Author Topic: Not-So-Great Generation  (Read 4509 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2007, 07:34:30 PM »
Here is what happened with EEOC under Reagan and afterward:

EEOC Early History: Hard-Earned Success

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 brought the EEOC into a fragile existence. Hamstrung with weak enforcement abilities, it faced a daunting caseload. Opening up shop in 1965, EEOC officials predicted a caseload of 2,000. Instead, the five-member board and 100-person staff fielded 8,852 complaints.

But despite these challenges, the EEOC managed not only to shape employment discrimination law, but also halt many flagrant cases of workplace discrimination.

One such victory occurred in 1965, when the EEOC took on the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, reversing workplace racial discrimination affecting 5,000 workers. The EEOC not only brought equal-pay to these workers, but ensured equal opportunity for professional advancement.

In the 1970s, sex discrimination became part of the agency?s ever-expanding mission, whereas earlier it had focused on racism. Unfortunately growing responsibilities were not matched by increased funding, leading to a predictable result: a case backlog of 94,700 complaints in 1977.

The EEOC responded to this crisis by enacting reforms under the Carter administration: adding new field offices, replacing unskilled workers with professionals, and creating a new priority system for cases. President Carter solidified these reforms through his Reorganization Plan of 1978 and by executive order.

The Reagan Shift: Reigning In the EEOC

President Ronald Reagan came into office seeking to fundamentally change the way government works, and he made no exception for the EEOC. Reagan?s commissioners pushed the EEOC to enact a bottom-up model. Instead of focusing on discriminatory company policies that could affect large groups of workers, the EEOC instead looked at complaints on a more individual basis.

Proponents of the strategy saw discrimination as a personal phenomenon?the result of prejudiced individuals, not prejudiced policies.

This paradigm shift weakened the effectiveness of the EEOC. Full investigations of frivolous cases sucked up resources, and the individualist approach diverted attention away from systemic discrimination based on race and sex.

The EEOC?s case backlog mounted yet again, doubling from 1979 to 1985. And at the same time, the EEOC?s staff shrunk by 20 percent.
Reagan had pledged to enforce the 1964 Civil Right Act ?at gunpoint if necessary.? But he did just the opposite, taking aim at the EEOC itself.

Reagan?s successor, President George H.W. Bush, broadened the EEOC mission to include age and disability discrimination and permitted jury trials in all discrimination cases. But Bush Sr. did not back these policies with increases in EEOC funding. Instead, the heavy-lifting was left to the Clinton administration.

Clinton Era Reforms and Bush II Backsliding

Without substantially increasing funds for the EEOC, the Clinton White House enacted highly successful reforms. The agency junked Reagan?s individualist case approach, adopting in its place a systemic strategy and reforming the priority system for complaints of workplace discrimination. The agency?s new three-tiered system quickly and cheaply ferreted out cases that were either frivolous or outside the agency?s scope. As a result, the EEOC was put back on track, and its backlog dropped by 64 percent.

During this time the EEOC also stressed inter-agency cooperation and employee education, striving to both prevent discrimination and more quickly combat it.

But George W. Bush has failed to build on these Clinton-era reforms. Instead the Bush administration has pushed the EEOC backwards, embracing a wrong-headed Reaganesque approach.

The EEOC today lacks the funds and staff it needs to protect American workers. Since 2001 the EEOC has instituted a hiring freeze, which has cut its staff by 20 percent. The EEOC has also embraced misguided cost-saving measures. One such policy has been to establish national call centers to replace more costly regional offices. Today untrained operators?not skilled and experienced professionals? are our nation?s first responders to workplace discrimination.

And the neglect continues. Next year?s White House budget request represents a $4.2 million funding cut for the EEOC.

EEOC supporters have managed to fight back. District of Columbia Congressional representative Eleanor Holmes Norton and Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) successfully modified the EEOC 2005 budget request and passed an amendment this year to keep national call center funding on a year-by-year basis, not cut it permanently, as favored by the Bush administration. And in 2005 EEOC supporters successfully forced the agency to submit quarterly spending and staffing reports, preventing the Bush administration from hiding deleterious policies.

In the Senate, Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) has redressed many damaging aspects of the White House?s EEOC budget request. Using her seat on the Senate Appropriation Committee, Mikulski has increased EEOC funding by $4 million, drained funds from the national call center initiative, and reversed the hiring freeze.

