Google+ Badge

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Indiana Congressman Brooks and Her Staff Drop the Ball

I gave Congressman Brooks and her staff an opportunity to assist me with an issue I was having with  a Federal agency, Defense Finance and Accounting Services.  Brooks is the representative from the 5th District in Indiana.  When Mike Pence assumed the role as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Brooks had a brief role in considering herself to run for Governor.  She lost that bid and if how her office operates is an indication, it's good for Indiana that she didn't get the nod to run for Governor on the Republican ballot.

I had to write to Ms. Brooks twice, then call her office before I received an acknowledgement of my request for assistance.  I used the electronic email system to send her the info regarding my request.  That was over a month ago and was followed by no response.  So, I sent her another request.  No response again.  So, I called her Washington D.C. office and spoke to a human being.  Unfortunately the person answering the phone was new and really was unable to address my questions.  I told her that I had sent in two email requests.  I explained my issue and she directed me to the local district office for assistance.

I called the local congressional support office and they had no clue on how to address my question.  I then called Ms. Brooks office back and spoke to the person who had referred me to the local office.  She had by that time found the original and second inquiry I had sent.  She said she would find out from someone on how to respond to the issue.  I later received an email from Ms. Brooks office referring me to another non federal office to seek resolution to my issue.  Ms. Brooks basically said you're on your own, even though the issue involved an agency that she votes to fund or not fund through the federal budget process.

She and her staff basically admitted that if it involves a violation of rights, she wants her constituents to work it out themselves.  Don't bother her with personal issues involving federal agencies.  We're on our own.  She has more important things to take care of, like preparing to run for governor in 4 years.

The response of Ms. Brooks and her staff is an indictment of the inability of Congress to do anything that matters to the constituents who vote them in.  Ms. Brooks response acknowledges to me that she and her staff do not exist to get to the root of a problem.  They exist to ensure that they do not  irritate those who pay to finance their re election campaigns.

My suggestion to Ms. Brooks and her staff.  Try to be helpful and not just pass the ball to another organization because you don't want to get involved in really helping people.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Kaepernick Sits.- "America" Can't Make us Behave Like Good Negroes

What do you expect "loyal" Americans?  Mr. Kaepernick expressed how he feels.  It's how many of us feel when we stand for the National Anthem.  Yes, many of you are irritated because he dared to express how he feels.  You are the same people who have pride in an "America" where European Americans annihilated and virtually wiped out the Native American culture that existed here years ago.  It was a European American invasion where the invaders, your ancestors, stated they naturally had the right to take the land held by Native Americans.  A European American invasion that used germ warfare (small pox) to purposely infect and kill Native Americans.

Those who were turned off by Mr. Kaepernick's remarks are the same people who gloss over the truth that the flag you honor once supported black people being seen as three fifths of a person.  The same country that kept black people in slavery to do the hard work your ancestors would not do.  You don't care if the police continue to kill innocent black men.  Why should you?  You cannot relate to being a black person because you have no reason to do so.

Your attitude is "how dare that Negro whom we allowed to come up to the big house, talk down about his master?"  Well, you need to acknowledge some of the immoral actions taken by this country and that your "America" is not free of stains.  You are the same people who don't believe lynchings of black people did not occur in your America.  Or if you do believe, you probably think those who were lynched deserve to be lynched.

Your negative attitude towards Mr. Kaepernick's comments are expected.  You refuse to acknowledge that America is not free from sin.  Your God is America and the institutions that support your love for the perfect vision you have of America.

I have always admired the protest of Smith and Carlos from the 1968 Olympics.  It cost them their careers and adversely impacted their ability to make a living.  As with that protest I admire the courage by Mr. Kaepernick to express how he feels.  If you don't agree with it, just learn to accept his right to express his views.  Isn't that what the flag is all about, Freedom?

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Federal Government Systemic Discrimination? - Defense Finance and Accounting Services Indianapolis

In concept, the federal government should have the best human resources system.  It is through the human resources system that people are hired to carry out the many programs managed by the federal government. The best qualified and skilled people should be hired.  Racial discrimination should not be a factor in hiring decisions.

Within the first 10 of  my 35 years working in human resources I discovered that it does not matter what you know, it matters who you know. Race does matter.  European Americans are at an advantage because they normally oversee the human resources systems. No matter what people tell you, racial discrimination in hiring does exist.  Disparate treatment of people does occur based on racial considerations.

I recently found out that my former employer, Human Resources at Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) in Indianapolis, Indiana decided to rehire several former employees who had retired in the past 5 years.  True to form they did not seek to rehire any black male employees who had been outspoken about discrimination existing in the hiring policies of human resources.

