Originally Posted by
Dave Fitzgerald
Way back in 1988, UAL lost a law suit for minority hiring. For a very long time we were mandated to hire minorities and women in larger proportions than in the past. Somewhere in the mid 90's that went by the wayside. I think part of it going away was UAL pointed to the hiring statistics and said the minorities and women weren't available to hire. That is why we now have a higher percentage than the other airlines. Not because of UAL's proactive hiring practices.
As for today, you can say you are going to do "A" all you want. The proof is in the pudding so to speak. What actually happens is what counts. My guess is they will try, but there won't be the qualified candidates. UAL will continue to hire a higher percentage wise, but fail to reach the goal, again.
What remains to be seen, and is a dangerous gamble, is if a lower qualified candidate causes an issue, and how bad the fallout will be for the company vs. the traditional new hire with higher numbers.
Hey Dave ... I think it was 1987 actually ... I along with many others had an interview set up for April 1987 and the interviews were cancelled at the last minute. Later heard it was due to the EEOC law suite. Finally got called for another interview 3+ years later after UAL aggressively hired based on terms of the suite. I have a few stories of one or two individuals who were hired later in 87 due to the suite that would not have been hired otherwise ... ones that give ‘hiring minorities’ a bad name. Everyone loses.
All of that said I was grateful to get hired when I did and had a great 29 year run at Untied.