B&H bias settlement

Oh, this thread surely has a REAL LONG life. Here goes....

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

The only reason I can see that a company would agree to a large settlement -- and $4.3 million is pretty steep coin for what is considered a small business, even if they are the 800 pound gorilla of camera retailing in New York and possibly the world by the nature of all the overseas buyers we hear from on DP Review -- is that the evidence against them was pretty strong.

Although this case could possibly be a mountain built from a mole hill, I hate it when companies clearly in the wrong buy their way out "without admitting wrongdoing." Clearly, something had to be going on for B&H to settle. I can't give them a blanket pass on this one.

Four million Washingtons buys a lot of legal time, even in New York. I suppose a decision is made between "just making it go away" (apologies to Larry Craig) and fighting for what they think is right, if indeed they were in a righteous position to begin with.

I don't think I will stop buying form them when I NEED IT NOW and can hoof it down to 34th and 9th that day, but I have never found in store personnel to be the kindest when you are not buying that day. K&M have always treated me well at both locations.

What I do find odd is that in the past couple of years, as opposed to four or five years ago, I have seen significantly more Hispanics working in the store.

Go figure.

Cheers,
Terry

Charlie Self said:

I will continue to encourage people to buy from a company that gives
good prices with superb service. Since my name isn't God, I'm not
about to sit in judgment of an entire group of people, over a
decision that may not even have been made by management.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

Click to expand...

DavidMaven said:

I'll lighten up when you stop your prejudging and generalizing.

Click to expand...

No, you won't. Being offended is your hobby. If you replied this much to an inane 2 or 3 sentence comment your were already wound up.

DavidMaven said:

Having been the victim of anti-semitic prejudice in the past, I"LL
DECIDE when I am offended. You have no standing to tell me that I'm
over-reacting.

Click to expand...

So therapy didn't work and now your ranting at anyone who trips over your baggage.

DavidMaven said:

You PREJUDGED an ENTIRE GROUP based on religion, declaring that it's
a "sad day", and that "... they of all groups would be sensitive"
before the facts are in. You made a prejudgment and generalization
about Jews and before ADMITTING that you didn't have all the facts
yet.

Click to expand...

Nobody outside the settlement has all the facts. That's probably part of why they settled. I'd like to know of a three sentence comment that doesn't generalize and yet still says anything. If anything, the commenter had an over-idolized view of the Jewish, which perhaps naive, was quite far from hateful.

DavidMaven said:

I appreciate that admission of prejudice. I would accept an apology
if you at least acknowledged what I'll assume to be unintentional
slur against the entire Jewish people, instead of what would
otherwise been a critique of some managers at B&H who allegedly made
bad decisions B&H and who may or not be Jewish.

Click to expand...

Because you are qualified to accept an apology on behalf of all Jewish people? I guess because you are highly offended all Jews in the world must be as well. Please. Who is generalizing now?

DavidMaven said:

The owners of B&H are ultimately responsible for the policies and
decisions of their employees who are managers (Jewish or not), but
that has NOTHING to do with those owners being Jewish.

Click to expand...

No, but in the real world if an unreasonable pay disparity existed for one particular group the likelihood is that a member(s) of that group consciously or unconsciously instituted policies to create it. Sure the assumption could be wrong, but if we weren't all making assumptions the thread wouldn't exist. There is simply no information. This condition doesn't stop 24 hour news channels from commenting and it doesn't stop the internet either.

DavidMaven said:

You fail to reply to my contention that you hold Jews to a standard
that you don't apply to non-Jews, so I'll assume you concede that
point.

Click to expand...

Trite.

--

Judging a photographer on the basis of equipment is like speculating one's physique from a gym pass.

hey -- this is a really terrific thread to be reading this morning while I'm sitting here waiting for my laxative to kick in!

and I'll decide if I'm being prejudicial or antisemitic. Some like to be professional victims...are you one of those?

I stand by my words...think what you want.

Yeah ok whatever you say...I must hate the Jews because you say so.

I'm fairly certain that my childhood neighbors, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Zemler know that I have no bias against the Jewish people. And in the end it's people like that who matter, not you and not the people here who just want to hear themselves talk.

DavidMaven said:

brent collins said:

me. Like I said in my first post...I want more facts before I
condemn them.

Click to expand...

Please re-read your own first post. You DID condemn them ("a sad
day", "...they of all people...") before you admitted you didn't'
have facts.

Do you form your opinions by reading and listening to Ann Coulter?

--
Galleries: http://www.dheller.net

Click to expand...