Human Resources carefully followed the letter of the law in how they hired the retired European American males, and those black females whom they favored.  They abided by the systemic loopholes that allowed them to not consider several black males who were more than qualified to be rehired as a retired annuitant.  In my years of working at DFAS they were always careful to avoid breaking the laws.  But ethically behind the scenes rules were bent, stretched, and interpreted to maintain European American dominance. These actions adversely impacted black males.  The retired European American males financially benefited from being European American.  They were contacted by the agency for the purpose of rehiring them.   Former black male employees were not even made aware of the availability of the job openings because they were not wanted. Yes, it is that simple.

During my 35 years in human resources I saw many examples of how European American employees were treated differently than how a black employee would have been treated.  In one instance a married European American male supervisor (who worked in human resources) violated an ethical principle for supervisors and engaged in an affair with one of the employees he supervised.  This resulted in inappropriate conduct both at the workplace and outside the workplace.  Normally a supervisor would have been fired for such conduct.  The woman whom the supervisor had an affair with (an intern) was fired by human resources.  The supervisor was demoted in pay but was able to maintain his employment with DFAS.  In the years since the incident happened, the supervisor has been promoted several time  to almost reach the level he was at when he was demoted.  Both of the employees in this instance were European American.  What do you think would have happened if the supervisor was a black male and having an affair with a European American female?

In another incident a black male in an administrative position was fired for supposedly engaging in work place violence against his supervisor.  The employee in frustration did wrongfully touch his European American female supervisor and shook her.  He did the unthinkable, touch a European American female and that cannot be tolerated.  I recall listening to his supervisor and one of her employees conspiring out loud in a work place violence training class on how to frame a case for the employee's removal under the guise that he was a possible threat.  It was the "angry black man" excuse.

There were many other cases where Human Resources did not pursue disciplinary action against male European Americans for incidents of improper conduct. But if the employee was black, the case would be actively pursued applying the severest penalty possible.

For anyone who is going into the federal sector as a way to make a living I stress caution.  Especially if your agency consists of majority European Americans.  There is money to be made in federal jobs. It is a resource avenue where you can make a good living from your salary.  Some people use the system to benefit their friends, acquaintances, and family members.  For them the rules about affirmative action and diversity just get in the way of their selfishness to reward people they like or to reward people who look like them.  When you feel you have been wronged question the decision and how the rules were applied in making the decision.

Be aware that systemic discrimination has become an intrinsic part of federal agencies hiring systems.  The Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) staffs that many agencies have are just an administrative office created to give the semblance of fairness and that someone is keeping the system honest.  EEO staffs are not keeping the system honest because no one in management wants them to.  What you can do if you are employed by the federal government is to learn your trade and become an employee who is needed.  If you are an asset that is valued you will receive less mistreatment.  That does not mean you will be rehired if you should leave voluntarily, but it will make it more difficult to explain why you were not sought for reemployment!


Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Points to Think About

One thing the United States has been good at is becoming fearful at the news of oncoming viruses or diseases that appear to be making their way towards the United States.  The Zika virus currently falls into the "it's here" category.

Several hundreds of years ago, Europeans brought a number of diseases and viruses to a land where Native Americans already existed.  Unfortunately the Native Americans were not immune to the viruses and diseases brought over by the Europeans and many Native Americans died from these viruses, such as small pox.  On some occasions European settlers purposely gave Native American blankets infected with small box.  This was done so the Native Americans would contract and die from small pox.  The resulting effect was Europeans could then move into the land the Native Americans had occupied.  It was an effective chemical weapon strategy.  Native Americans were estimated to be 20 million before Europeans came and brought their viruses and diseases to the Americas.  So now I wonder if European Americans who know their history are afraid that viruses and diseases could lead to their own extinction?

Ironically Mexico abolished slavery in 1829.  This was well before it took a civil war in the United States in the 1860s before government sanctioned slavery was brought to an end.  Ironically today the Republican sanctioned candidate for President wants to put up a wall along the border between Mexico and the United States.  In 1829 Mexico was more forward thinking than the United States in terms of human rights.  Now the United States is expressing backward thinking views by having a major political party candidate advocate building a wall to keep free people out of the country.

Freedom of speech is often touted as being what the United States is about.  That freedom of speech also includes the ability of people to express hateful thoughts towards others.  Something seems wrong with placing hate under the protection of the "freedom of speech" umbrella.

I don't have any faith in man made government institutions to address people's problems.  Nothing about government institutions truly unites us all.  It's all about agendas and "what is best for me" or my economic/cultural group.  So we do the best we can to deal with the nonsense that we human beings are experts at advocating and creating.