial" now. Nobody cares what you think.
Your personal animus is getting in the way. Please don't seek to speak for me.
Ethan Thane Athen
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,033
I think this may be the only time I am in, at least partial, agreement with Warp and we should have the integrity to say when 'our side' gets it wrong or appears to have got it wrong.
On the evidence at hand, this looks pretty ****.
It may well be that there are good reasons, some of which have been surmised, but the reason actually given is pretty poor, as far as it goes.
I suspect there is more to it eg we are only allowed to renew contracts so many times before there is pressure (eventually a hard ruling) to go out to market to ensure fair play / haven't got too cosy a relationship with a contractor / company and I suspect there is something similar at play here. Likely an edict that as contracts come up for renewal they must be re-tendered because there may be new recruitment policies in place that weren't there originally and they want to be able to say every post goes through 'fair and open' competition etc. If the immediate contract manager is happy with this person then the reasons given may be him trying to say 'Sorry mate, not my fault and nothing to do with the quality of the work' but it was clumsily done.
So, as I say, it may not be as bad as it appears, may even be perfectly reasonable in terms of the organisation's wider policies, but, on the face of it, looks pretty bad.
On the evidence at hand, this looks pretty ****.
It may well be that there are good reasons, some of which have been surmised, but the reason actually given is pretty poor, as far as it goes.
I suspect there is more to it eg we are only allowed to renew contracts so many times before there is pressure (eventually a hard ruling) to go out to market to ensure fair play / haven't got too cosy a relationship with a contractor / company and I suspect there is something similar at play here. Likely an edict that as contracts come up for renewal they must be re-tendered because there may be new recruitment policies in place that weren't there originally and they want to be able to say every post goes through 'fair and open' competition etc. If the immediate contract manager is happy with this person then the reasons given may be him trying to say 'Sorry mate, not my fault and nothing to do with the quality of the work' but it was clumsily done.
So, as I say, it may not be as bad as it appears, may even be perfectly reasonable in terms of the organisation's wider policies, but, on the face of it, looks pretty bad.
If that is what had happened I would agree with you - but it turns out the headline of the article was misleading. He had a fixed-term contract to supply his services, the contract ended. He can if he wishes tender for the contract again, as can anyone else.
This isn't a business - the rules and practices are often very different for governments, local and national. As I mentioned if this was a LA in the UK they would have a legal duty to put the contract out to tender, they legally couldn't simply re-award him the contract.
"We're putting your job out there because you are white...but feel free to apply again."
I'm sorry, there is no way to justify this.
Last edited:
Rubbish. You have no idea of how what were once were public service enterprises are now operating as businesses.
Not that this has anything to to do with your off topic intervention into this thread which is about the the sacking of someone who is of the incorrect race,
Evidence that is the case in this situation.
You are also posting in the wrong thread - this is the one in which a fixed-term contract wasn't automatically renewed but put out to tender again.
FTFY
And again - I'm not trying to justify anything, just pointing out that it isn't accurate to say he was fired or let go, and why I think they will get away with what would be blatantly (at least I hope so) illegal racial discrimination if they had fired him or let him go because he is white.
No you are wrong. I have pointed out that contracts are often, in fact usually, renewed if the incumbent performed well.
How am I posting in the wrong thread?
Stop this bullying tactic of yours.
I have been a contractor for over 20 years, even contracted by a couple of LAs in that time, never once has a contract been automatically renewed. Indeed in the UK you have to be very careful to not do something like "automatic" renewals with a fixed term contract because then you run the risk of the person being considered an employee and you are suddenly having to give them all the benefits of being an employee; which is usually the reason to employ fixed-term contractors rather than employees in the first place.
Curiously you said my posting about the facts of this issue to be off topic but then you were posting completely off topic talking about someone who has been fired for being white - that isn't what this thread is about.
Here is some more reporting on the story for any of you who might not "use the google":
https://sfist.com/2022/11/22/in-baf...impeccable-record-wont-have-contract-renewed/
https://missionlocal.org/2022/11/john-arntz/
https://krcrtv.com/news/local/vote-...dvance-racial-equity-causes-uproar-john-arntz
https://sfist.com/2022/11/22/in-baf...impeccable-record-wont-have-contract-renewed/
https://missionlocal.org/2022/11/john-arntz/
https://krcrtv.com/news/local/vote-...dvance-racial-equity-causes-uproar-john-arntz
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,570
Eh, not worth it.
So my question would center around the fact that Arntz was first contracted for the job "just" 20 years ago. That's 2002 or so.
So In 2002 San Francisco had to have had a policy assuring non-discriminating in the letting of contracts. After all it was 2002, not 1902.
Assuming the policy has been faithfully practiced since I have ask, what's the problem with Arntz staying on?
So In 2002 San Francisco had to have had a policy assuring non-discriminating in the letting of contracts. After all it was 2002, not 1902.
Assuming the policy has been faithfully practiced since I have ask, what's the problem with Arntz staying on?
That's a good point. I don't think there is any doubt that the reason his contract is not being renewed is because he is white, it is clearly discrimination based on race, which if he were an employee I am certain would be illegal. They are going to get away with it because he was a fixed-term contractor, so he hasn't been sacked nor fired, his contract has ended.
In the UK he would have been treated as an employee because he'd been awarded a new contract each time the contract ended on a nod, and it is obviously employment by any other name. But I suspect the USA and the state he is in doesn't have that type of employment right?
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
The cool part about a contract is you don't have to have a problem. You can just decide to go in a different direction when the contract is up.
I like two summaries from the second link:
...Every so often, San Francisco hands a flawless script to the nation’s right-wing blowhards and fulminating keyboard warriors, pins a “kick me” sign to its posterior and assumes the position. We can’t help it. ...
It also explores the legal aspects a bit more:
...Williams’ Berkeley colleague, David Oppenheimer, is the director of the Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality and Anti-Discrimination Law. He says that the Elections Commission potentially cocked up even if you don’t consider the gender and racial element. In many positions, both in the private and the public sector, there is a “presumption of renewal” for employees who are performing at a high level. And the Elections Commission, in both 2020 and 2021, commended Arntz for his excellent work. ...
A couple of the news paper stories I posted said Arntz was free to compete for the new contract.
So what happens if he applies and the elections commission passes him over for someone who clearly can't match his qualifications but happens to be bicop, lgbt or a woman.
They have already stepped in the poop by saying they are doing all this to advance its racial equity plan.