I wish you were good at making sentences that were understandable by humans. Next time stay in school. Make sure your mom checks your homework. Now go bother someone else.
I was curious where her full lawsuit can be read at, or if you have read it? I don't see a link to it in the article, just the partial snippet of one page. But I would be interested to read it and see if it's just as obvious to me (as it is to you, and others, apparently) that she obviously has no case.
I just happen to think that it's in Apple's best interest to take this stuff very seriously. Why cover for a store manager if they really do have a race problem? It's also possible both are bad apples, that this employee cries racism too easily and the manager is a racist. It's worth investigating.
I agree. I don't understand how some people here are jumping to conclusions based on a few lines in the original article when we don't know the real story in any deatil. If the store manager was a racist he would say things like, "she was making a hostile environment" even if that wasn't the case. If her story is true, just being black could in her managers mind be "hostile to his environment."
I wish the federal government would stop sending any money back to the states. It is one of the biggest jokes when it comes to federal spending.
Which proves my point you can not generalize about everybody in an organization based on the opions of a few. There are many racist in the Democratic party but that does not imply everybody is.
This is bull crap. Look seriously into what you would be paying tax wise if you where running your own business. There is no justification for such high rates, especially when those taxes are going to support special interest.
Of course you bring up a favorite of the left, roads and infrastructure, yet I seldom hear anybody complain about legitimate infrastructure support. The real problem is the excessive amounts of money spent on welfare, projects for special interests and money simply spent for flash in a congress mans district. The sad reality is that we are wasting a lot of money on useless when we could be putting it to better use on infrastructure and preparation for the future.
They aren't, not even close in fact. If you run your own business you can expect close to 50% of your income going to the government. If you work for a paycheck things aren't much better plus their are considerable hidden taxes an employer has to pay for each employee. Sadly you are grossly misinformed.
You know I've been around for a long time now. I can remember in the early 80's where the unemployment rate was around 12-15 percent.
They certainly help, it is well documented that thus is the case. You increase the amount of money available to stimulate the economy. The problem today is that that money doesn't stay in the country, which is a social problem as much as anything.
The fact is the issue of stimulating the economy is very complex. When any one political party gets blamed we end up having issues because that means we aren't focusing on the problems at hand. Sadly this isn't much different than what is seen in this thread, everything gets thrown in to justify each side of the discussion with absolutely no focus on the problem at hand. If everybody did that we would all come to the same conclusion, the woman pretty much destroyed any chance of promotion all on her own.
Not sure how this turned into a political debate. There are good things and bad things about both the Tea Party and the Democratic Party, one could debate that both parties are too extreme in their goals.
Fortunately I don't have to evaluate people!!!! It can never be an easy job and is seldom comfortable for anybody no matter which side of the desk they sit on.
Absolutely! Consider yourself fortunate you're not on the HR-end of things
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Personally I've not have had anybody pull the race card on me. That is a good 25 years of work in one place. That doesn't mean I've never had conflicts, but that is to be expected.
When it gets really fun is when I hear black people accuse other blacks of discrimination
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In the end it would be better to be able to say American but to many people tie their identity to their race.
True enough. My problem with the whole "African-American"-thing is that I've never been to Africa, don't know anyone there, and was born in the U.S. That's why I think it's a bullshit, politically correct phrase that doesn't mean anything to anyone except the census takers
I don't know how anyone can make any judgment on this case. The fact is that we have no idea whether this woman is competent or not and whether there was discrimination or not. Anything is possible.
There have been extensive experiments done where two candidates of the same age, wearing the same clothes, with EXACTLY the same resume apply for the same job and the vast majority of the time, the black candidate is rejected and the white candidate goes to the next step. I think there's even been proven discrimination in favor of better looking people.
I happen to be white, but I definitely feel that had I been black or Hispanic, I would not have gotten some of the jobs and opportunities that I've had. Unfortunately, even people who do not consider themselves to be biased simply find themselves relating better to people who are just like them, whether that means age, gender, race, etc.
I'm "older" and there was a short period about six years ago when I was looking for work and getting much interest until I showed up for an interview. Then the interest waned. Was it age discrimination? I suspected it was at the time, but then the economy picked up and I got tons of work again. So was it or wasn't it? I'll never know for sure. If I were a racial minority, I'm sure I would have thought it was racial discrimination.
On the other hand, just because one is a minority doesn't mean that they're not incompetent. If one is paranoid about discrimination because you've faced so much of it, any slight may be perceived as racism. It's certainly possible that this woman is "hostile" or it's possible that this Apple manager feels threatened by or uncomfortable with a black woman and therefore refused to promote her to a full-time position.
There does seem to be a large number of complaints of all types about Apple Store managers. It's hard to evaluate whether these are legitimate or whether the complaints come from lazy employees who don't understand the expectations of the modern business world.
We simply don't know what the reality is in this case, but looking from the outside, it seems to me that Apple needs to do a better job training its store managers. In all the large companies I've worked for as an exec or manager, we had to take courses in sexual harassment, employment policies, etc. While most of what they taught was common sense, it was very useful in understanding for example, what you can and can't ask during a job interview. In at least one of the companies I worked for, we used to receive an annual analysis (which I think came from the Federal government, perhaps the EEOC), showing by department, how the breakdown of our employees by age, gender and race compared with other companies and we were expected to attempt to bring our departments into compliance over time.
I wish the federal government would stop sending any money back to the states. It is one of the biggest jokes when it comes to federal spending.