Yet the EEOC?s tenuous position under the Bush administration won?t change any time soon: Incoming EEOC Chair Naomi Churchill-Earp brings with her an abysmal track record. Churchill-Earp served as director of the National Institutes of Health?s Office of Equal Opportunity (NIH). While she investigated 174 discrimination complaints there, she failed to file a single case.

Churchill-Earp?s record was so poor that the NAACP took the unusual step of opposing her 2002 nomination as EEOC Vice Chair. Unable to get Senate approval, Bush was forced to install her as a recess appointment in 2003. If Churchill-Earp replicates her dismal NIH record at the EEOC, supporters will find it even harder to beat back the corrosive agenda of the Bush administration.

Workplace discrimination is not a relic of the past, but a clear and present danger facing Americans today, and future generations. Therefore the survival of the EEOC as a credible agency is not just a concern to its employees, politicians, or a small number of workers who face discrimination. Forces who seek to dismantle the EEOC are dismantling our nation?s founding principles: that all men and women are created equal, with the inalienable right to pursue their happiness through hard work and equal opportunity, and that discrimination must be combated when it occurs.

--------
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2007, 09:58:53 PM »
Racists who had voted for Democrats, were rejected by the Democratic Party, and voted first for George Wallace, then when it became obvious that Wallace would never rise to any sort of power outside of Alabama, voted Republican. Reagan came to Philadelphia, Mississippi, sort of the Cradle of Racxism, to let them know that he was against "busing", and other racist hotbutton issues of the day.

When Reagan was elected, the number of enforcement officers for EEOC compliance dropped in an 'economy' campaign.

 



I am glad to see you say this.

Because this puts a number on such persons.

How many voters did George Wallace attract?

fatman

  • Guest
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2007, 10:42:28 PM »
How many voters did George Wallace attract?

Too many.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2007, 10:50:46 PM »
How many voters did George Wallace attract?

Too many.


On the Contrary  , many fewer than expected.

This poor showing was a blow that White Supremacy never recovered from , and has not been seen as a legitimate political power ever since.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2007, 12:00:17 AM »
When Wallace did not come close to winning, those who voted for him switched over to vote for Nixon in 1972, Ford in 76, and Reagan in 1980 and 84.

This was and is still called the Republicans' "Southern Strategy". Enforcement of civil rights laws decline as staff of enforcement agencies are cut.

Placing anti-union  staff at the NRLB is another part of this.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2007, 12:03:49 AM »
When Wallace did not come close to winning, those who voted for him switched over to vote for Nixon in 1972, Ford in 76, and Reagan in 1980 and 84.

This was and is still called the Republicans' "Southern Strategy". Enforcement of civil rights laws decline as staff of enforcement agencies are cut.

Placing anti-union  staff at the NRLB is another part of this.

When so few voted for Wallace they lost the respect they had left as a voteing block, Neither Nxon , Regan , Carter nor any other politician has done anything to court them nor anything for them since Wallace.

Cynthia

  • Guest
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2007, 12:39:07 AM »
Generation great. Grew up in the depression. Toughened, street wise, strong.
Capable of fighting a war 18 years later.

Generation Boomer. Grew up in need of nothing. Spoiled? Might have been. Didn't live under a similar strife, or hardship.

World War 2 comes along. Tough soldiers. Fight and don't bitch.

Vietnam comes along. Not so tough soldiers cope, smoke dope, and wish the hell they were warm and cozy again as youngsters. in the 50's. They were only pretending to be John Waynes....THis crap is for real??!

Not that I believe that the vietnam veteran is weak.

However, when I read this theory in an article about 16 years ago, it  made sense. It helped explain why the vietnam veteran had more difficulty with the issue of fighting a war than the soldiers of the greatest generation. Those darn "formative years".

I'm not talking about the political aspect of the two wars. I am talking about the reaction to the fight, the coping mechanisms etc.

Just food for thought.

Did the depression era child have an advantage because he had to grow up with little...versus the boomer child who was given everything and polished not shaken? 

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2007, 09:12:17 AM »
When Wallace did not come close to winning, those who voted for him switched over to vote for Nixon in 1972, Ford in 76, and Reagan in 1980 and 84.

