The Office of the Inspector General published it has busted another Chicago Department of Water Management employee with an alleged residency violation in their last report. The Department of Water Management put this employee on paid leave April 25, 2011. That very day, arrangements were quickly made with Plumber’s Local 130 to have a meeting at 333 South State Street to decide this Plumber’s fate. Since this Plumber is late on his dues, this guy got the royal treatment. He had a meeting the very next day. The Office of the Inspector General has also investigated other members of Local 130 for alleged residency violations that are currently under review. It sure stinks to be a black man in the City of Chicago. I hope these guys get a lawyer like Rahm Emanuel so they can live anywhere they please. So far no progress is made on the scam promotions, investigations and claims made to the Shakman Monitor. Time for Rahm to put David Hoffman back as Inspector General as soon as he can. Photo by white racists.
10 Replies to “Time to lynch another black Chicago City Employee?”
Are you saying The Union is tipping off the City when workers are not paying dues?
So now we go from the same employees complaining “I did not get a promotion because the selected canidate had clout” to ” I did not get the promotion because I could not pass a valid and reliable test or I did not properly fill out the on line application”.
Face it Pat just because you have been aroundg the longest doing an average job does not mean you are the best canidate for the job. Sorry but the Whiners who did not get the job before are not going to get it now under this new system. Take personal responsibility and study.
ACLU wants to rein in spying on citizens by Chicago Police Dept.
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter email@example.com Apr 27, 2011 02:13AM
0ShareE-MailPrintMayor-elect Rahm Emanuel was urged Tuesday to rein in police spying after the city agreed to pay and publicly absolve an international peace and justice organization investigated in the run-up to a 2002 business conference in Chicago.
The Quaker-based American Friends Service Committee was one of several groups investigated by the Chicago Police Department prior to the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue.
The major business meeting had triggered violent protests across the country. The Daley administration was determined to avoid similar unrest in Chicago.
The police department’s notorious Red Squad had spied on, infiltrated and harassed political groups in violation of the First Amendment. A now-dissolved 1982 consent decree that reined in police spying required the city to audit compliance and publicly disclose investigative targets.
On Tuesday, the city agreed to settle a claim filed jointly by the Quaker group and the American Civil Liberties Union that accused the police department of overstepping its bounds in a way that damaged the reputation of a group with no history of violence.
Under the agreement, the city agreed to pay $7,500 to the ACLU and $5,000 to the AFSC. The Daley administration also acknowledged that its 2002 investigation “revealed no evidence that the AFSC … had engaged in any conduct constituting a threat to public safety … or a violation of any criminal law.”
“This is the fall-out from no longer having a spy suit consent decree in place. Without reasonable guidelines on the collection of intelligence information, the city is free to investigate the activities of law-abiding organizations,” said ACLU legal director Harvey Grossman.
“Under the old standards, they would have needed reasonable suspicion that AFSC was involved in some sort of criminal activity. Under the present guidelines, they only need a ‘legitimate law enforcement purpose.’ That could be just about anything.”
Grossman urged Emanuel and his soon-to-be-appointed police superintendent to put “reasonable suspicion guidelines” back in place to prevent police surveillance from encroaching once again on “protected First Amendment activity.”
Law Department spokesperson Jennifer Hoyle denied that the police department over-stepped its bounds by having one undercover officer attend one AFSC meeting.
“At the time these Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue meetings were going on, there were protests that became very violent and disruptive to the cities they were located in. The police department was just trying to ensure that they were respecting public safety,” she said.
AFSC spokesman Mike McConnell noted that the undercover investigation was conducted at a time when the group was negotiating with police “on how to keep the march and demonstrations non-violent and within police guidelines.”
“At least one young intern didn’t end up volunteering with us because of the worry he might end up being investigated or end up with some type of record. It harmed our ability to carry out our work,” he said.
Obsessed: Three candidates completed online applications for Foreman of Electrical Mechanics at Aviation and completed the interview cycle. The successful candidates were a Hispanic male, a Caucasian female (myself), and a Caucasian male. No one was hired during this sequence after another Caucasian male filed a grievance regarding filling out the online application. Within the past two weeks, he was promoted to Foreman of Electrical Mechanics at OEMC.
Approximately a year later, another bid was posted at Aviation and eight candidates applied. All passed the objective testing, but were failed on the first set of verbal interviews.