I'm just curious how this works.. If say, I'm a business owner, and I want to hire someone to fill a position. I meet with say 5-6 candidates, part of interviewing process is asking "what salary are you looking for"? Or, alternatively, "I'm paying $XX/year, is that acceptable?". Isn't the whole hire or not hire process of coming to agreement by the employee/employer of willingness to work for dollars offered?

Simplified hypothetical: If I'm down to two potential hire candidates, one wants eg. $20/hr, the other wants $30/hour. I have one other employee and he/she gets $25/hour, do I have to say no, I can't pay you $20/hour, I have to pay you $25. Likewise, if I prefer the $30/hour candidate, and they will only take the job if they get the $30, am I forced to not hire that person or alternatively have to give my existing employee a raise?

Again.. just curious how this all works.

GossCTP said:

DavidMaven said:

I'll lighten up when you stop your prejudging and generalizing.

Click to expand...

No, you won't. Being offended is your hobby. If you replied this much
to an inane 2 or 3 sentence comment your were already wound up.

Click to expand...

You know nothing about me. So stop the ad hominem attack, please.

GossCTP said:

GossCTP said:

Having been the victim of anti-semitic prejudice in the past, I"LL
DECIDE when I am offended. You have no standing to tell me that I'm
over-reacting.

Click to expand...

So therapy didn't work and now your ranting at anyone who trips over
your baggage.

Click to expand...

You still know nothing about me, so stop the ad hominem attack please. Neither Brent nor you have the right to dictate when I can be offended or not or how I respond.

GossCTP said:

GossCTP said:

You PREJUDGED an ENTIRE GROUP based on religion, declaring that it's
a "sad day", and that "... they of all groups would be sensitive"
before the facts are in. You made a prejudgment and generalization
about Jews and before ADMITTING that you didn't have all the facts
yet.

Click to expand...

Nobody outside the settlement has all the facts. That's probably part
of why they settled. I'd like to know of a three sentence comment
that doesn't generalize and yet still says anything. If anything, the
commenter had an over-idolized view of the Jewish, which perhaps
naive, was quite far from hateful.

Click to expand...

It's a double standard; Brent prejudged who allegedly made discriminatory decisions (owners? or managers working for them?) as being Jewish; and Brent expressed and opinion that I found offensive before admitting he didn't have the facts. And that makes me wrong how?

GossCTP said:

GossCTP said:

I appreciate that admission of prejudice. I would accept an apology
if you at least acknowledged what I'll assume to be unintentional
slur against the entire Jewish people, instead of what would
otherwise been a critique of some managers at B&H who allegedly made
bad decisions B&H and who may or not be Jewish.

Click to expand...

Because you are qualified to accept an apology on behalf of all
Jewish people? I guess because you are highly offended all Jews in
the world must be as well. Please. Who is generalizing now?

Click to expand...

I'm qualified to accept an apology for being offended myself; I never claimed otherwise. Please re-read my post. Some Jews won't be offended. I was.

GossCTP said:

GossCTP said:

The owners of B&H are ultimately responsible for the policies and
decisions of their employees who are managers (Jewish or not), but
that has NOTHING to do with those owners being Jewish.

Click to expand...

No, but in the real world if an unreasonable pay disparity existed
for one particular group the likelihood is that a member(s) of that
group consciously or unconsciously instituted policies to create it.
Sure the assumption could be wrong, but if we weren't all making
assumptions the thread wouldn't exist. There is simply no
information. This condition doesn't stop 24 hour news channels from
commenting and it doesn't stop the internet either.

Click to expand...

The assumption was that the people who allegedly made discrimantory decisions were Jewish and Brent held Jews to a standard to which he doesn't seem to hold non-Jews.

GossCTP said:

GossCTP said:

You fail to reply to my contention that you hold Jews to a standard
that you don't apply to non-Jews, so I'll assume you concede that
point.

Click to expand...

Trite.

Click to expand...

No, your response is trite. You don't address the issue, but rather my personal opinion about Brent's post.

If you can't contribute to the discussion of the subject at hand, why the ad hominem attack on me?

ShootingStars said:

B&H store in NYC, has agreed to pay $4.3 million to settle a bias
case. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in
Manhattan Federal court that B&H paid Hispanics less than others and
failed to promote them. Under the agreement, B&H agreed to equalize
wages, and to distribute $4.3 million to those who were discriminated
against.

Click to expand...

--
You know, I have got to ask this question.

How many LARGE companies have closed shop here in the states and moved to Mexico because the labor is cheaper in Mexico? And some life long employees ended up losing their jobs to CHEAPER LABOR. How do you think they felt, and were they able to sue for discrimination because their jobs were taken away?