Got a source for this? Or is this another of your "obvious" claims?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2007, 09:21:57 AM »
There is ample data on every specific precinct in the country if you doubt this.

This will indicate White neighborhoods as well as Black ones.

I was there. I read the papers. This was Richard Vigarie's plan when he worked with Wallace and later for Reagan. He, the Reaganites, everyone commented on it ad nauseum. Naturally they did not use the term "White racists", but the same precincts that went heavily for Wallace when he was running, gradually shifted to vote for Reagan when he wasn't.

I suppose you could consult the Almanac of American Politics, which has extensive unbiased info on all elections. But I don't expect that your search for the Truth will actually cause you to go to the effort and you will continue to squawk "link? "source" raaak!" as always., ever sure in your belief that you get the truth straight from the Almighty.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2007, 09:38:30 AM »
ever sure in your belief that you get the truth straight from the Almighty.

Sounds like you think I'm a Christian or something. You should know by now that I'm not.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2007, 12:27:07 PM »
There is ample data on every specific precinct in the country if you doubt this.

This will indicate White neighborhoods as well as Black ones.

I was there. I read the papers. This was Richard Vigarie's plan when he worked with Wallace and later for Reagan. He, the Reaganites, everyone commented on it ad nauseum. Naturally they did not use the term "White racists", but the same precincts that went heavily for Wallace when he was running, gradually shifted to vote for Reagan when he wasn't.

I suppose you could consult the Almanac of American Politics, which has extensive unbiased info on all elections. But I don't expect that your search for the Truth will actually cause you to go to the effort and you will continue to squawk "link? "source" raaak!" as always., ever sure in your belief that you get the truth straight from the Almighty.

Gerorge Wallace was the best canadate Whie supremacy could have hoped for , his voters probably represent the entireity f the voting block.
It is true that the Democrats largely abandoned White supremacy in that period , but it is a lie that   Republicans reversed themselves and adopted it.

Nixon promised them nothing , Ford promised them nothing ,Carter , Reagan ,Bush ,Clinton .... nobody promises White supremicist any support.

Why do Democrats tell each other that Republicans dropped their century old tradition at the very point of their success with  the Voteing rights act?
Because White supremeacy became a hot potatoe at that time and Democrats had toget id of their two century tradition somehow.

And everyone that beleives it votes Democrat .

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #26 on: November 25, 2007, 03:11:13 PM »
The Republicans could not embrace White supremacy, because it had been ruled unconstitutional, and was even against the UN Charter.

So what they did was to remove enforcement of EEOC laws that favored hiring Blacks.

The diehard White supremacists have pretty much all died off now. Integration of things like public businesses, restrooms, drinking fountains and public employment has become the accepted law of the land.

It is no more fair to attribute the current Democratic Party with favoring White Supremacy now, than it is to accuse the Republicans of favoring Sherman's March to the Sea.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Richpo64

  • Guest
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #27 on: November 25, 2007, 06:28:20 PM »
>>Here is what happened with EEOC under Reagan and afterward:...<<

I'm sorry, but you don't source this, and it reads like an opinion piece. Please try again.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2007, 07:33:35 PM »
>>Here is what happened with EEOC under Reagan and afterward:...<<

I'm sorry, but you don't source this, and it reads like an opinion piece. Please try again.

==========================================================
I hate to tell you this, Richie, but I am not here to educate you. Mostly, all you post are opinion pieces. You can find out about Reagan and the EEOC by doing your own search at whatever site you choose. I am never going to change your Limbaugh-riddled mind, no matter what I do, anyway. The Southern Strategy was an invention of a clown named Richard Vigarie. I am not sure how he spelled his surname, but he worked forst fpor Wallace, then for Reagan.
If you have not heard of the Southern Strategy or Vigarie, then you must have spend=t the 80's under a rock.
Not my fault.

Try yourself.

Or don't.

Stay ignorant.

I don't care.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Not-So-Great Generation
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2007, 07:43:45 PM »
Quote
So what they did was to remove enforcement of EEOC laws that favored hiring Blacks.

EEOC stands for Equal Employment Opportunity does it not?

What is equal about favoring the hiring of one race over the other?

Seems to me the GOP got it right.

« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 07:53:50 PM by BT »