Somebody Finally Did It

[reason]

But, St. Paul was a rather female-friendly place to work.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Based on the outcome of the example you gave, I beg to differ. I suppose you don't see the irony of having a company spend boatloads of money and man hours training their employees on diversity, then handing work out based on gender.

[reason]

In real life, we did write the guy, and verbally (but not in writing) agreed that no dames would be touching his claims. Unfortunately, another insured of ours racked up almost $12M in losses, and within 2 years we had gone out of business. So I mean, there you go....

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Your intended message and the way I read it are so different it is remarkable.

It would appear you went out of business due to bad underwriting. You went out of business despite taking the profitable account. So I'm not sure what one had to do with another.

If you persist in underwriting $12mm losses, perhaps there was pressure to take any profitable business available, including from those who blatantly request that you break the law, even over the right judgment of a female employee.

I'd love to talk to that female employee who was asked to bend over and take one for the company.

[Lew]

Reason-

I wasn't blaming the fact that we went under due to any diversity practices. We went under because, as you alluded, we did not do smart underwriting.

It wasn't a very simple issue. Yes, you could not (and should not)underwrite a company that does something illegally (you know, like the old Chiquita boats that were carrying more than just bananas). However, to my knowledge, requesting that only males handle your claims, sexist as it may be, is not per se illegal.

My other concern was, where would you draw the line? I mean, what if we underwrote a company whose president donated to a particular political campaign or cause? Suppose boat company X's president was a huge Bob Dole supporter and it was well-known. The fact that St. Paul, or anyone else, underwrote him would not be construed as an endorsement of Bob Dole by St. Paul. At least it shouldn't.

It wasn't an easy issue to resolve, and I could see both sides to it, but since we went under I never really got to see how it turned out (it may never have become an issue anyway).

[reason]

However, to my knowledge, requesting that only males handle your claims, sexist as it may be, is not per se illegal.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">A customer requesting the practice may not be illegal; that is not the point. Practicing the request, well, that's another matter.

Providing or denying work to individuals based on gender is illegal, and this is exactly what St. Paul did. There is no occupational reason whatsover why a female could not handle the customer's business.

[reason]

I do find it bothersome that this board seems significantly more annoyed by a minority who plays the race card than it is by someone from the majority who blatantly discriminates.

We're supposed to accept as fact of life that people are going to discriminate, but be outraged that a minority might use his protected status unfairly.

The ambivalence regarding the bigot's request relative to the outrage over playing the race card is a very revealing look about your attitudes...

Seems like a little diversity training is in order.

<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ February 16, 2005 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Sarcazmo ]</font>

[travelinman]

Originally posted by Sarcazmo:
Based on the outcome of the example you gave, I beg to differ. I suppose you don't see the irony of having a company spend boatloads of money and man hours training their employees on diversity, then handing work out based on gender.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this case it would be woman hours.

Do you know that we are no longer allowed to call those things in the road with round metal covers manholes? They are now called maintenance holes.

See how absurd all this shit is.

[LanDroid]

Trav, your FDR quote is very misleading. Here's more from FDR's grandson.

<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ February 17, 2005 06:24 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>

[reason]

Originally posted by travelinman:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Sarcazmo:
Based on the outcome of the example you gave, I beg to differ. I suppose you don't see the irony of having a company spend boatloads of money and man hours training their employees on diversity, then handing work out based on gender.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In this case it would be woman hours.

Do you know that we are no longer allowed to call those things in the road with round metal covers manholes? They are now called maintenance holes.

See how absurd all this shit is.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one told me we are no longer allowed to refer to them as manhole covers. I was not aware of the law or the restriction on freedom of speech to call them whatever I want to call them.

Though I do prefer the term maintenance holes.

[gae]

No one told me we are no longer allowed to refer to them as manhole covers. I was not aware of the law or the restriction on freedom of speech to call them whatever I want to call them.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think the politicians are too busy trying to find ways to raise our taxes to have formally announce this, but let me assure you that in certain company, a reference to a "manhole" cover will be met with stares of disbelief.

And then any conversation will devolve into bitching about PC language.

[reason]

Originally posted by gae:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No one told me we are no longer allowed to refer to them as manhole covers. I was not aware of the law or the restriction on freedom of speech to call them whatever I want to call them.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think the politicians are too busy trying to find ways to raise our taxes to have formally announce this, but let me assure you that in certain company, a reference to a "manhole" cover will be met with stares of disbelief.

And then any conversation will devolve into bitching about PC language.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Spending too much time at Crazy Ladies?