Which proves my point you can not generalize about everybody in an organization based on the opions of a few. There are many racist in the Democratic party but that does not imply everybody is.
This is bull crap. Look seriously into what you would be paying tax wise if you where running your own business. There is no justification for such high rates, especially when those taxes are going to support special interest.
Of course you bring up a favorite of the left, roads and infrastructure, yet I seldom hear anybody complain about legitimate infrastructure support. The real problem is the excessive amounts of money spent on welfare, projects for special interests and money simply spent for flash in a congress mans district. The sad reality is that we are wasting a lot of money on useless when we could be putting it to better use on infrastructure and preparation for the future.
They aren't, not even close in fact. If you run your own business you can expect close to 50% of your income going to the government. If you work for a paycheck things aren't much better plus their are considerable hidden taxes an employer has to pay for each employee. Sadly you are grossly misinformed.
You know I've been around for a long time now. I can remember in the early 80's where the unemployment rate was around 12-15 percent.
They certainly help, it is well documented that thus is the case. You increase the amount of money available to stimulate the economy. The problem today is that that money doesn't stay in the country, which is a social problem as much as anything.
The fact is the issue of stimulating the economy is very complex. When any one political party gets blamed we end up having issues because that means we aren't focusing on the problems at hand. Sadly this isn't much different than what is seen in this thread, everything gets thrown in to justify each side of the discussion with absolutely no focus on the problem at hand. If everybody did that we would all come to the same conclusion, the woman pretty much destroyed any chance of promotion all on her own.
Endlessly lowering taxes doesn't help the economy. It just means less money for the government to put into education and infrastructure. Business taxes are only 35% if it's even the actual amount paid. They are not even close to 50%. You made that number up.
CBO even stated that lower taxes would have the lowest if any effect at all on improving our economy out of the available options to us. Since as you stated most of the money is flowing out of the country to invest in other countries since we don't want to invest in our own country they were probably right.
So cough up something that proves your point because otherwise you are terribly misinformed. The simple reality is the Tea Party would not exist if there wasn't sound reason.
As to tax evading I've yet to see any party express a desire to avoid legitimate taxes. One fundamental problem in this country right now is that the poor and lazy think they have the right to demand the wealth of others. You simply can not deny this point. So yeah people are starting to speak up very forcibly about the hanger ons and leaches.
I would strongly disagree with you. I think there is tons of evidence that conservative Republicans, supported by the Fox Network, are pushing more and more towards a society in which only middle class and lower class wage-earners pay taxes. The FACT (in spite of the hype) is that tax rates on the rich are the lowest they've been in over 40 years. During the Nixon administration (2nd term), the highest marginal rate was about 70%. During the Reagan administration, it was 50%. During the Clinton administration it dropped to 39.6%. In 2003, during the Bush administration, it was dropped to 38%, where it remains today. So in terms of the top marginal rate, Obama has not raised taxes. I'm sure that most Fox viewers think he has.
And Republicans want it to be much lower. You talk about "poor and lazy…demanding the wealth of others." That's ridiculous. The amount of spending outside of the military, Social Security and Medicare is something like only 15% of the budget. Do you know how much the wars cost? It costs $1.2 million per month per soldier. That is simply unsustainable and is the major cause of the deficit, not spending on the poor. The U.S. spends more on the military than every other country in the world combined.
Furthermore, the fact that capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes is clear discrimination against low- and middle-class people as it's predominantly the rich who have capital gains. Why shouldn't the profits on stocks be taxed the same as ordinary income?
As for the avoidance of taxes, Republicans are refusing to negotiate the end of tax loopholes or the end of tax benefits to the oil industry, although a few, including John McCain, have said recently that they're willing to look at some income generation.
I don't have the exact percentage in front of me, but most Fortune 500 companies haven't paid any Federal income taxes at all in recent years, regardless of what the rates are.
In addition, most of the weath of this country has moved to fewer and fewer people. I don't have the number in front of me (I'm working remotely), but I believe it's something like the top 1% has 26% of the weath. That's a major change from decades past.
"Welfare" as we used to know it was largely ended during the Clinton administration. Yes, there are still food stamp programs, but with 9% official unemployment (and with probably 12-15% actual unemployment) do you really want to see people starving in the street? The Republicans and Tea Party want to turn this country into India, where the rich live behind gates and the poor are starving in the streets. The strength of America has always been the middle class, but the middle class is quickly disappearing as they face declines in real wages or unemployment. And to make matters worse, Republican candidates such as Michelle Bachman have suggested that perhaps we should eliminate the minimum wage, which has not even kept pace with inflation.
When the unemployment rate is low, then you can come back and claim that the problem in this country is lazy people who don't want to work. What I see, on the few occasions when job fairs are held, is tens of thousands of people lining up days in advance for the chance to work, even at crappy wages.
I would strongly disagree with you. I think there is tons of evidence that conservative Republicans, supported by the Fox Network, are pushing more and more towards a society in which only middle class and lower class wage-earners pay taxes. The FACT (in spite of the hype) is that tax rates on the rich are the lowest they've been in over 40 years. During the Nixon administration (2nd term), the highest marginal rate was about 70%. During the Reagan administration, it was 50%. During the Clinton administration it dropped to 39.6%. In 2003, during the Bush administration, it was dropped to 38%, where it remains today. So in terms of the top marginal rate, Obama has not raised taxes. I'm sure that most Fox viewers think he has.
