Search:

Custom Search

Readers' Comments

Total Comments: 32
Page 1 of 4

« Previous | Next »

Evaluating EEO As If It Really Mattered

Evaluating EEO; as if it really mattered

Tired
USMC
Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:21 AM

Post Reply

Gee, I guess Julie Meyers would take a nose dive here, so this won't work. We wouldn't want to hold anyone responsible. Having said that, these are good, but I still don't think anyone will ever really be graded on this. Managers will still get level 5 (the write up should be really funny under NSPS) and a nice pay raise/bonus. Since the managers make up the pay pool, you really don't think that their ratings would reflect anything remotely resembling reality. That would be a first.

Who is kidding who?

Engineer
Interior
Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:46 AM

Post Reply

Given that my upper management is still trying to avoid veterans preference and hire a favorite, I don't think that EEO matters much to them either. Upper management has to lead by example, and most do not.

Discrimination

Engineer
HUD
Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:58 AM

Post Reply

You state: "Standards that refer to recruiting women and minorities have been applied to supervisors who had no authority to recruit or select. Other standards have pretended to evaluate on the basis of EEO complaints filed – a matter that is either uncontrollable or dealt with by discipline." There are sevearl problems with this statement: 1) Putting in place goals for recruiting women and minorities is discriminatory; 2)Supervisors do have authority to recruit and to promote. They promote by giving minorities and women higher performance ratings than they deserve. 3) Supervisors are rarely disciplined for violating EEO rules. They lose cases in EEOC hearings for their discriminary acts and manaement does not discipline them.

The Center for Individual Rights has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia, challenging employment goals and preferences for women and racial minorities at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Re: Discrimination

HR specialist
retired
Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:43 PM
I think you've misread portions of the article: (1) No where does it suggest that only women and minorities be recruited. It is perfectly valid to focus at least some recruitment efforts to try to reach under-represented segments of the population. In your particular field, women and minorities are probably under-represented. (2) In many govt agencies, a potential selection is run by EEO, HR and upper management before any job offer is made. Supervisors don't have the final say. And by the way, do you know of any white male employees who've received higher ratings than they deserved? (3) You're correct that management isn't always disciplined when they should be.

Re: Discrimination

Engineer
HUD
Wed Nov 28, 2007 9:38 AM
Reply to HR Specialist
(1)The suit, Worth v. Jackson, charges HUD and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) — which encouraged, evaluated, and approved HUD's "affirmative employment plan" (AEP) — with intentional race and sex discrimination in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the United States Constitution. The suit asks for a permanent injunction against HUD's use of the plan and the preferential treatment of women and minorities required therein.
(2) Managers do get involved in the hiring process. In my case the Director of my office did not want me to receive a promotion so she hired her best friend's daughter-in law instead, in retaliation for my prior EEO activity. She was hired from outside the agency.
(3) In my office the Director is a Puerto Rican female who hates white people, so no I have never seen a white male receive a higher rating than they deserved.
For more information on Worth v. Jackson visit the website cir-usa.org.

EEO ratings

EEO Manager
Fed
Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:04 AM

Post Reply

This article is not bad. One of the reasons for the requirement to rate is that the record of various agencies even with compliance is poor. There are many examples in which managers, when confronted with the right thing to do or even ordered to do the right thing, purposely fail to do; "rather than offend the boys, it's better to pay off the complainant". This is really bad when the management official is a political appointee, SES or seniior careerist.

The quality of EEO programs is directly related to senior management's committment. If all managers want is a program that processes complaints and therefore stays in reactive mode, they hire EEO staff to reflect that view. That view is actually the primary cause of programmatic problems; the EEO staff is then forced into the defensive because senior management gives lip service to EEO quality.

The EEOC MD 715 is a great step in the right direction.

EEO Performance Standard

HR Specialist
NARA
Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:37 AM

Post Reply

I liked the standard. It is clear and specific. A person receiving this standard would know exactly what to do to get the desired rating. I also think the standard could be used at many levels, from first-line supervisor to manager.

Good work!

eeo

social worker
vha
Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:46 AM

Post Reply

I must say first that for the most part EEO is a sham and I feel it is totally against the emloyee on every level.The 'investigators" have little or no ability in investigating thoroughly any complaint.It turns out that every one repeats themselves over the phone to an invesitigator which always amuses me as to how thorough can such nonsense be.I've been told that when an EEO is filed it costs the agency(station or CO).I've never beeen able to find that out and who is held responsible for the loss of that money?Does anyone care?Holding anyone responsible(spervisers,managers(mid/upper)is total foolery and will never happen.But a nice concept.

Re: eeo

Fed
DoD
Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:07 AM
Before I became a union steward and officer, I filed complaints for valid reasons. That the agency said that the $$ involved in resolving those complaints was irrelevant. In each instance, the problem could've been avoided had the supvr been honest and upfront w/me and allowed me to do my job as outlined in my PD. Had my bosses done THEIR jobs, I'd have been able to do MY job, and everyone would've been happy.

The complaint procedure law, and anyone who feels victimized by discrimination is entitled to pursue that procedure and is protected by law to do so.

That's why it's so important that all feds know what their rights as feds are--and their labor unions SHOULD be able to tell them that, and more.

EEO

Program Technician
Farm Service Agency
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:27 PM

Post Reply

Supervisor should be given training on evaluating different personality traits of his employees. There should be emphasis on equality treatment of employees. If there is a perceived trait that baffles/annoys supervisor, action should be driven toward understanding the person who is the employee and not toward comparisons. Look at the whole person. This is especially relevant when favorites are targeted as "ideal" employees. In this case, it would be unfair to evaluate through comparison.

Total Comments: 32
Page 1 of 4

« Previous | Next »

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.