Four of the questions on the first set of verbal interviews were more appropriate for a true/false or multiple choice examination. Behavioral and situational interview questions are appropriate for verbal interviews. At the conclusion of the interview, I inquired as to who formulated the verbal questions. The response that I received from HR was that the questions were comprised by a panel of experts.
Naturally, the right candidate from the clout list was selected after the do-over interviews. I received failing scores on both of my verbal interviews. Cloning and “just like me” biasing in verbal interviews is a well known phenomenon that has a negative impact on minorities and women. This type of biasing also impacts evaluations given by supervisory personnel. Political considerations also factor into both of these processes as well.
The softball behavioral interview questions posed by the examiners during the second cycle were far less stringent than questions I was exposed to recently in graduate school.
The two interviewers at Aviation huddled with the pre-selected candidate for over two years, to the detriment and exclusion of others, on job related projects.
Passing the objective tests doesn’t guarantee a fair promotion process, particularly given the proclivities of rater biasing in the third tier of the procedure.
I showed your comments to some who works in your DHR at City Hall. You missed a few important facts.
The city uses a highly structured interview process meaning all of the candidates are asked the same questions. Interviews are not allowed to deviate from those questions. So if those questions are valid and reliable along with a structured interview process, it makes the selection the most defensible against litigation.
The questions are developed by one group of City Employees (call then group A), Approved by another group (call them of Group b) independent of Group A and everything is reviewed by a different group in a different City Department (call them Group C).
As for rating bias, you seem to have a bias if against someone’s if their name appears on this clout list? A number of regulars on this blog names appear on that list. So do have a bias against them as well?
By the way I only have seen two times where list played any meaning full role? The first was in the trials of former IGA officials. However the to use the list, the Feds had to lay a foundation through witness to use it and it was only a small part of the case. It helps tell part of their story to a jury.
The other time was when the Shakman Monitor awarded 12 million tax dollars all by herself to allege victims. Look at how she did it: one group of lawyers developed a claim out of information provided by a claimant, a second group reviewed the claim and a third group approved the claim. Does this process seems like Group A, Group B and Group C above?
One of the only tools used was the clout list to check credibility of any claim. I guess the monitor was too busy to check court records, records of defenses the city had filed in response to lawsuits or other litigation or even court rulings on exact claims that she was reviewing that had been dismissed by federal judges as frivolous.
So sorry, but the new system is as fair and objective. Perhaps you might want to get some interview coaching to do better next time. (Response) The interviews are still rigged, those allowed to interview are still rigged, the shakman monitor does nothing, and the Office of the Inspector is part of this crime. Get with-it.
Previewing your Comment
You’re correct that the directive type of interview format is used, usually consisting of behavioral or situational questions. All candidates are asked the same questions.
Now whether the questions are valid and reliable is called into question. I specifically asked if the questions had been validated by the EEOC as being content, criterion, or construct valid in relation to the job description and job analysis for the position. HR refused response to that inquiry.
The first set of interviews asked about a form that no one recognized. Two foremen, with over a decade of experience, were not familiar with the form. So how was this a valid predictor of job related performance.
The fact that there was a do-over interview indicated that something was amiss in the process.
Whether or not the process is legally defensible remains to be seen, particularly if the verbal interviews were the deciding factor.
We recently had interviews for two more positions. This time the questions were predominately technical. I do wonder how the interviewers, who do not have a background in electrical work, are going to score the technical responses?
An individual from the clout list, who didn’t apply the last two times, suddenly decided to throw his hat into the ring. What an amazing coincidence that the interview questions were strategically aligned with his given duties. That’s even luckier than finding a four leaf clover!
My personal feelings towards individuals on the clout list is immaterial. Overall the promotional process is rife with bias and clout. The level of homo-social reproduction in our ranks is astonishing. The last five promotions have went to males from the same ethnic group. Think Green!
I expect the promotional announcement will be made prior to the sunset of the Daley Administration.
Why dont you request someone from DHR to come on your show to talk about the process. I am not taking about the same old repeats who complain about everything but have no expertise in the field.
After 5 years Pat the process is more fair and everyone gets a shot. Your complains may be unfounded as to why you dont get what you want. So you get with it.
You request to DHr, was it an FOI? Why not try that as Pat can give some pointers. Also the EEOC does not validate question or test. But again ask DHR for some information.
As for the interviewers perhaps they have the answers for the questions already? Again how many times have you interviewed for the Job. Perhaps get some coaching.
level of h$%^-social reproduction in our ranks is astonishing
Shows your own bias.