BH hires the CHEAP labor here in the states, thus leaving the business here at least and they get sued for discrimination. Did those hispanic employees come here on their own free will, and did they take those jobs on their own free will, and did they AGREE to the wages they were being paid. And worse yet, they were able to use our legal system against BH Photo.

Who represented the 20 and 30 year employees of the Zenith Corporation, when Zenith closed it doors here in the United States and moved its business to Juarez, Mexico so it could hire CHEAPER labor?

Just something to chew on for a few minutes.

I have, and will, continue to support BH Photo regardless of this lawsuit. They have earned my business.

Also.....God forbid if we, as Americans, find out some of those workers are here illegally and were able to use our justice system to claim discrimination. It is one thing to be an American and be discriminated against, but it is another to move here on your own free will to make a better life for yourself, and then use our legal system against the company that hired you and gave you that opportunity.

I am sure there will be many who voice their opinions on this subject, and the above is mine, and I am entitled to it.

Conrad 'Bye Bye' Birdie
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.

PicOne said:

I'm just curious how this works.. If say, I'm a business owner, and
I want to hire someone to fill a position. I meet with say 5-6
candidates, part of interviewing process is asking "what salary are
you looking for"? Or, alternatively, "I'm paying $XX/year, is that
acceptable?". Isn't the whole hire or not hire process of coming to
agreement by the employee/employer of willingness to work for dollars
offered?

Simplified hypothetical: If I'm down to two potential hire
candidates, one wants eg. $20/hr, the other wants $30/hour. I have
one other employee and he/she gets $25/hour, do I have to say no, I
can't pay you $20/hour, I have to pay you $25. Likewise, if I
prefer the $30/hour candidate, and they will only take the job if
they get the $30, am I forced to not hire that person or
alternatively have to give my existing employee a raise?

Again.. just curious how this all works.

Click to expand...

It works however the powers that be want it to work. You can pay the new hire $20 or $25 or even $30 an hour, but in the case of B & H it appears (appears being the operative word) that there was something consistent going on that would lead a group of people to believe it was discriminatory. B & H decided to settle out of court. Hospitals (and Michael Jackson) do this all the time because they're getting sued all the time and it's expensive to go to trial. A company like

B & H settling out of court, at least leads the public to believe there may have been something to the accusations.

Maureen

David, with all due respect, I think you're doing what you accuse Brent Collins of doing, which is judging without having all the facts.

Rarely do I agree with his posts, but in this case I think he may only be guilty of assuming that since Jews are often discriminated against they would be sensitive enough not to discriminate against others. (Sorry, I don't connect those dots) He's probably also guilty of fingers outpacing the mind and leaving out the word "owned" when he wrote 'Jewish business'.

I've seen some crazy posts of his that I vehemently disagree with but I've never seen him post anything to indicate he's guilty of what you're accusing him of.

Maureen

Whatever the motives of each stakeholder in the case may be, they reached a satisfactory agreement and it is over now.
Why arguing about that any longer or "leaving" B&H ?

ShootingStars said:

B&H store in NYC, has agreed to pay $4.3 million to settle a bias
case. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in
Manhattan Federal court that B&H paid Hispanics less than others and
failed to promote them. Under the agreement, B&H agreed to equalize
wages, and to distribute $4.3 million to those who were discriminated
against.

Click to expand...

How much of that $4.3M do the lawyers get?

--
Chris

One third. Why, do you think they made up the situation at B & H so they could make a buck?

Sheesh! Everyone bashes the lawyers until they need one.

Thanks...I think ;-)

I guess I need to qualify EVERY word I type so others are not offended. You nailed my point and maybe the charges are false and maybe they are not, but simply commenting on the possibility that they might be true and then commenting on wanting more info, somehow makes me a racist ??? I know who I am and I know my opinions are not popular at times (as you've pointed out), but racism is not in my make up.

Funny story: I bought my first house many years ago when I was single. I applied for a first time buyers loan and was declined. Why? Because I was a single, white male with no dependents, who made too much money...now that is discrimination! So what did I do? I went to another bank and took out a normal loan. No crying, no whining.

Oh hey - you're welcome, and I'm sure we'll soon go back to disagreeing. ;-P

There will always be people who read something into anything, so carefully choosing your words, while a good idea, is probably not going to keep you out of harms way completely.

That's actually not a funny story, but a frustrating one. White males are totally screwed these days. All systems should assign a number to an applicant and that applicant should be selected by qualifications alone, but that's not going to happen in my lifetime.

Maureen

Conrad,

While I am the first one to jump on the buy American bandwagon, not because of quality issues, but because I care about my fellow citizens keeping jobs, I think you may have misunderstood the term Hispanic.

