Hiring Firing and Discrimination

¶ … Wards Cove Packing Company vs. Atonio, I do not feel the company hiring practices are discriminatory. When looking at the larger picture, one must realize there is more to running a company than mere canning and preparing salmon, the companies must function year round regardless of being salmon season or not.

It is unfortunate for the cannery workers to only be employed during summer months. However the employees are aware they are hired on a temporary basis. By being only temporary employees the company could indeed pay it's cannery employees more because they are only temporary.

It is very difficult being a Fishing and Gaming business because it is only seasonal. If salmon were in season year round the non-cannery employees would have full time, permanent employment.

If the cannery employees wish to "move up" within the company they must obtain qualifications. The companies themselves could offer to pay for the education of its employees or they could propose to do an up-to-date information on the employees when they return for the summer months and see if any employees obtained any new qualifications in the winter months so they have year round employment.

Better yet, the companies could offer paid training programs during the winter months for employees they feel would be an asset to the company. The companies could also have a hiring practice of hiring non-cannery employees within the state of Alaska instead of Oregon and Washington. They could investigate with the hiring hall to see if there are any non-cannery employees whom speak English who could fill the positions that are needed.

All employees must be made aware they are paid by their qualifications and experience. You cannot expect someone who is canning salmon to be able to do the accounting of a corporation or small business for that matter. You must have the knowledge and experience for the position that is wanted. In today's day and age nothing is handed to you. An employee must show they are worth the position the are seeking and they must be willing to show they will work hard to achieve that goal.

It is perfectly acceptable to rehire employees who have worked for the company previously as they would have the knowledge and experience as to how the companies are run as well as knowing the company's policies and practices. It would allow the companies to save on training processes and the company would run more smoothly by rehiring these employees who already know what is expected of them. It also gives the employees a greater sense of security knowing when Salmon season arrives they will have employment and be able to support their families.

What I found to be a little unfair is the company's policy of keeping the non-cannery workers facilities separate from the cannery workers facilities. Showing the cannery employees that the non-cannery workers have "perks" is rather unprofessional.

Here you have cannery employees doing the "dirty work" and have no perks to show for it. However this issue could be debatable. In any field that a person works in there are additional "perks" for employees that are more qualified such as being an executive in a business. Also we could assume it is more affordable for the company itself to house the non-cannery employees rather than having the expense of having the employees traveling back and forth.

From reading this case, I have found no link to racial discrimination. I have found this case to be based on financial concerns of the cannery employees to the non-cannery employees. The cannery employees feel there is favoritism to the non-cannery.

There was no backing by the cannery employees showing there were more white employees. The cannery employees were hired through a local Filipino union based in Seattle. I feel it would have benefited the employees more had they taken their concerns to the union. Having shown no actual racial discrimination I do not see how it could be stated "the court took three major step backwards in the battle against racial discrimination."

With this case I don't feel there were any Affirmative Action violation.

Affirmative Actions policies have become such a broad scope in today's world.