Of course Bush would appoint a man to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission who, in his previous job at the justice department, "undermined the unit's mission of securing the employment rights of women and minorities in the public sector, while defending employers' rights to discriminate based on religion."
The nominee, David Palmer, also fired a colleague he had previously "had a romantic relationship" with:
Marian Thompson, who worked in the section for 18 years as a statistician, said that after becoming section chief in 2002, Palmer fired a veteran attorney with whom he had had a romantic relationship and that the woman filed a complaint against him. In a phone interview, Thompson expressed surprise that Palmer did not let someone else handle that personnel decision.Richard Ugelow, a former section chief who teaches employment law at American University, said that it was "unheard of for the head of an agency charged with enforcing equal employment opportunity laws to be charged with violating those laws. ... He's supposed to be above reproach, to set an example for other employers."
Palmer's former coworkers are asking Senators to block his nomination to the commission. (Bush first nominated Palmer in September 2006, and renominated him in January. Now Republicans are pushing for his confirmation.)
Under Bush, funding for the EEOC has continually been slashed. He's discontinued use of the word "underrepresented" to describe certain populations. And how has the administration responded to a backlog of EEO cases? By encouraging people to file fewer of them, of course.
Sounds like what this commission needs is another Republican member (there's only one Democrat left on the commission), one who's been charged with flouting employment laws and is only interested in defending the rights of conservative Christians. A perfect fit.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Bush's EEOC nominee "undermined" employment rights.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5688
Are you effing kidding me.
These groups have two general categories of employees: political appointees (not as useful) and long-time veterans (as in "veteran of the job" not "veteran of the armed forces). The long term folks do most of the real grunt work, believe in the mission of their agency as opposed to their party, and make things run right.
It had been sort of a gentleman's agreement that the important commissions and agencies wouldn't be gutted of experienced employees every 4 (or 8) years when the administration changed. That would make it impossible for them to do their function. So generally speaking the veterans stayed on. The political hacks could do less damage that way.
Guess what Bush did? He politicized them all. Veterans, too.
Jeeses christ this man is a danger to all of us. I'm not even suprised any more, which makes it all the more depressing.
It's really sad, that it's not surprising to me anymore, either. Appalling, but not surprising. Shocking, but not surprising. Disgusting, but not surprising.
Maybe he and Dr. Holsinger can have offices down the hall from each other? Aww.. wouldn't that be cute?
Two words: Clarence Thomas. Also with EEOC. Also a Bush nominee. Does W always have to do what daddy did?
Two words: Clarence Thomas. Also with EEOC. Also a Bush nominee. Does W always have to do what daddy did?
I know I should be appalled, but by now Bush's stupidity (and I do prefer to think of it as stupidity, b/c the other option is straight-up malice) just doesn't surprise me anymore.
Is it 2008 yet?