Georgia Pacific

[105viking]

sometimes, people feel like you don't deserve to be there, because you don't deserve to be there. if the REASON you are hired is strictly BECAUSE you are a minority, then you will NEVER be accepted by everybody in your flight department. there has never been a better use for the term TOKEN, than a situation like that.

hiring a pilot because he or she is a minority candidate is as much of a bullsh*t policy as NOT hiring a pilot because he or she is a minority candidate.

i still want to know about the quals of those who applied this round. i can't become a minority before the next job opening, but maybe i can fly some more.

105viking

 

[sleepy]

Sleepy

As you have stated you don't really have an axe to grind, might I ask you not to use terms like "token". Look it isn't easy working in an environment when people believe that you don't deserve to be there.

Regards

So sorry, but when you only hire one of something, and have only ever had one of that something on hand, and that something is different than all of the other things, then that something is a token.

A token is something that serves as an indication or representation of a fact, event, or emotion; sign ; symbol; merely symbolic.

When the HR Department takes over a hiring process with the express intent to hire an EEOC token, then the hiring process becomes unfair. They should be required to put it in their want ad, only hiring female pilots, others need not apply. Wouldn't that be fair?

 

[bman]

Okay

I don't want to turn this into some long drawn out arguement about the merits of "diversity", but I must say that I am not aware of any flight department that hired someone from say accounting, who happened to be a female or whatever, a pilot position. My point is that the idea of someone getting hired for a skilled position simply, because they fit a certain category is just simply untrue! They must meet some min. qualifications. I am sure someone out there could pull some story they heard about some guy or gal who had no ticket and no time who got hired for X job, but come on lets be adults. I have flown with professionals who are male and female, black, hispanic, etc and so have many of you.

"Qualified" is extremely subjective beyond a point. Total time is not an accurate guage of ability, nor are the number of type ratings!
As to:

"if the REASON you are hired is strictly BECAUSE you are a minority, then you will NEVER be accepted by everybody in your flight department."

The person that get hired should be given a chance to prove their abilities with out pre-judgements. The "minoritiy" pilot didn't ask to be hired based upon their gender or race and should be afforded the same opportunities to prove their mettle that anyone else would.

When another white male is hired are you going "I bet he's not qualified for the job!". If the answer is no then why do people assume something different from a non WM?

On a personal note about the word token. Maybe that may be what I am, but I am qualified to have the job I have and no one where I work can question my ability to operate an airplane. And if any one ever calls me a token to my face we are gonna have some problems. I won't need to sue either. We can handle that crap behind the hanger one way or another!

Regards

 

[English]

So sorry, but when you only hire one of something, and have only ever had one of that something on hand, and that something is different than all of the other things, then that something is a token.

A token is something that serves as an indication or representation of a fact, event, or emotion; sign ; symbol; merely symbolic.

Ok, let me be sure I have this straight. If a company has only ever hired one type of pilot, then that pilot is a token? So, if it has only ever hired male pilots, then the male pilots are "token"?

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

 

[Flywrite]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but its interesting to observe that when one of us white guys gets hired in a corporate position with low qualifications everyone says "way to go" and talks about how aviation is all about "who you know" and that qualifications really don't mean much over a certain base minimum. When the same thing occurs with a female or black guy there is an uproar about how unfair it is to not hire based on qualifications.

I know this isn't the same as affirmative action, and yes in some ways affirmative action is almost as bad as NOT hiring someone based on sex, race, etc., but don't justify your anger towards a minority pilot by saying that it is wrong for a company to hire a less qualified pilot than yourself. It happens with other white guys all the time and nobody blinks an eye.

If you were offered a great job in a corporate flight dept, (even though you may not meet the paper minimums) because you know someone in the department, would you turn that job down so a more qualified applicant could have it?

If the answer is "no" then you have no right to be angry at any lower time minority who takes a job. The system may be committing a wrong in an attempt to make up for past injustices, but that pilot is just trying to get by and build a career like the rest of us.

Anyway...thats just my opinion.

 

[English]

flywrite is right on. I know a guy (an acquaintance, actually), that was hired as a Citationjet captain (single pilot) when he had a little over 1000 hours. He was first hired on at the same company to fly a Bonanza when he had just a couple of hundred hours, and moved up into a Conquest at approximately 700 hours.

As you read this, are you thinking that the guy got the job because he was a minority? Well, he isn't, he is a white guy with blond/brown hair.

Now, visualize the same position I just mentioned going to a woman with exactly the same qualifications. Is your blood boiling? Do you think it is unfair that the woman got the job with that low of flight time? If so, you are a bigot.

 

[105viking]

i don't care if a minority gets a job. great. good for him or her. also, i didn't mean to start the latest flame war. i was just curious who got hired. sorry for reviving this thread.

let's all just go fly.

viking

 

[sleepy]

Okay

I don't want to turn this into some long drawn out arguement about the merits of "diversity", but I must say that I am not aware of any flight department that hired someone from say accounting, who happened to be a female or whatever, a pilot position. My point is that the idea of someone getting hired for a skilled position simply, because they fit a certain category is just simply untrue! They must meet some min. qualifications. I am sure someone out there could pull some story they heard about some guy or gal who had no ticket and no time who got hired for X job, but come on lets be adults. I have flown with professionals who are male and female, black, hispanic, etc and so have many of you.