And Republicans want it to be much lower. You talk about "poor and lazy?demanding the wealth of others." That's ridiculous. The amount of spending outside of the military, Social Security and Medicare is something like only 15% of the budget. Do you know how much the wars cost? It costs $1.2 million per month per soldier. That is simply unsustainable and is the major cause of the deficit, not spending on the poor. The U.S. spends more on the military than every other country in the world combined.
Furthermore, the fact that capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes is clear discrimination against low- and middle-class people as it's predominantly the rich who have capital gains. Why shouldn't the profits on stocks be taxed the same as ordinary income?
As for the avoidance of taxes, Republicans are refusing to negotiate the end of tax loopholes or the end of tax benefits to the oil industry, although a few, including John McCain, have said recently that they're willing to look at some income generation.
I don't have the exact percentage in front of me, but most Fortune 500 companies haven't paid any Federal income taxes at all in recent years, regardless of what the rates are.
In addition, most of the weath of this country has moved to fewer and fewer people. I don't have the number in front of me (I'm working remotely), but I believe it's something like the top 1% has 26% of the weath. That's a major change from decades past.
"Welfare" as we used to know it was largely ended during the Clinton administration. Yes, there are still food stamp programs, but with 9% official unemployment (and with probably 12-15% actual unemployment) do you really want to see people starving in the street? The Republicans and Tea Party want to turn this country into India, where the rich live behind gates and the poor are starving in the streets. The strength of America has always been the middle class, but the middle class is quickly disappearing as they face declines in real wages or unemployment. And to make matters worse, Republican candidates such as Michelle Bachman have suggested that perhaps we should eliminate the minimum wage, which has not even kept pace with inflation.
When the unemployment rate is low, then you can come back and claim that the problem in this country is lazy people who don't want to work. What I see, on the few occasions when job fairs are held, is tens of thousands of people lining up days in advance for the chance to work, even at crappy wages.
In all of this do you know how many households pay Zero federal income tax??? I'll let you google the answer. The worse number (from associate press) is that 40% of households (yes that's not a typo) actually have net positive federal taxes - this mean that they get paid by the federal gov't to exist!!! Why would those that get paid by the gov't vote for any other gov't. They 'work' (i.e. earn money) by voting. This is a significant part of the definition of corruption - voting for people to pay you money. Whether the 'rich' get taxed more or not is irrelevant, and could be discussed civilly in another discussion but unless a much greater proportion of the population get their skin in the game we can never turn this around.
Really? I didn't know that. Do you have some data that supports this claim or is this merely your observation and perception of what's happening in "most high end retailers?"
Data? Have you not been into a restaurant that coincidentally has a lot of pretty large breasted waitresses? You have never noticed that a bank in a more affluent area has prettier tellers? You never noticed that most clothing retail stores are going to have cute girls or maybe gay guys working there? Discrimination happens all the time in many different ways.
You seem to be equally sure in the opposite direction.
No, as a matter of fact, if you your reading comprehension and had not failed you so miserably, I don't express any opinion either way about whether or not she was discriminated against, because I don't know. I haven't jumped to any conclusions at all about this.
I was said very plainly that these things happen. That her arguments are hardly uncommon. Not that it happened in this specific case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
Please note these are all generalisations. I just wanted to point out that "lighter is better" is a cultural problem not limited to white folks alone.
You wouldn't get any argument from me about that. You're absolutely right. I only mentioned it in relation to white people, because it's presumably a white man (the store manager) being accused of discrimination here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Where's the law that says that the employees of every store etc must match the demo ratios of the community.
You and everyone else who jumped down my throat about posting should really calm the heck down and stop jumping to conclusions.
I didn't advocate for any sort of race-based hiring quotas — in any field — nor did I make any authoritative statements saying "because the white/black ratio is roughly even, that means the store undoubtedly had the same number of qualified black applicants as white applicants!"
There is absolutely a correlation between the two. How strong that correlation is, I don't know. If the store is in an affluent area, that would obviously affect things somewhat. And there are plenty of other factors, such as the education of the overall population — i.e. what percentage of St. Louis's white and black populations have a high school education (or, more to the point, can communicate clearly and effectively, because let's face it — a high school diploma doesn't really mean anything anymore). So yes, obviously, there are plenty of other factors. It just seems like a very large disparity to me. There would have to be A LOT of other factors at play to account for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smack416
Please refrain from making your stereotypical statements about white people without clarifying them with "...in America." Us Canadians don't want to be lumped in with this madness.
I posted a link to it. It's 47% black, 45% white. So Apple's 8% ratio is way off.
And whites very often find light-skinned blacks less intimidating or threatening than dark-skinned blacks, and lighter-skinned blacks are often considered more beautiful by whites, because they have "whiter" features. That's not puzzling or surprising if you've ever actually worked with or talked with black people… or any minorities, really… about this subject.
My experience is the opposite. I've never heard whites talk about it skin color like that. But when I had a recording studio in Austin and half my clientele were black, I heard talk of skin shade every day. All the brothers were into the lighter skinned black women but not the darker skinned ones, it seemed.
I for one am not going to write this case off as many of you have and I believe its racist of some of you to quickly call this fine girl names claiming that the Apple store was most likely in the right. I believe that her claims could be true and I hope that she finds the justice she deserves. If her claims aren't true, I hope that her case begins to shine a light on the issue of racism in high end retail such as Apple stores.
