Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Open Thread for Thursday

When sexism claims are a real hoot
By John Stossel
Jewish World Review

You've probably heard of Hooters - the restaurant chain known for attracting male customers by hiring waitresses who are well-endowed and dressed to show it.

The firm now employs more than 30,000 people. Some would consider this a success story, but our government didn't. Not because Hooters is using sex to sell - but because its waitresses are - get ready - women!

"Discrimination!" cried the federal government's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The business of Hooters is food, said the government, and "no physical trait unique to women is required to serve food." EEOC lawyers demanded Hooters produce all its hiring data, and then grilled Hooters for four years. Mike McNeil, Hooters' vice president of marketing, told "20/20" the EEOC bureaucrats demanded to look at reams of paperwork. "Employee manuals, training manuals, marketing manuals - virtually everything that's involved in how we run our business . . . "

The EEOC then issued a set of demands. First, it defined a class of disappointed males who had not been hired by the company. The EEOC said, according to McNeil: "We want you to establish a $22-million fund for this mythical 'class' of dissuaded male applicants. We want you to conduct sensitivity training studies to teach all of your employees to be more sensitive to the needs of men."

I suspect Hooters' customers are mostly men who think the firm is quite sensitive to their needs, thank you - and that there would indeed be a class of disappointed males if the government insisted men do the jobs of Hooters girls.

Typically, companies assaulted by EEOC lawyers just pay up to avoid ruinous legal fees, but Hooters fought back, cleverly, not just in court, but in the court of public opinion. Hooters waitresses marched on Washington, chanting, "Save our jobs." A burly Hooters manager dressed as a Hooters waitress posed for cameras, beard and all, demonstrating what a "Hooters Guy" might look like.

That was a hoot, and it may have worked. Lawyers representing male applicants accepted an out-of-court settlement of $3.75 million, a fraction of the $22 million that had been demanded. The EEOC dropped its demands for sensitivity training; Hooters agreed to create more jobs like busboys and managers, which didn't have to be performed by women.

Sears found itself in the EEOC's cross hairs because more men than women held jobs selling things like lawn mowers and appliances. The disparate numbers themselves were proof, said the government, that Sears discriminated against women.

Sears denied discriminatiing: "We asked women to do those jobs. It's just that few women want to sell things like lawn mowers."

Is that too politically incorrect a concept for government lawyers to get? Men and women do have different interests. Go to any Wal-Mart and you'll see women looking at clothes, men in the hardware department. There are exceptions, of course, but the sexes do tend to have different interests.

More men selling lawn mowers and more women selling cosmetics does not imply evil discrimination that requires armies of lawyers from the State. Show me women who want to sell lawn mowers but are being required to sell cosmetics instead - or men who want to sell cosmetics but have to sell lawn mowers - and we have grounds for discussion. But if the women choose the cosmetics counter, any discrimination is their own.

The EEOC was unable to produce any women who would complain that they'd been discriminated against, so Sears finally won the suit. The $20 million the litigation cost was passed on to us customers.

Have these and other EEOC excesses embarrassed the government into shrinking the EEOC? Of course not. It now has 2,400 employees, and spent $326.8 million in 2005 - millions more than the year before. Government keeps growing, and as it grows, it feeds on our money, erodes our freedom and defies our common sense.


Anonymous Anonymous said:

"Advocates of a guest-worker program contend that Americans won't perform manual labor. But does this claim reflect reality?...

The Times survey confirmed what workers in this country have demonstrated for generations-that they will take almost any job if the pay and benefits are decent. Coal mining and construction work are just as rigorous and demanding as occupations being considered for guest workers. The only difference is that coal miners and construction workers, who are usually represented by unions, are much better paid and protected than unorganized farm workers and restaurant and garment-plant workers...

Indeed, I am convinced that a guest-worker program would be a disaster for American workers, espcially for blacks and Latinos-the groups already hardest hit by unemployment and most likely to take these low-paying jobs...

Instead of flirting with a guest-worker program, we should focus our energies on protecting the rights of resident workers for jobs in decent surroundings and at decent pay."

Richard Alatorre, Democratic state assemblyman,
LA Times, Feb. 12, 1982

June 28, 2006 10:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mayor Sam please stop with the long threads. You should have received the "Best group blog" from LA Press Club but I think these long threads loses people.
Just a suggestion.

June 29, 2006 6:50 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

He may be right, most of these folks are LAUSD graduates and have ADD, just like our Mayor.

June 29, 2006 9:03 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If you don't like Hooters, don't go to Hooters. Next.

June 29, 2006 9:49 AM  

Blogger Archie Bunker said:


No kidding. It's funny how our Cuntroller Laura Chick-n-shit doesn't like ladies serving fried foods in nice shorts and t-shirts but she sure loves the tax revenue they provide that's for damn sure.

June 29, 2006 10:01 AM  

Anonymous Archie Bunker said:

I can't wait for the weekend to line me up some Hooters girls. Though I do have a fantasy about a session with Laura Chick and Jackie Goldberg.

June 29, 2006 10:58 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mayor Sam very surprised you didn't put a thread on this. I know people who canceled LA Times now going back.

Bringing fight to the web
Mayor Villaraigosa and councilmembers Greuel, Weiss and Huizar unveil a new website to curry SUPPORT for the mayor's schools plan in the Legislature. The media event is at 11:30 am at a charter school on Manchester Avenue. Meanwhile, political operatives Nathan James and MICHAEL TRUJILLO—veterans of the Villaraigosa campaign for mayor...are helping the mayor's Committee for Government Excellence and Accountability.
Another harsh LAT editorial
The Times keeps up the drumbeat against Villaraigosa's bill, this time focusing on the teachers union and its boss, A.J. Duffy.

June 29, 2006 12:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

We all remember the days when Michael "MEAT" Trujillo was spewing his crap here on Mayor Sam, until the old dead Mayor fired him.

While Mayor San and Mayor Frank reported the news, under the guise of "Chief Parker" MICHAEL TRUJILLO carried water for his sugar daddies, ADV and the Meathead. When he got caught, he lied. In fact, the whole reason Mayor Sam got outed was because MICHAEL TRUJILLO was busy mouthing off the blog to impress his friends and someone leaked it to the press.

MICHAEL TRUJILLO used the blog to push his own causes and threaten his enemies. But then the chickens came home to roost.

I sure hope we don't hear from him here. ADV can have him!

June 29, 2006 12:43 PM  

Blogger Archie Bunker said:


Is an imposter. Look at his profile compared to mine. I would never have fantasies about Laura Chick-n-shit and Jack Goldberg

June 29, 2006 2:23 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Sure Archie

June 29, 2006 3:59 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


If you only knew the "real" story.

Incorrect and off your rocker.

June 29, 2006 4:25 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

who cares about mike trujillo?

June 29, 2006 4:47 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Most Democrats in the City and the Valley care about Michael Trujillo. We like him!

June 29, 2006 8:38 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hey Arch -

I'm guessing most of the MS "regulars" knew you were either kidding or someone was pretending to be you, who is pretending to be someone else.

Regardless, we all know you don't harbor that Chick/Goldberg fantasy.

June 29, 2006 8:40 PM  

Anonymous Archie Bunker said:

Actually I was drunk. My real fantasy girl is Jan Perry.

June 30, 2006 9:02 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

We know that too. Your chocolate dream.

June 30, 2006 9:14 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home