What is the difference between affirmative action and EEOC?
612590
Affirmative action is a policy that allows race to be a consideration in things like college admissions or employment.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal agency that enforces different types of federal anti-discrimination laws.
130245
I don't get what you are asking - what do you mean by affirmative actions?  I need more info!  If the contract didn't exist - what is the plaintiff basing the claim off of - i.e. quasi contract or implied in fact contract etc etc. Or are you representing the defendant and want to get out of the contract because the plainitff induced you to creat one with fraud?
965921
Fair Labor Standards Act - Regulates working conditions for minors, as well as overtime after 40 hours in a week.\n\nOccupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) - Directs employers and employees to maintain a safe and healthy work environment.\n\nCivil Rights Act of 1971, amended 1991 - Prohibits discrimination based on various factors such as age, race, religion, etc.; Also covers sexual discrimination.
63555
I'm in an employment Law class.  Check the EEOC website, and depending on your state, the state agency as well (example: CA is the Cal Fair Housing and Employment agency.)  And there is such a thing as reverse discrimination, there have been cases where people won.  Good luck!
101429
It is different, one is not higher than the other.\n\nI would check directly with the school and or OTS adminstration.  There are 100's of types of acredidation some have no value others are of value,  they have good accrediation for a online school.  They have registered for regional status ( needed to accept pell grants and goverment funding)
330342
Depends on where you are. What country and/or state are you in?\n\nIn the United States, the EEOC is the place to start regarding employee rights questions.
444498
Hmm, that's a slightly controversial one, but not nearly as much as say, er, other stuff, so I'll jump in.  Why not?  ^_^\n\nIt may depend slightly on the type of affirmative action you're talking about, but in general I don't feel that it's right.  Especially relating to job acquisition, this is a bad idea.  If a white guy applies for a job and a black (forgive the terms, but "white" and "black" DO take less time to type...although this sentence kinda already made that a useless excuse...but meh) guy applies for the same job, and the white guy is more qualified but they take the black guy because they have to "meet quota" or they "don't want to appear rascist," then that both hurts the economy as well as being a bad moral practice.  Also, if the place those two were applying at WAS just trying to "meet a quota," and later the same white guy tries to apply and another black guy of slightly lesser qualifications also applies (please don't infer that I'm saying that non-white people are less skilled; this is merely an example), they are going to hire the white guy, or at least they should, as he meets the criteria better (not because he's white; I stated that his qualifications are better for the purposes of this example).  Anyway, if the second black guy is technically more skilled than the first black guy, then the end result in this situation is that a white guy and a black guy were hired, but the company could have had a better black guy, and the black guy that had mre qualifications did not get the job he could have had if the company had hired on what I think is a moral basis: ability.  And yes, this is a very far fetched example.  However, hiring on the basis of race is completely unjustified.  I also think hiring on the basis of need is unjustified, which of course immediately leads me to the aforementined race conclusion.  If a person really needs a job, then they need to convince their employer that they can do a darn good job of it.  Thing is, if they really need it, they will try harder to get it AND will work harder at it, which will make them at least in part better cantidates for employment.  I hope that this made sense; I tend to ramble a lot.  Anyway, I'm gonna move on to education.\n\nAs for education, there are a lot of grants out there, and I have seen stats about how African Americans and Hispanics (hmmmm, I chose to type it out NOW, but not in the earlier...oh well) are oftentimes at a disadvantage in paying for school compared to white people.  However, I really feel that we should not be labeling people like that.  there are white people I'm sure that are in just as dire straights as some of the people who apply for "race-only" scholarships.  I think scholarships should be based on merit and need.  If the people of certain races really are more needy, and they are willing to get the grades or reccomendations (and/or write good scholarship application essays), then they should get those scholarships anyway.  As it is, white people who need scholarship money are having to compete with everybody for them, but other races can enter both into "everyone" scholarships as well as scholarships that are only for their race.  Also, having quotas for letting other races into colleges can be hurtful to the people who actually try to get good grades.  I'm not saying that white people always get better grades or anything like that, but if say for one year the applicants at a university are a little more slim on the "non-white" side, and the "white" side is better qualified to get in, the unbiversity may still have to "meet quota," which is not necessarily PUNISHING ability, but is certainly not rewarding it.  If people are not rewarded for their ability and work, then something is wrong.  If minorities want to get into college, then they should (and many do of course) work h
397746
EOE is Equal Opportunity Employer\n\nDon't know the rest...
794402
I think you misunderstand affirmative action.  People are not hired or admitted to college solely on the basis of their race or ethnic background.  They still have to be qualified for the position, or have the grades to qualify for admission.  But if there are two qualified applicants, and one of them is under-represented in the work force or in the educational setting, then the "minority" candidate is to receive preference.\n\nYour attitude demonstrates how far we have to go in this country to eliminate racism and prejudice, because you assume that a person of color who holds a prestigious position got there not because they were intelligent or worked hard, but because they somehow sneaked in.  How insulting.