Here's my thing, No one here knows what's really going on in the store. I used to work at the Mini Store when things where stupid cramped and things where crazy hectic. Barbara, is a great girl, but she has been known to be a little self-proclaimed. There is definitely a sense of entitlement with her that she really doesn't deserve from an outsider looking in. In her mind she feels that she's been racially discriminated against, this may be true, but not by Rob Proffer. In my 3 years that I worked there Rob and my interactions with Rob where nothing but positive. There honestly wasn't a cold bone in the store from the management. Everyone was welcoming and pleasant, including Barbara. I think he accusations are exaggerated and more out of spite than anything else. She had been trying to go full-time when I was there. She did get turned down, then she could get sower. Blame things on other people that were very obvious things that she probably could have handled different.
The only thing this is going to accomplish is put another lawsuit on Apple's belt. We have people that are killing their babies and getting away from it and here we have Barbara's self-entitlement getting in the way of a lawyer doing the job to help the people needing helped. . . Lets move one people.
In all of this do you know how many households pay Zero federal income tax??? I'll let you google the answer. The worse number (from associate press) is that 40% of households (yes that's not a typo) actually have net positive federal taxes - this mean that they get paid by the federal gov't to exist!!! Why would those that get paid by the gov't vote for any other gov't. They 'work' (i.e. earn money) by voting. This is a significant part of the definition of corruption - voting for people to pay you money. Whether the 'rich' get taxed more or not is irrelevant, and could be discussed civilly in another discussion but unless a much greater proportion of the population get their skin in the game we can never turn this around.
Whether the rich get taxed more is relevant. I don't think it's any coincidence that the US has the second lowest tax burden of all the major advanced economies. Federal taxes, as a percentage of GDP, are the lowest point since 1950. America created jobs like gangbusters in the 1950s and 60s when the top marginal tax rate was in the 70% range. The weakest period of job creation in the US over the last six decades has been the during the George Bush presidency--when tax rates were at their lowest.
Her case maybe legit or not, we can only speculate, but we do know this with certainty:
There are just too many lawyers and naturally they are more likely to sue a big company like Apple! Big companies have deep pockets and are more likely to settle just to get them off their backs.
Wrong! NOT Brentwood.. Richmond Heights! Check your stats again!
Are we talking about the Galleria over on Brentwood Boulevard, right up the street from Brentwood Plaza? The one that's geographically closer to Brentwood -- and Clayton, for that matter -- than it is to Richmond Heights? While it technically falls in Richmond Heights due to unusual districting (pull up a map of the Heights some time, it looks like a Tetris shape from hell), most locals I know -- including employees at the Apple store in question -- would say it's in Brentwood.
If you really think the racial demographics of the surrounding community are relevant here (and I really don't think they are), wouldn't it make sense to average out the population percentage of all three surrounding neighborhoods? Clayton, Brentwood, and Richmond Heights have a combined black population of 7.6%, which makes the store's 8% black workforce sound pretty reasonable.
By the way you can take all references to race out of the posting and come to the same conclusion. It has nothing to do with racism and simply is an example of a person that can't grasp what is required of them to be successful. It is seen all the time in the work place and has nothing to do with racism.
That could be true of all the alleged racism/ageism etc against employees that has been mentioned. Even the woman claiming she was being discriminated against because she went on medical leave.
The reality is that we don't have all the facts. We don't know what these people were like on the job, what complaints were made about them, what knowledge they have etc.
Even those two guys that say they were kicked out because they were black. We don't know what happened that day. Maybe they were asked to leave because they were being loud and rowdy. Or maybe they actually were trying to shoplift. Who knows.
The only thing we do know is that sources that leak this kind of stuff and sites that post the 'information' have an agenda. For the sources, it's to gather sympathy for the alleged victim by raising folks ire against 'the man'. For the sites, it's hits and page views. So take it all with a grain of salt and don't assume Apple is always guilty of wrong doing.
This thread was pretty much over with "rubbish." I have worked with Rob Proffer for years. He was my assistant manager at West County Apple when the store opened in 2002. I can attest to Rob's character and there isn't a racist bone in his body. As far as the demographic makeup of the store employees are concerned I believe they're accurate for the area in which the store is located and they likely reflect the demographic ratios within the applicant pool. This is bunk and I hope it gets dismissed as bunk. On the other hand, the manager of West County was thrown under the bus by Apple corporate in similar circumstances...
This thread was pretty much over with "rubbish." I have worked with Rob Proffer for years. He was my assistant manager at West County Apple when the store opened in 2002. I can attest to Rob's character and there isn't a racist bone in his body. As far as the demographic makeup of the store employees are concerned I believe they're accurate for the area in which the store is located and they likely reflect the demographic ratios within the applicant pool. This is bunk and I hope it gets dismissed as bunk. On the other hand, the manager of West County was thrown under the bus by Apple corporate in similar circumstances...
Yea CT you're right, it should have stopped at the first post. Rob Proffer is one if the most honest guys I've ever worked with. He tells you as it is, and doesn't sugar coat anything. He is straight forward and that's why he's one of the best managers I've worked for. I consider myself a good friend of CT and know that what he said above about Rob is the absolute truth. I'm not saying that there couldn't be racism at the Apple Stores here in STL, but that is not the question at hand. There isn't a member of the management team at the Galleria store that I can even consider remotely racially judgmental. This needs to be dismissed and I can only hope that this doesn't tarnish Rob's reputation. Barbara in her mind feels she's been wronged and for that I feel for her, but she's taking it out on the wrong person. She should really re-evaluate the situation.