(Response) Nice try. You made some ponts but I do not think you have much of a clue!
Obsessed: Homosocial Reproduction is a concept that has been discussed in academic institutions. This is not bias on my part by any means. The fact of the matter is that I have been passed over repeatedly by white males who have far less education, experience, and seniority. Please spare me the condescending drivel about needing more coaching for the interview process. Below are excerpts from a peer reviewed academic journal article explaining the dynamics of Homosocial Reproduction.
Posted on October 18, 2008. Filed under: Academic Publishings, Corporate |
Elliott, James R. and Ryan A. Smith. Race, Gender, and Workplace Power. American Sociological Review, Vol. 69, No. 3. (Jun., 2004) pgs. 365-386.
This article addresses the power differences in the workplace due to ‘homosocial reproduction,’ (select candidates that most closely reflect themselves) and its affects on women and racial minorities. It goes into depths regarding barriers to promotion, in which women and racial minorities are only able to obtain ‘modest’ degrees of power due to their authority level within organizations, and because of that, are unable to successfully navigate through the intricate channels of networks.
Much of the analyses were based on statistical data regarding income disparities and workplace promotion between Caucasians and minorities. Much of the research confirms what previous research has demonstrated, stating that, ‘past inequalities’ via social dynamics has weaved itself into the fabric of corporate America, and is thus, increasing gender inequality throughout the advancement of corporate ladders (367). Much of the wage and power disparities are rooted in racial and gender differences.
As Kaufman highlighted in his article, Assessing Alternative Perspectives on Race and Sex Employment Segregation, less racial minorities and women will be seen in upper-management and executive positions because these types of jobs require extensive experience and knowledge within their fields and industries. Kaufman states that race-sex segregation, in which assessments are made according to their race or sex, are placed in positions accordingly, confirming this article’s emphasis on homosocial reproduction. As white men dominate executive positions, women and racial minorities will not achieve the same levels of promotion from networking due to homosocial reproduction.
These barriers deny access to leadership opportunities. “Networks help workers gain skills, acquire legitimacy, and climb promotional ladders (368).” The exclusion of women and racial minorities prevent the sharing of informal instruction and mentorship throughout the organization. Other readings, such as Blass et. al, confirm that by enhancing the understanding of organizational politics, networks are pipelines to success.
Network membership does not necessitate direct success and access to competitive projects. Within networks, women and racial minorities continue to experience discrimination. “Workers, not just employers, use race and gender to rank network members, and this ranking influences the type and amount of assistance available to members of different groups (368).” This research suggests that women and racial minorities obtain less power within organizations due to their limited access to training, mentorship, and contacts. This makes them more competitive for positions as they climb the corporate ladder, resulting in a battle against qualifications and experience.
Their second hypothesis evaluates the inverse relationship between power and position, in relation to white men. As mentioned above, “women and minorities often rely more on education and experience, relative to white men, to ‘break into’ higher levels of power, often having to ‘out-credential’ white-male counterparts… (368-369).”
This is an excerpt from the EEOC website. Tests are validated under the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. Griggs v. Duke Power Company is the most cited Supreme Court decision regarding testing procedures and disparate impact. From the EEOC website:
In 1978, the EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures or “UGESP” under Title VII. See 29 C.F.R. Part 1607.1 UGESP provided uniform guidance for employers about how to determine if their tests and selection procedures were lawful for purposes of Title VII disparate impact theory.
* UGESP outlines three different ways employers can show that their employment tests and other selection criteria are job-related and consistent with business necessity. These methods of demonstrating job-relatedness are called “test validation.” UGESP provides detailed guidance about each method of test validation.
If you want more information regarding the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, visit the EEOC website and search for the information.
Yes the Uniform Guidelines offer advice and guidance to employers who validate their tests use those guidelines. The EEOC does not do it for them nor do they offer the EEOC seal of approval like Underwriters Laboratory. You might want to go back to your text book because there are numerous court cased since Griggs that say as long as the test is valid and reliable along related to the business, it is legal to use even if it does not meet the 80% rule.
Would Rosemarie S. Andolino, Angela Manning, Erin O’Donnell subscribe to your homosocial reproduction theory? They seem to be doing quite well in their positions? Again how many interviews have you had and not gotten promoted. Interview coaching, interview coaching
Comments are closed.