"Qualified" is extremely subjective beyond a point. Total time is not an accurate guage of ability, nor are the number of type ratings!
As to:

"if the REASON you are hired is strictly BECAUSE you are a minority, then you will NEVER be accepted by everybody in your flight department."

The person that get hired should be given a chance to prove their abilities with out pre-judgements. The "minoritiy" pilot didn't ask to be hired based upon their gender or race and should be afforded the same opportunities to prove their mettle that anyone else would.

When another white male is hired are you going "I bet he's not qualified for the job!". If the answer is no then why do people assume something different from a non WM?

On a personal note about the word token. Maybe that may be what I am, but I am qualified to have the job I have and no one where I work can question my ability to operate an airplane. And if any one ever calls me a token to my face we are gonna have some problems. I won't need to sue either. We can handle that crap behind the hanger one way or another!

Regards

Oh, you so tough, me so scared. Give me a brake. I'm sure you do a fine job a a pilot, but you have not written one word that refutes my basic argument, that is is wrong when the most qualified person is not hired for a job because of the color of their skin or their gender. Am I right or wrong on this? When you are hired to fill an EEOC quota, then you are a token.

 

[bman]

Okay sleepy,

Maybe you didn't read my post, but I said

""Qualified" is extremely subjective beyond a point. Total time is not an accurate guage of ability, nor are the number of type ratings!"

Everytime I hear this arguement that's what is tossed around. Somehow the hiring process is not fair if the " Most Qualified" person is not hired. Sleepy you and others who think like you really need to take a moment to think about reality. Who determines what is most qualified.Having a zillion hours, 20 type ratings, and one shuttle landing might make one experienced,but it doesn't nessicarily make the the "Most Qualified" person for the job. What if that same person has all of those qualities just mentioned and is an arrogant A$$? In your world he is the most qualified so there for should get the job by default?! I hope you enjoy working with him! Then you'll bring the all things being equal into the equation. THings are never equal. You know that in this job (corporate) disposition matters as much as total experience and if your flight department is like mine, we are constantly being tasked to do things outside of being just a pilot. Sleepy IN THE REAL WORLD THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON RARELY EVER GETS THE JOB AND THAT IS USUALLY A COLORBLIND THEORY!!!!!

And laugh all you want, but for too long some people have thought it cool to smile in your face and talk behind your back. I was just stating there aint gonna be no AA suit coming from me if you are man enough to talk $hit to my face! I know how the "guy" talk about chick pilots around me and I have no reason not to assume they are doing the same to me. So I say open your eyes or grow a spine.

Regards

 

[bman]

ps

The EEOC doesn't mandate quotas anymore and flight departments have been conspicuously unaffected by them in the past.

Regards

 

[Flywrite]

Bman,

I can understand your objection to the term "token" and can barely imagine how frustrating it must be to continually have to prove yourself just because you are (apparently) a minority. If most of us are having a bad day and blow a landing all to he11, we get a little good natured crap from the other pilot. If you do it some people will assume that it is because you are unqualified and only have your job because of your color/gender or whatever. That must suck.

I once worked with a black A&P who refered to himself as "Token" after a while we would all call him this occasionally. No disrespect was intended by anyone, it was all done in a good natured way. This guy was a great mechanic. I dont know what his background was, and didn't care. If I got in a plane he had worked on I was comfortable. His self deprication was done in a very humorous way and we all laughed about it. I don't for a minute think he WAS a "token" employee, and neither did he. He WAS the only black guy at the FBO, but the fact is that you just dont see that many minorities drawn to the field. Perhaps that is the wrong that needs to be righted. Maybe if aviation was presented in a better way to young minorities, more would choose it as a career path. That way there would be more minority applicants. When that happens maybe we can get away from the practice of companies snapping up any minority applicant that comes along in an attempt to comply with misguided EEOC procedures.


I have flown with maybe 12 women and 7 black guys in a professional flight deck environment. Of each category a few were outstanding, a few were boneheads, and most were good pilots. In other words they were JUST LIKE the white males I flew with. I just dont get where race or gender enters into it (except the Irish...Jeezus, don't get me started on the Irish ).

 

[FoxThree]

What a bunch of hokum this thread is. You have English representing feminist issues, Bman representing black issues and everyone else tiptoeing around them trying to be sensitive and not offend anyone. All companies large enough to have an HR department have diversity goals that they try to achieve. Anybody who thinks differently is nuts.

While what Bman says about the EEOC is technically correct, you may want to check out their website.

http://www.eeoc.gov/

 

[English]

Sorry, I had an offensive email thrown at me from someone thinking I am pro-affirmative action, so I went overboard on this thread to make my feelings known, so there would be no confusion.

I am not pro-affirmative action. I am not pro-feminist, either. I have just seen alot of misconstrued assumptions about pilots because of their gender/race/sexual preference. I would just like the bashing to stop, but we have a long way to go...

Sorry for the hijacking, AGAIN...

 

[sleepy]

Funny, I am actually pro-feminist, or at least I believe that every individual should be free to achieve all of his or her potential.

I also believe that affirimative action has a small place in our society, to make-up for past discrimination where it can be proven that it was systemic. It should last only until such past discrimination is corrected, then it should end.

I don't believe in diversity goals.