Comments
Oh just jump you ate good at that
I wish you were good at making sentences that were understandable by humans. Next time stay in school. Make sure your mom checks your homework. Now go bother someone else.
http://www.apple.com/ipad/
Look at the ad for a while, the pictures change.
Your point being? Did you miss the word "recently". How about you go back and re-read what I wrote and give it another try?
I was curious where her full lawsuit can be read at, or if you have read it? I don't see a link to it in the article, just the partial snippet of one page. But I would be interested to read it and see if it's just as obvious to me (as it is to you, and others, apparently) that she obviously has no case.
I just happen to think that it's in Apple's best interest to take this stuff very seriously. Why cover for a store manager if they really do have a race problem? It's also possible both are bad apples, that this employee cries racism too easily and the manager is a racist. It's worth investigating.
I agree. I don't understand how some people here are jumping to conclusions based on a few lines in the original article when we don't know the real story in any deatil. If the store manager was a racist he would say things like, "she was making a hostile environment" even if that wasn't the case. If her story is true, just being black could in her managers mind be "hostile to his environment."
I wish the federal government would stop sending any money back to the states. It is one of the biggest jokes when it comes to federal spending.
Which proves my point you can not generalize about everybody in an organization based on the opions of a few. There are many racist in the Democratic party but that does not imply everybody is.
This is bull crap. Look seriously into what you would be paying tax wise if you where running your own business. There is no justification for such high rates, especially when those taxes are going to support special interest.
Of course you bring up a favorite of the left, roads and infrastructure, yet I seldom hear anybody complain about legitimate infrastructure support. The real problem is the excessive amounts of money spent on welfare, projects for special interests and money simply spent for flash in a congress mans district. The sad reality is that we are wasting a lot of money on useless when we could be putting it to better use on infrastructure and preparation for the future.
They aren't, not even close in fact. If you run your own business you can expect close to 50% of your income going to the government. If you work for a paycheck things aren't much better plus their are considerable hidden taxes an employer has to pay for each employee. Sadly you are grossly misinformed.
You know I've been around for a long time now. I can remember in the early 80's where the unemployment rate was around 12-15 percent.
They certainly help, it is well documented that thus is the case. You increase the amount of money available to stimulate the economy. The problem today is that that money doesn't stay in the country, which is a social problem as much as anything.
The fact is the issue of stimulating the economy is very complex. When any one political party gets blamed we end up having issues because that means we aren't focusing on the problems at hand. Sadly this isn't much different than what is seen in this thread, everything gets thrown in to justify each side of the discussion with absolutely no focus on the problem at hand. If everybody did that we would all come to the same conclusion, the woman pretty much destroyed any chance of promotion all on her own.
Not sure how this turned into a political debate. There are good things and bad things about both the Tea Party and the Democratic Party, one could debate that both parties are too extreme in their goals.
Fortunately I don't have to evaluate people!!!! It can never be an easy job and is seldom comfortable for anybody no matter which side of the desk they sit on.
Absolutely! Consider yourself fortunate you're not on the HR-end of things
Personally I've not have had anybody pull the race card on me. That is a good 25 years of work in one place. That doesn't mean I've never had conflicts, but that is to be expected.
When it gets really fun is when I hear black people accuse other blacks of discrimination
In the end it would be better to be able to say American but to many people tie their identity to their race.
True enough. My problem with the whole "African-American"-thing is that I've never been to Africa, don't know anyone there, and was born in the U.S. That's why I think it's a bullshit, politically correct phrase that doesn't mean anything to anyone except the census takers
There have been extensive experiments done where two candidates of the same age, wearing the same clothes, with EXACTLY the same resume apply for the same job and the vast majority of the time, the black candidate is rejected and the white candidate goes to the next step. I think there's even been proven discrimination in favor of better looking people.
I happen to be white, but I definitely feel that had I been black or Hispanic, I would not have gotten some of the jobs and opportunities that I've had. Unfortunately, even people who do not consider themselves to be biased simply find themselves relating better to people who are just like them, whether that means age, gender, race, etc.
I'm "older" and there was a short period about six years ago when I was looking for work and getting much interest until I showed up for an interview. Then the interest waned. Was it age discrimination? I suspected it was at the time, but then the economy picked up and I got tons of work again. So was it or wasn't it? I'll never know for sure. If I were a racial minority, I'm sure I would have thought it was racial discrimination.
On the other hand, just because one is a minority doesn't mean that they're not incompetent. If one is paranoid about discrimination because you've faced so much of it, any slight may be perceived as racism. It's certainly possible that this woman is "hostile" or it's possible that this Apple manager feels threatened by or uncomfortable with a black woman and therefore refused to promote her to a full-time position.
There does seem to be a large number of complaints of all types about Apple Store managers. It's hard to evaluate whether these are legitimate or whether the complaints come from lazy employees who don't understand the expectations of the modern business world.
We simply don't know what the reality is in this case, but looking from the outside, it seems to me that Apple needs to do a better job training its store managers. In all the large companies I've worked for as an exec or manager, we had to take courses in sexual harassment, employment policies, etc. While most of what they taught was common sense, it was very useful in understanding for example, what you can and can't ask during a job interview. In at least one of the companies I worked for, we used to receive an annual analysis (which I think came from the Federal government, perhaps the EEOC), showing by department, how the breakdown of our employees by age, gender and race compared with other companies and we were expected to attempt to bring our departments into compliance over time.
