Minneapolis teachers union agreement stipulates White teachers be laid off first, regardless of seniority

[bullets13]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[Big girl]

3 hours ago, bullets13 said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I don't believe that this article is factual.

[BS Wildcats]

3 hours ago, Big girl said:

I don't believe that this article is factual.

Of course you’re not going to believe.  You are of the mindset that liberals are incapable of such overt racist acts.  You deny biden did anything wrong in dealing with Ukraine in reference to his po💩 son, Hunter.  And he did so on live TV.  Why are so naive, or are you just that oblivious to the facts?  You really are laughable!

[baddog]

11 hours ago, Big girl said:

I don't believe that this article is factual.

I don’t believe you are correct. 

[tvc184]

15 hours ago, Big girl said:

I don't believe that this article is factual.

The CBS News, Washington Post, Washington Times, NY Post, Daily Mail, MSN…..

Have all fallen for the lie then. 

[Unwoke]

16 hours ago, Big girl said:

I don't believe that this article is factual.

But you believed Trump having Nuclear Documents at his house was factual? 😂😂😂

[baddog]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

The CBS News, Washington Post, Washington Times, NY Post, Daily Mail, MSN…..

Have all fallen for the lie then. 

She will still refuse to believe it. It’s the liberal way. 
She’s waiting for it to hit the Facebook gossip page. 

[bullets13]

20 hours ago, Big girl said:

I don't believe that this article is factual.

It's well documented all over the internet by every major news outlet out there, as well as news outlets in the Minneapolis area.  There are a lot of fake news stories on this site from a lot of dubious sources, but sadly this story is really happening.  It's mind-blowing.  

[BS Wildcats]

21 hours ago, Big girl said:

I don't believe that this article is factual.

You like your crow fried or baked?

[tvc184]

13 hours ago, bullets13 said:

It's well documented all over the internet by every major news outlet out there, as well as news outlets in the Minneapolis area.  There are a lot of fake news stories on this site from a lot of dubious sources, but sadly this story is really happening.  It's mind-blowing.  

Maybe 20 years ago, Beaumont PD was looking to hire minorities and the union agreed to an offer. I don’t know what incentive the city offered by the union accepted it.

 The hiring (if I remember correctly) was a 3 tier system and it was divided something like, Blacks/Hispanics, women, White males. In some respects it is similar to Minneapolis with race based layoffs. 

By Texas civil service law, a department has to hire by test score. The only incentive allowed is that 5 extra points for military service. The problem was (and still seems to be) that W/Ms were consistently scoring in the top percentages.

Under Texas collective bargaining laws, only the police and firefighters in the public sector are allowed to bargain. If a city is civil service (such as Port Arthur and Beaumont), there are laws in place on promotions, discipline, etc. An example is that on promotions, the testing materials must be announced at least 90 days in advance of a test (such as certain laws and books on management, police supervision, etc.) and the test must be announced at least 30 days in advance. All announcements must be in writing and posted publicly at city hall. Everyone must take the promotional test at the same time and location. Anyone is allowed to appeal questions on the test.  It is a timed test and the police department does not choose the testing materials, see or choose the test beforehand and does not give the test. That is all done by civilian civil service commission. An officer by state law gets 1 point per year seniority, up to 10 years.

 The only point of that is there are state laws in place the regulate police operations to the extent of promotions and discipline. BUT…. by contract a union and the city can agree to disregard laws of civil service but both sides must agree. An example is that state law requires two years of experience  to test for sergeant but a city (like mine) can change the state law and require 4 years of experience. Another example is a city giving additional points on the test for candidates that live in the city in addition to military service. 

What has all of that got to do with teachers in Minneapolis having a contract that lays off people by race?

Beaumont PD as mentioned had the tier hiring system by race and sex. It was agreed to by the union.

 One W/M from another area department made very near the top of the test and maybe even #1 overall.  The problem for him was, to be hired by the contract, a person in each other tier has to be hired first. So there had to be a Black or Hispanic and then a female. But….. the city could not fill those slots first so the W/M was rejected only because they couldn’t find a qualified female (I think). It was not even a matter of giving preference to a minority, in this case the guy was completely rejected because they could not find a qualified minority in one of the tiers. 

Civil service law says that the test is good for a year so a city can’t keep giving tests if they don’t like the outcome. In this case the city ended the test scores since they are not getting enough minority participation. 

So he sued. I believe the city’s argument was, we have a contract that the union agreed to so we aren’t bound by the law. True however…. a contract can’t overcome my rights that I did not agree to give up. From my memory, the officer won an EEOC lawsuit, got a 6 figure settlement based on race discrimination and BPD had to change their hiring practices/contract. I am fairly certain I remember that officer staying with his old department after the settlement.

 So a union cannot take away certain individual rights by contract. Imagine this, a police union votes for a contract to ban women from police service and the city agrees under the belief that woman should not be police officers. Would that be allowed to stand? Would such a contract overcome individual rights? I think not!!

Does that apply to the Minneapolis teacher’s union? I don’t know since they are under a different federal circuit court. Unless the Supreme Court issues a different ruling, their circuit court would stand as precedent.

I think a federal lawsuit “might” knock that race based part of the contract out. 

In my opinion….

[CardinalBacker]

I think it definitely violates the "equal protection under the law" afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment... But I've always felt like Affirmative Action did the same thing.  

I think we've all got stories about people who missed out on opportunities because of their skin color or genitals.  It's wrong when it happens to anybody for any reason.  The crappy part to me is when a candidate is selected largely due to their race, but when they get terminated it's also about their race.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

I mean, they hired you because you're black, but then they also fired you because you're black?  There's a BAD misconception (or at least I hope it's a misconception, not a new reality) that goes "they can't fire me because of my "qualifications."" The unfortunate repercussion is that employers recognize the potential liabilities from hiring such a "qualified" candidate... there's no exposure if you hire a hetero white dude.  Somewhat more liability if you hire a white chick... but it's a bomb waiting to go off if you hire anybody from another group.  Many firms are finding out the hard way that they got sold a bill of goods about "our diversity is our strength."

I think that it's true... we need to hire the best person for the job, and sometimes the best person doesn't score the highest on a test or whatever.  But hiring (or in this case, firing) someone based on their race is just.... racist, lol.