| Outsider's View of Loveland & HP's Demise |
Loveland - November 8, 2011
Administrator,
In the November 4, 2011 edition of The Reporter-Herald, the editor published a letter, which asserts that the failure
of the local branch of Hewlett-Packard/Agilent is due to measures by the company to correct disparate employment
practices. The letter further suggests that the American people's unwillingness to be competitive with foreign
peoples is rooted in statutory protections for minorities. The following is my response to that letter. I ask that you
publish it on your website, under my pseudonym, Ax.
Guest Commentary by "Ax"
When I began visiting Loveland, I hated it. I hated the weather-- too much sun; I hated the lake-- too small ; and, I hated the
people-- too bitter and too fake.
However, my opinions have changed. The sun melts the snow, which, like grandchildren, is wonderful, when part-time; the lake
offers a wonderful scene set against mountains, which I don't have at home; and, I learned that bad experiences are always
related to my choice of associates; that choosing to be non-confrontational isn't choosing to be fake; and, I learned that when I
speak to people with respect, they hear me out. That's my aim for this letter: for readers to consider my opinion.
I neither gain, nor lose anything by the conclusion you make. I understand that the opinions of locals hold more water than the
opinions of "outsiders". In consideration of those two facts, I'm compelled to wonder why I'm about to waste my time writing to
you. The answer is that my conscience compels me to, because against all odds, I cannot accept not doing my best to say what
might preserve someone else from learning the lesson in evil that I endured here.
The author implies that HP/Agilent moved off-shore because minority and female engineers were hired, rather than the top ten
percent of engineers. I would like to take a step back from that claim, and ask, in regard to the hiring of non-white-men, What
alternative does America have?
If we believe in the promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then we must support equal employment opportunity, but
not because we should be equal, but because when we use pigmentation and other immutable factors that have no direct bearing
on job performance, then we are holding a person accountable, essentially, for who birthed him.
The author suggests that HP/Agilent's equal employment effort was mandated by the government. The author claims,"As
government mandated EEOP compliance,quotas and political correctness came into the company..."
As the law is written, no employer is forced to hire unqualified workers. At worst, employers are forced to hire minority and
female workers only when proof surfaces that the company has unjustifiably refused to hire or advance members of those
classes. In order for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to conclude that a company's actions were unjustifiable,
there must be a high level of bigotry occurring, because the cards are stacked against members of protected classes.
The last time America did anything significant to stop anti-minority hiring practices was '92, and that was only in response to
YEARS of the Supreme Court crushing protections. In the year following the Civil Rights Act of 1992, the Supreme Court
struck back against Congress: St. Mary's Hope. In St. Mary's, the Court destroyed the only hope left in America for minorities,
which was the "shifted burden of proof".
The shifted burden of proof developed during the heyday of civil rights-- when TV reflected the abysmal reality of America to her
own face and she reacted for twenty, or so, years. Slowly at first, then fast and furious, and then backwards. Midway through
the movement, we admitted a fact that doesn't get much play in polite society today: Bigots don't always wear sheets. And, we
did something beautiful about that: in 1974, through the Supreme Court, we said,'if you're hiring people and you choose not to
hire a member of a protected class, just have a good reason for not doing so.' That is the "shifted burden of proof" that was
established in McDonnell Douglass v Green. Obviously, still a good reason for not hiring someone at that time was lack of
qualifications.
For the next nine years, if a member of a protected class issued a charge of discrimination, the party being charged simply had to
cite the reason for the decision. Essentially, America was a place in which companies could get in trouble for not fulfilling their
fiduciary responsibility to stockholders-- hiring the best candidate. It was just that simple.
Then came '83 and the Supreme Court ruling on Burdine, the predecessor to St. Mary. Burdine started to chisel away at the
burden shift. As the decade proceeded, the Supreme Court attacked EEO from several directions. As stated, Congress
responded with a hard-won civil rights act in '92, which Bush had opposed for some time. Then came '93.
St. Mary's Hope is a story about an African-American dirt bag, who was treated considerably worse than Caucasian dirt bags.
He sued the employer, and it went to the big court.
The Supreme Court took the opportunity to fully dismantle McDonnell's burden shift. Now, bigots can implement their bigot
agendas to their bigot hearts' delight as long as there is no clear proof connecting their decisions to bigotry. Essentially, America
sent up a flare to bigots everywhere: leave your sheet in the closet and you can discriminate all you like.
If a victim has enough money, finds a decent Civil Rights attorney, and slips in underneath the absurdly short statute of limitations
(Compare the discrimination victim's 180 days statute of limitations against 1 year and much more for everything else.), and
doesn't mind facing the risk of financial ruin by being forced to pay the defendant's legal fees, she may be able to stand atop the
house of cards, which we call Civil Rights.
Now, we come to the question: assuming that HP/Agilent never practiced bigotry in its hiring decisions to a degree sufficient to
draw the ire of the perpetually stumbling EEOC and the imposition of Affirmative Action, What does federal regulation, which has
never required the hiring of unqualified individuals, have to do with HP's diversity program?
The letter ended with "Who is John Galt?" In this regard, I owe the author a great debt of gratitude. "Atlas Shrugged" has sat on
my bookshelf for a very long time. This challenge motivated me to read it, and today I finished part 1. This book: I have waited
my entire life for this book.
However, "Atlas Shrugged" is an attack on the writer of the letter. "Atlas Shrugged", at least part 1, is about monopolies; it's
about the psychology of the person who builds a monopoly, and the psychology of those hurt by them.
Equal Employment Opportunity is the necessary government effort to break monopolies; a task appropriate, according to the
father of Capitalism, Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations", to government.
This effort at monopoly breaking is quite reasonable: an investor in a corporation gains limited liability protection against all
practical risks of business. The investor is protected from claims made by any members of the population. In exchange for that
limited liability against all people, the owner must give fair consideration to qualified candidates, regardless of characteristics
unrelated to job performance.
It's that simple.
Many things may motivate Atlas to shrug. EEO is not one of them. EEO is a chihuahua nipping at Atlas' ankles; minorities get
the short end of everything in America, except the supply of prison cells and bad educations. We don't have to heap on them
irrational blame.
Thank you.
| WHO IS AX? We don't know who he or she is. Since LovelandPolitics doesn't hire an FBI profiler we must do our own half-hazard profiling to guess who some of the bloggers are contributing to the dialogue on city issues. Looking at the available hints by the commentary (left) and other postings on the blog by "Ax" we have created a profile we think fits the writer. We believe Ax is a man due to the use of a male name in his email address. We believe Ax likely is a senior citizen (based on the grandchildren comment) and likely moved to Loveland to retire or perhaps to be closer to grandchildren. Given the commentary, it appears Ax doesn't come from a rural setting but more likely an urban one. He is probably college educated and may have worked in law or academia. Ax's politics are not easily pigeon holed as he has come out many times on the right of various issues but in this instance appears to be defending equal opportunity employment laws favored by the left. Please let us know what you think on the blog and feel free to react to his commentary. |