I wish the federal government would stop sending any money back to the states. It is one of the biggest jokes when it comes to federal spending.
Which proves my point you can not generalize about everybody in an organization based on the opions of a few. There are many racist in the Democratic party but that does not imply everybody is.
This is bull crap. Look seriously into what you would be paying tax wise if you where running your own business. There is no justification for such high rates, especially when those taxes are going to support special interest.
Of course you bring up a favorite of the left, roads and infrastructure, yet I seldom hear anybody complain about legitimate infrastructure support. The real problem is the excessive amounts of money spent on welfare, projects for special interests and money simply spent for flash in a congress mans district. The sad reality is that we are wasting a lot of money on useless when we could be putting it to better use on infrastructure and preparation for the future.
They aren't, not even close in fact. If you run your own business you can expect close to 50% of your income going to the government. If you work for a paycheck things aren't much better plus their are considerable hidden taxes an employer has to pay for each employee. Sadly you are grossly misinformed.
You know I've been around for a long time now. I can remember in the early 80's where the unemployment rate was around 12-15 percent.
They certainly help, it is well documented that thus is the case. You increase the amount of money available to stimulate the economy. The problem today is that that money doesn't stay in the country, which is a social problem as much as anything.
The fact is the issue of stimulating the economy is very complex. When any one political party gets blamed we end up having issues because that means we aren't focusing on the problems at hand. Sadly this isn't much different than what is seen in this thread, everything gets thrown in to justify each side of the discussion with absolutely no focus on the problem at hand. If everybody did that we would all come to the same conclusion, the woman pretty much destroyed any chance of promotion all on her own.
Endlessly lowering taxes doesn't help the economy. It just means less money for the government to put into education and infrastructure. Business taxes are only 35% if it's even the actual amount paid. They are not even close to 50%. You made that number up.
CBO even stated that lower taxes would have the lowest if any effect at all on improving our economy out of the available options to us. Since as you stated most of the money is flowing out of the country to invest in other countries since we don't want to invest in our own country they were probably right.
So cough up something that proves your point because otherwise you are terribly misinformed. The simple reality is the Tea Party would not exist if there wasn't sound reason.
As to tax evading I've yet to see any party express a desire to avoid legitimate taxes. One fundamental problem in this country right now is that the poor and lazy think they have the right to demand the wealth of others. You simply can not deny this point. So yeah people are starting to speak up very forcibly about the hanger ons and leaches.
I would strongly disagree with you. I think there is tons of evidence that conservative Republicans, supported by the Fox Network, are pushing more and more towards a society in which only middle class and lower class wage-earners pay taxes. The FACT (in spite of the hype) is that tax rates on the rich are the lowest they've been in over 40 years. During the Nixon administration (2nd term), the highest marginal rate was about 70%. During the Reagan administration, it was 50%. During the Clinton administration it dropped to 39.6%. In 2003, during the Bush administration, it was dropped to 38%, where it remains today. So in terms of the top marginal rate, Obama has not raised taxes. I'm sure that most Fox viewers think he has.
And Republicans want it to be much lower. You talk about "poor and lazy…demanding the wealth of others." That's ridiculous. The amount of spending outside of the military, Social Security and Medicare is something like only 15% of the budget. Do you know how much the wars cost? It costs $1.2 million per month per soldier. That is simply unsustainable and is the major cause of the deficit, not spending on the poor. The U.S. spends more on the military than every other country in the world combined.
Furthermore, the fact that capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes is clear discrimination against low- and middle-class people as it's predominantly the rich who have capital gains. Why shouldn't the profits on stocks be taxed the same as ordinary income?
As for the avoidance of taxes, Republicans are refusing to negotiate the end of tax loopholes or the end of tax benefits to the oil industry, although a few, including John McCain, have said recently that they're willing to look at some income generation.
I don't have the exact percentage in front of me, but most Fortune 500 companies haven't paid any Federal income taxes at all in recent years, regardless of what the rates are.
In addition, most of the weath of this country has moved to fewer and fewer people. I don't have the number in front of me (I'm working remotely), but I believe it's something like the top 1% has 26% of the weath. That's a major change from decades past.
"Welfare" as we used to know it was largely ended during the Clinton administration. Yes, there are still food stamp programs, but with 9% official unemployment (and with probably 12-15% actual unemployment) do you really want to see people starving in the street? The Republicans and Tea Party want to turn this country into India, where the rich live behind gates and the poor are starving in the streets. The strength of America has always been the middle class, but the middle class is quickly disappearing as they face declines in real wages or unemployment. And to make matters worse, Republican candidates such as Michelle Bachman have suggested that perhaps we should eliminate the minimum wage, which has not even kept pace with inflation.
When the unemployment rate is low, then you can come back and claim that the problem in this country is lazy people who don't want to work. What I see, on the few occasions when job fairs are held, is tens of thousands of people lining up days in advance for the chance to work, even at crappy wages.
I would strongly disagree with you. I think there is tons of evidence that conservative Republicans, supported by the Fox Network, are pushing more and more towards a society in which only middle class and lower class wage-earners pay taxes. The FACT (in spite of the hype) is that tax rates on the rich are the lowest they've been in over 40 years. During the Nixon administration (2nd term), the highest marginal rate was about 70%. During the Reagan administration, it was 50%. During the Clinton administration it dropped to 39.6%. In 2003, during the Bush administration, it was dropped to 38%, where it remains today. So in terms of the top marginal rate, Obama has not raised taxes. I'm sure that most Fox viewers think he has.