137746
Equal opportunity is a descriptive term for an approach intended to give equal access to an environment or benefits, such as education, employment, health care, or social welfare to all, often with emphasis on members of various social groups which might have at some time suffered from discrimination. This can involve the hiring of workers and other such practices. Social groupings generally emphasized in such a way are those delineated by aspects of gender, race, or religion.\n\nEqual opportunity practices that are race-blind or gender-blind may be distinguished from practices that involve or require affirmative action or reverse discrimination. The United States federal government and various state and local governments require affirmative action in terms of governmental hiring and contracting; many other countries make such action illegal.\n\nIn developing countries, equal opportunity is best provided by creating jobs accessible to poor people. Economic studies suggest that this is achieved by reducing barriers to entry and allowing entrepreneurial activity.\n\nThe method of providing equal opportunity is often a subject of controversy, as is the means by which to measure the success or failure of equal opportunity policies. Opportunity itself is often difficult - if not impossible - to accurately measure. Thus, in practice, equal opportunity is said to exist when people with similar abilities reach similar results after doing a similar amount of work. In other words, equal opportunity is measured by the degree of equality of outcome that it generates. Indeed, equal opportunity and equality of outcome are often seen as complementary. For example, as long as inequalities can be passed form one generation to another through gifts and wealth inheritance, it is unclear that equality of opportunity for children can be achieved without greater equality of outcome for parents.\n\n\nMale\n\n\nFemale\n\n\nDivorced\n\n\nThe Association of American Publishers (AAP) is the largest trade association of publishing companies in the United States. Its members are principally book and academic publishers.\n\nThe AAP serves many public relations functions, but perhaps its most notable role is lobbying for stronger copyright laws; its chief opponents are therefore libraries and consumer organizations.\n\nThe present head of the AAP is former Colorado Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder.\n\nThe AAP is also engaged in standardisation efforts in document preparation.\n\n--OR--\n\nAllied Administrative Publication
1049718
Affirmative action does nothing but legalize racism and discrimination for every race except whites and serves as punishment for slavery that ended 150 years ago.\n\nWhat is truly sad is that the slaves were prisoners from the inter tribal wars in Africa and were sold into slavery by their own people.\n\nSo in all actuality they have been pissed off for hundreds of years at the end consumer instead of their own people that sold them into slavery in the first place.\n\nBy the way, my ancestors came to this country in 1932 so quit treating me like my family enslaved your family.
119323
The number of claims that are actually proven is VERY small. So I think the process is a bunch of burocratic BS. Check the statistics as www.eeoc.gov and see for yourself. But yes, it is a necesary step if you want to file a discrimination lawsuit, except if it involves the Equal Pay Act (men and women earning equal pay for equal work): in that case you can go to court without filing with eeoc.
894603
I consider Affirmative Action a necessary evil that should be done away with in the next ten years, but that Equal Opportunity should remain a law.\n\nAt one time, it was necessary to give away jobs to less qualified candidates who were either black or women, because there was no way there would ever be a best-qualified black (for instance) applicant until somebody gave black people good jobs, and a chance to do them well.  Today, there are a lot fewer racists/sexists and a lot more educated African Americans and women with advanced careers.  The barriers holding these groups back have been taken away (and should be taken away), and there are finally people of color and women who can qualify for these jobs on their own merits.  \n\nBasically, as racism and sexism die out, and the effects of these old policies and thoughts are fading, the need for affirmative action is reduced.  Affirmative action is inherently racist (it gives preference to applicants based on nothing more than skin color or gender), but was necessary to remove the barriers set up against these minorities by other racist practices.  As racism is reduced, so is the need to counter it with racism.  In this case, two wrongs could make a right, if we are careful not to go overboard with affirmative action and keep it in place for too long.\n\nAn unintended effect of Affirmative Action is that people assume that a minority applicant who gets a job got it because of their minority status, and this is usually not the case.  One of the best bosses I ever had was a wheelchair-bound manager who's mainframe department went the way of the dodo, but the company kept her on to manage herself, and people talked.  When they moved her to another real management position a couple years later, everyone could see why she really was kept when her department died--she was a superb manager.
755142
No. A better question is: Should there be "affirmative action" at all?" I say no.
1091454
Well initially, affirmative action was proposed to provide equality in the workplace. However, today, many believe it is over-emphasized and now the majorities are almost minorities in a sense because the Affirmative Action clause in the respective employer will choose the minority over the majority. \nThe pros are that it helped level out the diversity in the workplace based on racial population rates in each respective geographic area. It was a huge part of the Civil rights movement that still exists today. It plays a huge role in the employment processes of todays society. Good luck in your debate.
458372
That is a hard question.  In an ideal world there would be no racism, therefore no need for Affirmative Action.  But I don't have to tell you that the world is far from ideal.  By the question I'm assuming you view Affirmative Action as reverse descrimination.\n\nIf you could tell me that nobody is judged by race anymore and back it up I would tell you that I agree and would be for removing Affirmative Action.  Seeing that you cannot do that, there needs to be a check in place to ensure a balance stays in place.  It's called checks and balances.  Just because a check is in place, it doesn't mean that there is always someone trying to get around it, it means that in case someone does try, there is a means to catch it.\n\nAffirmative is a way to prevent preferential treatment of the masses over the minority, not the cause of it.  Flawed logic like yours has erupted in many instances such as the topic of legalizing drugs, it's only a problem because it's illegal.  What they don't consider is the consequences as a result of such an action.  There would no longer be illegal activity, but there would then be an increase of "legal" drug abuse and distribution, not lessening the problem, simply re-labeling it and inadvertently promoting it.\n\nThe same can be applied to Affirmative Action.  If it were to be removed, there would be nothing in place to catch those who would attempt to bypass minority candidates who are qualified and with no way to catch it, or prevent it, it will be free to run rampant again.\n\nDon't fear it, it is a safeguard for those who need protection, are you offended when your bank put up surveillance cameras?  No, it made your bank that much more secure, it wasn't meant to call you a thief.
167623
Affirmative Action, started when employers had to look equally at a black person for employment.  Eventually it came to include all "ethnic" backgrounds.\n\nHowever if you found a job posting from a reservation and it said "preference to native ancestry" or something like that, it means that we would rather have a native working with our funds/jobs/services because they understand the issues better and we're tired of having non-natives tell us how to run our own forms of governments.