Actually, what I would do is place the burden of proof on the employer. The details of implementing this program would be entirely at the discretion of women and minorities. The government would have no say in that. This program would mean that, rather than needing to file a lawsuit against a wealthy corporation, for example, a woman or a minority could simply state that he or she had been discriminated against and this claim would have the weight of law. Misusing this power would be a criminal offense, but the employer would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that said power had been misused.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

IMO, that would lead to the destruction of many, if not most corporations in America. You're basically proposing turning the (ultimate) hiring function over to people (who have an interest in the decision) based on their gender or race. Private sector businesses should continue to decide how to best run their businesses, without interference from government or special interest groups. The sexual harassment lawsuits that fly left & right when someone doesn't get their way are bad enough as is... this would create a madhouse, IMO.

IMO, what you're proposing would be inefficient within the business function, for the same reasons that unions contribute to business inefficiencies.

It's a nice goal. But I don't see it as workable or practical. The purpose of a corporation is not to promote social good, it is to enhance shareholder value.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

Women and minorities would not, as a rule, capriciously bring down the companies that employed them. If they did, they would increase their own unemployment.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

But what the UAW has done to Delphi, GM and Ford was not intentional either.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

True, but in my opinion, the program that I am suggesting is just as much a social necessity as unions. I think that women and minorities would learn from the mistakes of unions, especially since the success of such a program would be the beginning of the end of inequality.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Without seeing some data, I'm not even sure that there is a gender or race based employment problem in upper management. The numbers alone don't tell us anything about hunger, desire or skill in climbing the ladder.

But let's say there is. And let's say this proposal is implemented. I'm not trying to be funny, but I'll use some illustrative names to make a point. Earl White, Jennifer Jewison-White (no relation to Earl), Bob Black and Carol Gaye-Black (no relation to Bob) are all going for the promotion. They all started on the same day. They've all been effective managers for an equal period of time. All of them have identical performance records.

Earl's dad was best friends with the current CEO. He golfs with the CEO's son. He and the CEO belong to the same country club. Earl gets the job.

Jennifer instantly files a claim of gender and religious discrimination. They move Earl aside and give the job to Jennifer. Earl quits and goes to work for the Mexican branch of a competitor (that doesn't have these rules). Upon hearing this, Bob files a claim of racial discrimination. They move Jennifer aside and give the job to Bob. Jennifer quits and joins Earl at the Mexican competitor. At this point, Carol files a claim of gender and sexual orientation discrimination. As soon as he hears about Carol's claim, Bob just submits his resignation and moves to Mexico. Carol gets the job in the end. But with so many people gone, business suffers and the company eventually has to file for Chapter 11. What's left of the company is bought by the Mexican competitor and Carol ends up joining the rest of the group. And they all end up working for a manager who says out loud that he doesn't care for gringos, women in the workplace, Jews, Blacks or gays... and there's nothing they can do about it. Things can always get worse.

I have been at the center of two companies that have gone down the drain because of petty infighting - I just left one. Part of that story I lifted from something I actually saw happen a couple of years ago, though I stretched it to make a point. But I do know of two people working for a monster in Mexico. It does happen.

My question is: where would this end? I know people who have hired PI's to get pics of a job competitor playing hanky-panky on the side. For a six figure management job, people will do all manner of things. To assume the greater honor of one race or gender over another is a mistake. To compete, you have to be prepared to take shots and deliver shots. And you have to realize it may not always seem fair. And I promise you, the one that doesn't get the job will think the decision isn't fair. If they think it is fair, they're not a good competitor.

In the above example, Earl's going to get that job in real life. All things were equal, but Earl played some cards the others couldn't or didn't. Sad, but that's life. The other three will either lick their wounds and get old Earl the next round, or they will move to greener pastures.

Otherwise, where would it end?

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

The simple solution is to have all women and minorities in a united group. In that way they would work together towards achieving equality for all downtrodden groups.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

but a very complex process.

You cannot lump all women into a single mindset or group, much less all minorities.

A wealthy Black person may have as much or more in common with a wealthy White person as he would a poor Black person. A Jewish female may have as much or more in common with a Jewish male as she would a gentile female. Within the Hispanic community, there are deep and real divisions based on country of origin, social standing, etc. My Peruvian ex-fiance would become (violently) disagreeable if someone assumed she was Mexican. My cousin is married to a fellow who insists on referring to himself as German-Jewish (as if that means something to me)... he looks and sounds like a regular 'Murican to me. IMO, we shouldn't assume that divisions based on race, gender or sexual orientation mean that those subgroup members are actually "together". And to actually group subgroups presents a whole new universe of correlation problems - especially if you're trying to prove the statistical worth of a set of data based conclusions.

But don't misunderstand me, I admire your desire to cure what might be a social problem. I just don't agree that this solution would be practical or effective.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."

It won't be implemented anyway. Unions though, include people at different pay and benefit levels. The common goal of a union is to increase those levels for all union members. In the same way, uniting women and minorities in charge of an affirmative action program, a program that would carry the weight of law, would have the effect of uniting them for a common purpose.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

But you see now how unpopular and impractical unions are among workers these days. You see how well union businesses tend to do versus nonunion competitors. Especially in the south, unions are relatively unpopular, and for the most part disliked by average workers. The majority of southern states have right to work laws, so that workers cannot be forced to join the union. I would not blame all of Delphi's woes on the UAW, but they must pick up a good share of the blame for its recent failure. Unions often mandate wages and benefits that are not market competitive and the business suffers.

People are chosen for positions near the top for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's fair (whatver "fair" means). I'm sure that sometimes it's not. But given the number of women and minorities entering management these days, if after some period of time, those people are never (or seldom) chosen for promotions, I think a class action discrimination suit could be successfully fought, as they often are. Crying foul and requiring the other party to prove that they're not guilty goes against the fabric of our judicial system.

But again, the aim of a corporation is not to make sure that a certain number of women or minorities make it to the top. While that's a fine goal of society, the corporation only exists for the purpose of making as much money as possible and increasing the value held by shareholders. If talented women and minorities are constantly looked over by a business, they'll wind up somewhere else and that businesses will eventually fail on its own - just as it should.

__________________
"Tweeter was a Boyscout before she went to Vietnam and found out the hard way... nobody gives a d@mn."