And Republicans want it to be much lower. You talk about "poor and lazy?demanding the wealth of others." That's ridiculous. The amount of spending outside of the military, Social Security and Medicare is something like only 15% of the budget. Do you know how much the wars cost? It costs $1.2 million per month per soldier. That is simply unsustainable and is the major cause of the deficit, not spending on the poor. The U.S. spends more on the military than every other country in the world combined.
Furthermore, the fact that capital gains taxes are lower than income taxes is clear discrimination against low- and middle-class people as it's predominantly the rich who have capital gains. Why shouldn't the profits on stocks be taxed the same as ordinary income?
As for the avoidance of taxes, Republicans are refusing to negotiate the end of tax loopholes or the end of tax benefits to the oil industry, although a few, including John McCain, have said recently that they're willing to look at some income generation.
I don't have the exact percentage in front of me, but most Fortune 500 companies haven't paid any Federal income taxes at all in recent years, regardless of what the rates are.
In addition, most of the weath of this country has moved to fewer and fewer people. I don't have the number in front of me (I'm working remotely), but I believe it's something like the top 1% has 26% of the weath. That's a major change from decades past.
"Welfare" as we used to know it was largely ended during the Clinton administration. Yes, there are still food stamp programs, but with 9% official unemployment (and with probably 12-15% actual unemployment) do you really want to see people starving in the street? The Republicans and Tea Party want to turn this country into India, where the rich live behind gates and the poor are starving in the streets. The strength of America has always been the middle class, but the middle class is quickly disappearing as they face declines in real wages or unemployment. And to make matters worse, Republican candidates such as Michelle Bachman have suggested that perhaps we should eliminate the minimum wage, which has not even kept pace with inflation.
When the unemployment rate is low, then you can come back and claim that the problem in this country is lazy people who don't want to work. What I see, on the few occasions when job fairs are held, is tens of thousands of people lining up days in advance for the chance to work, even at crappy wages.
In all of this do you know how many households pay Zero federal income tax??? I'll let you google the answer. The worse number (from associate press) is that 40% of households (yes that's not a typo) actually have net positive federal taxes - this mean that they get paid by the federal gov't to exist!!! Why would those that get paid by the gov't vote for any other gov't. They 'work' (i.e. earn money) by voting. This is a significant part of the definition of corruption - voting for people to pay you money. Whether the 'rich' get taxed more or not is irrelevant, and could be discussed civilly in another discussion but unless a much greater proportion of the population get their skin in the game we can never turn this around.
Really? I didn't know that. Do you have some data that supports this claim or is this merely your observation and perception of what's happening in "most high end retailers?"
Data? Have you not been into a restaurant that coincidentally has a lot of pretty large breasted waitresses? You have never noticed that a bank in a more affluent area has prettier tellers? You never noticed that most clothing retail stores are going to have cute girls or maybe gay guys working there? Discrimination happens all the time in many different ways.
You seem to be equally sure in the opposite direction.
No, as a matter of fact, if you your reading comprehension and had not failed you so miserably, I don't express any opinion either way about whether or not she was discriminated against, because I don't know. I haven't jumped to any conclusions at all about this.
I was said very plainly that these things happen. That her arguments are hardly uncommon. Not that it happened in this specific case.
Please note these are all generalisations. I just wanted to point out that "lighter is better" is a cultural problem not limited to white folks alone.
You wouldn't get any argument from me about that. You're absolutely right. I only mentioned it in relation to white people, because it's presumably a white man (the store manager) being accused of discrimination here.
Where's the law that says that the employees of every store etc must match the demo ratios of the community.
You and everyone else who jumped down my throat about posting should really calm the heck down and stop jumping to conclusions.
I didn't advocate for any sort of race-based hiring quotas — in any field — nor did I make any authoritative statements saying "because the white/black ratio is roughly even, that means the store undoubtedly had the same number of qualified black applicants as white applicants!"
There is absolutely a correlation between the two. How strong that correlation is, I don't know. If the store is in an affluent area, that would obviously affect things somewhat. And there are plenty of other factors, such as the education of the overall population — i.e. what percentage of St. Louis's white and black populations have a high school education (or, more to the point, can communicate clearly and effectively, because let's face it — a high school diploma doesn't really mean anything anymore). So yes, obviously, there are plenty of other factors. It just seems like a very large disparity to me. There would have to be A LOT of other factors at play to account for that.
Please refrain from making your stereotypical statements about white people without clarifying them with "...in America." Us Canadians don't want to be lumped in with this madness.
If I meant "in America," I would have said so.
Those were not stereotypes. They were generalizations, and not solely about the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrim..._Latin_America
I posted a link to it. It's 47% black, 45% white. So Apple's 8% ratio is way off.
And whites very often find light-skinned blacks less intimidating or threatening than dark-skinned blacks, and lighter-skinned blacks are often considered more beautiful by whites, because they have "whiter" features. That's not puzzling or surprising if you've ever actually worked with or talked with black people… or any minorities, really… about this subject.
My experience is the opposite. I've never heard whites talk about it skin color like that. But when I had a recording studio in Austin and half my clientele were black, I heard talk of skin shade every day. All the brothers were into the lighter skinned black women but not the darker skinned ones, it seemed.