The label Hispanic does not in any way signify that a person was not born here in the United States. Likewise, Puerto Ricans are American citizens. Comparing the exploitive wages paid to Mexicans in las maquiladoras on the border to how people are treated here in the U.S. is to compare apples to oranges. So, "our legal system" is their legal system, too.

There are several generations of Hispanics here in New York who "came of their own free will" from mama's womb and arrived as American as you and I. Heck, there are probably Mexican-Americans who are more "American" than I am as an American of Irish parents. I probably speak better Spanish than they do, which only muddies the water more.

This situation is not an issue of illegal immigration, but apparently -- because B&H paid off the plaintiffs before any court-sanctioned fact-finding coud begin, I write apparently -- a pattern of inferior treatment to Hispanic employees.

I think one thing that might be hard to understand in other parts of the country is how ethnic New York is and how people are always commenting on others' races. It does make us racists. Likewise, you are always running into situations where certain ethnic groups work in certain roles throughout the city, which have shifted and changed over the years but have also remained the same in some cases.

For instance, there are many Jewish camera shops, with B&H being the largest. When you visit the Empire State Building and wait in the long lines for tickets, there is a photo essay of various New Yorkers and one of the images is of several of the men working at Adorama, all of them Hassidic Jews. There is a great quote below it attributed to the owner that says something to the effect, "You don't have to be Jewish to open a camera store in New York, but it sure doesn't hurt."

A fair percentage of the high steel ironworkers to this day on skyscrapers are Mohawk Indians from upstate New York and Canada. Most of the sandhogs working below the city digging the massive third water tunnel are Irish-American and most are from families that originated in northwest Ireland. I regularly frequented a restaurant where all the kitchen staff are Mexican and all the waitresses are Lithuanian. At J&R, every time I go there, the cashiers are all Asian Indian. There are countless Italian bakeries throughout the city. There seems to be a Korean lock on corner markets in many parts of the city.

It's just the way New York is and has nothing to do with illegal immigration. The B&H issue is a systematic pattern of paying one group of employees on a different scale than another based on race, which is illegal.

Seriously, I am as hard core as possible about buying American. Typical me: At the Photo Expo today, I asked the Tamrac folks to show me some bags but not the Chinese ones. If I have the option I will pay more to avoid Chinese goods. It is a losing battle I have been fighting for 20 years. Chinese need jobs, but so do my countrymen and I blame that shift on business owners and bosses over here, not there.

It might be backwards in the global economy, but to me, the issue of the national origin of a product's manufacture is as important as the evinronment to Al Gore.

I just don't have an Oscar and a Nobel Prize to back me up.

But it's not the issue regarding this settlement from B&H.

Cheers,
Terry

Conrad Birdie said:

--
You know, I have got to ask this question.

How many LARGE companies have closed shop here in the states and
moved to Mexico because the labor is cheaper in Mexico? And some
life long employees ended up losing their jobs to CHEAPER LABOR. How
do you think they felt, and were they able to sue for discrimination
because their jobs were taken away?

BH hires the CHEAP labor here in the states, thus leaving the
business here at least and they get sued for discrimination. Did
those hispanic employees come here on their own free will, and did
they take those jobs on their own free will, and did they AGREE to
the wages they were being paid. And worse yet, they were able to
use our legal system against BH Photo.

Conrad 'Bye Bye' Birdie
'Aspire to inspire before you expire'.

Click to expand...

ShootingStars said:

B&H store in NYC, has agreed to pay $4.3 million to settle a bias
case. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in
Manhattan Federal court that B&H paid Hispanics less than others and
failed to promote them. Under the agreement, B&H agreed to equalize
wages, and to distribute $4.3 million to those who were discriminated
against.

Click to expand...

I find these multi-million dollar lawsuits rediculous and frustrating. All they do is put money in the pockets of a few lucky "winners" (as in a lottery) and take that money from consumers. So now B&H has to take this into account with their pricing.

This kind of thing doesn't happen in France (or Europe I think). It's totally out of control in the US.

What an empty statement.

And in the instant case I don't know how to respond to such tripe other than pointing out the obvious. We have certain laws in this country (apparently France does not) and we have administrative agencies that enforce them. Would you prefer a private right of action? Because that could follow if the EOC declined. Or should the "lucky" Hispanics at B&H simply continue to get shafted? Your post was the most inane of the entire thread.

It was an administrative action brought by the EEOC. Do you understand what that means?

Not quite sure why either of you should consider it possible that the EC had no such legislation?

As a cure for your ignorance, try reading this:

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/fundamental_rights/legis/legln_en.htm

Peter

--
Peter - on the green island of Ischia
http://www.pbase.com/isolaverde