What is this??

@quackquack said
Nothing is conceded. Workers do not consent to be fired because of their race any more than black people consented to be counted as 3/5 of a person.

The union represents the workers and the agreement was ratified in accordance with legal rules. The past discrimination was conceded and the remedial measures agreed to by both sides.

@no1marauder said
This is ridiculous and justifies me calling you an idiot.

Race was already made a factor in hiring as both sides concede. It illegally caused blacks to be victimized and whites to benefit. Layoffs now based on seniority would further penalize blacks because of the racial discrimination and benefit whites because of the racial discrimination.

That you won't concede it makes you either an apologist for racial discrimination or an idiot.

Take your pick.

There is no reason to call me an idiot especially since I am correct.
If someone works they should not lose their seniority unless they themselves did something wrong. You do not allege that the person who will lose their job ever did anything wrong. They simply have the misfortune of having the skin color of someone else who you allege did something wrong.
Your solution of firing someone because of their skin color is the EXACT wrong you are complaining about. But somehow you believe it is the logical conclusion.
Regardless of how serious you believe the problem is, you cannot have a solution that causes someone to lose their job because of race

@no1marauder said
The union represents the workers and the agreement was ratified in accordance with legal rules. The past discrimination was conceded and the remedial measures agreed to by both sides.

The union sold certain of its members rights down the river and maybe part of the solution should be for the white members who lose their rights because of race to sue the union.

@quackquack said
The union sold certain of its members rights down the river and maybe part of the solution should be for the white members who lose their rights because of race to sue the union.

I'm still trying to figure out why you think Person A has a "right" to benefit from illegal discrimination against Person B.

Remedies that put Person A in the exact same position he would have been absent the illegal discrimination are obviously fair.

@no1marauder said
I'm still trying to figure out why you think Person A has a "right" to benefit from illegal discrimination against Person B.

Remedies that put Person A in the exact same position he would have been absent the illegal discrimination are obviously fair.

You did not prove that person A was hired only because of their skin color and that person B would have been hired instead of A because that is unknown. Person A did nothing wrong and they should not suffer any penalty. Furthermore A actually worked and therefore earned seniority which others who did not work (regardless of the reason) did not earn.
I am trying to figure out why you are so concerned about person B but have absolutely no concern for person A. Your insistence on looking at everything through a racial lens (intentionally?) tramples on the rights of those who aren't even alleged to have done anything wrong.

@quackquack said
You did not prove that person A was hired only because of their skin color and that person B would have been hired instead of A because that is unknown. Person A did nothing wrong and they should not suffer any penalty. Furthermore A actually worked and therefore earned seniority which others who did not work (regardless of the reason) did not earn.
I am trying to fig ...[text shortened]... intentionally?) tramples on the rights of those who aren't even alleged to have done anything wrong.

It's already been conceded that Person B wasn't hired because of his skin color. Why you keep ignoring that fact can only be attributed to malice or stupidity.

The only reason Person B didn't work and obtain seniority was because of illegal racial discrimination. It's too bad that Person A can't continue to benefit from that fact if layoffs are necessary, but as to who justice demands suffer the unfortunate penalty the victim or the beneficiary it's not even close to any fair minded individual.

All you are arguing for is to continue the pernicious effects of racist discrimination. I find that morally reprehensible.

@no1marauder said
It's already been conceded that Person B wasn't hired because of his skin color. Why you keep ignoring that fact can only be attributed to malice or stupidity.

The only reason Person B didn't work and obtain seniority was because of illegal racial discrimination. It's too bad that Person A can't continue to benefit from that fact if layoffs are necessary, but as to who ...[text shortened]... r is to continue the pernicious effects of racist discrimination. I find that morally reprehensible.

You are arguing to punish a person who did nothing wrong and that is morally reprehensible. You could actually prove who did something wrong and punish them but you are so racist you rather punish an innocent person because they have white skin. Using your logic if I am mugged by a black guy we could throw any black guy in jail or if i am offended by Japan's behavior in World War II we could bomb Japan now. It really matters who get punished and someone who work at a job and does nothing wrong has earned their seniority and it should not be taken away because you can't tailor a remedy correctly.