I found the dialog amongst them rather strange.
Great posts.
I for one am not going to write this case off as many of you have and I believe its racist of some of you to quickly call this fine girl names claiming that the Apple store was most likely in the right. I believe that her claims could be true and I hope that she finds the justice she deserves. If her claims aren't true, I hope that her case begins to shine a light on the issue of racism in high end retail such as Apple stores.
Here's my thing, No one here knows what's really going on in the store. I used to work at the Mini Store when things where stupid cramped and things where crazy hectic. Barbara, is a great girl, but she has been known to be a little self-proclaimed. There is definitely a sense of entitlement with her that she really doesn't deserve from an outsider looking in. In her mind she feels that she's been racially discriminated against, this may be true, but not by Rob Proffer. In my 3 years that I worked there Rob and my interactions with Rob where nothing but positive. There honestly wasn't a cold bone in the store from the management. Everyone was welcoming and pleasant, including Barbara. I think he accusations are exaggerated and more out of spite than anything else. She had been trying to go full-time when I was there. She did get turned down, then she could get sower. Blame things on other people that were very obvious things that she probably could have handled different.
The only thing this is going to accomplish is put another lawsuit on Apple's belt. We have people that are killing their babies and getting away from it and here we have Barbara's self-entitlement getting in the way of a lawyer doing the job to help the people needing helped. . . Lets move one people.
In all of this do you know how many households pay Zero federal income tax??? I'll let you google the answer. The worse number (from associate press) is that 40% of households (yes that's not a typo) actually have net positive federal taxes - this mean that they get paid by the federal gov't to exist!!! Why would those that get paid by the gov't vote for any other gov't. They 'work' (i.e. earn money) by voting. This is a significant part of the definition of corruption - voting for people to pay you money. Whether the 'rich' get taxed more or not is irrelevant, and could be discussed civilly in another discussion but unless a much greater proportion of the population get their skin in the game we can never turn this around.
Whether the rich get taxed more is relevant. I don't think it's any coincidence that the US has the second lowest tax burden of all the major advanced economies. Federal taxes, as a percentage of GDP, are the lowest point since 1950. America created jobs like gangbusters in the 1950s and 60s when the top marginal tax rate was in the 70% range. The weakest period of job creation in the US over the last six decades has been the during the George Bush presidency--when tax rates were at their lowest.
And Republicans say we're "over taxed"?
Curious.
There are just too many lawyers and naturally they are more likely to sue a big company like Apple! Big companies have deep pockets and are more likely to settle just to get them off their backs.
Wrong! NOT Brentwood.. Richmond Heights! Check your stats again!
Are we talking about the Galleria over on Brentwood Boulevard, right up the street from Brentwood Plaza? The one that's geographically closer to Brentwood -- and Clayton, for that matter -- than it is to Richmond Heights? While it technically falls in Richmond Heights due to unusual districting (pull up a map of the Heights some time, it looks like a Tetris shape from hell), most locals I know -- including employees at the Apple store in question -- would say it's in Brentwood.
If you really think the racial demographics of the surrounding community are relevant here (and I really don't think they are), wouldn't it make sense to average out the population percentage of all three surrounding neighborhoods? Clayton, Brentwood, and Richmond Heights have a combined black population of 7.6%, which makes the store's 8% black workforce sound pretty reasonable.
By the way you can take all references to race out of the posting and come to the same conclusion. It has nothing to do with racism and simply is an example of a person that can't grasp what is required of them to be successful. It is seen all the time in the work place and has nothing to do with racism.
That could be true of all the alleged racism/ageism etc against employees that has been mentioned. Even the woman claiming she was being discriminated against because she went on medical leave.
The reality is that we don't have all the facts. We don't know what these people were like on the job, what complaints were made about them, what knowledge they have etc.
Even those two guys that say they were kicked out because they were black. We don't know what happened that day. Maybe they were asked to leave because they were being loud and rowdy. Or maybe they actually were trying to shoplift. Who knows.
The only thing we do know is that sources that leak this kind of stuff and sites that post the 'information' have an agenda. For the sources, it's to gather sympathy for the alleged victim by raising folks ire against 'the man'. For the sites, it's hits and page views. So take it all with a grain of salt and don't assume Apple is always guilty of wrong doing.
This thread was pretty much over with "rubbish." I have worked with Rob Proffer for years. He was my assistant manager at West County Apple when the store opened in 2002. I can attest to Rob's character and there isn't a racist bone in his body. As far as the demographic makeup of the store employees are concerned I believe they're accurate for the area in which the store is located and they likely reflect the demographic ratios within the applicant pool. This is bunk and I hope it gets dismissed as bunk. On the other hand, the manager of West County was thrown under the bus by Apple corporate in similar circumstances...
Yea CT you're right, it should have stopped at the first post. Rob Proffer is one if the most honest guys I've ever worked with. He tells you as it is, and doesn't sugar coat anything. He is straight forward and that's why he's one of the best managers I've worked for. I consider myself a good friend of CT and know that what he said above about Rob is the absolute truth. I'm not saying that there couldn't be racism at the Apple Stores here in STL, but that is not the question at hand. There isn't a member of the management team at the Galleria store that I can even consider remotely racially judgmental. This needs to be dismissed and I can only hope that this doesn't tarnish Rob's reputation. Barbara in her mind feels she's been wronged and for that I feel for her, but she's taking it out on the wrong person. She should really re-evaluate the situation.