The Investigator Of 3abn Options

[Chez]

Does anyone know about the EEOC investigation concerning the hiring practice at 3ABN? Someone told me that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) is investigating 3ABN concerning discrimination issues.

Chez

[husbandoftheyear]

I know that they ask whether or not the interviewees (sp?) are Christian or not. I thought that was a violation, but was told that it's different since they are NFP. Now looking back over many years, I realize they consider themselves above other laws as well - some we are seeing come out now. Boy there are pages of junk they've done to employees over the years. Perhaps we should start a new thread with stories...

What's really amazing is that when the administration sits down to figure out how much to pay you,
they look a things that shouldn't matter - like - whether or not your are married (they consider the salaries of spouses), male/female (females usually make considerably less), have children, have a business, and so on.

[justme]

I know that they ask whether or not the interviewees (sp?) are Christian or not. I thought that was a violation, but was told that it's different since they are NFP. Now looking back over many years, I realize they consider themselves above other laws as well - some we are seeing come out now. Boy there are pages of junk they've done to employees over the years. Perhaps we should start a new thread with stories...

What's really amazing is that when the administration sits down to figure out how much to pay you,
they look a things that shouldn't matter - like - whether or not your are married (they consider the salaries of spouses), male/female (females usually make considerably less), have children, have a business, and so on.

Thats the way the "conferences" have done it for generations. It has been 'tested' in courts and for some reason it continues to this day. It has been and still is in stark contrast to EGW counsel on paying "gospel workers".

[Richard Sherwin]

I don't know of any conference anymore that pays the women less or takes the other's spouses pay into consideration. It was my understanding that the chuch lost a lawsuit in WV over this very issue with teachers.

Richard

[Observer]

I don't know of any conference anymore that pays the women less or takes the other's spouses pay into consideration. It was my understanding that the chuch lost a lawsuit in WV over this very issue with teachers.

Richard

I agree with Richard.

I suspect that 3-ABN may be able to get away with it, if they do that. But, I do not believe that any official part of the SDA Church pays women less than men, for the same job.

[watchbird]

I agree with Richard.

I suspect that 3-ABN may be able to get away with it, if they do that. But, I do not believe that any official part of the SDA Church pays women less than men, for the same job.

In general, the "Independent Ministries" are able to "get away with it" because they typically do not pay "salaries" nor "hour time", but only give "stipends".... in return for "volunteer" work. This may take the form of a quasi-commune, where the expenses of daily living ... housing, in some cases even dining... are taken care of by the "ministry", and their "stipend" is their only cash received. I have also heard of places where there is a dollar amount agreed to, but where the employee agrees to most of that being considered his "contribution" to the ministry.... so again, he only receives a small stipend in cash payment. So in a sense, they are not paying for the "job", nor for the value of the person's work.... and that leaves them essentially free to set their "perks" (or "sacrificial wages") any way they want to. Whether any of these methods of remuneration are applicable to 3abn, I know not.

As to Conference policy. I was under the impression for many years that the "MariKay lawsuit" had had precisely the effect that Observer notes. It was not until 1995 that I learned differently .... that this ONLY affected the NAD. Whether there are some other Divisions which also pay equal wages for equal work, I know not... but I did learn at that time that there were gross inequities in many world Divisions ...... and not only between men and women, but also between nationals and expatriot workers.

When several top GC officials were challenged directly, face to face, in an open "small group" meeting, with the question, "Do we, or do we not, believe in equality?" There was a very embarrased silence and much looking from one to the other, and the silence grew uncomfortably long, before one man finally took the mike and answered, "In principle, we do." When pressed with whether this extended to practice, the same man took a deep breath and answered honestly, "No, it does not."

I was there. I heard it with my own ears and saw the speakers (and the non-speakers) with my own eyes. I took notes. But I do not think I should name names as to who was there and did not answer, nor who finally answered.

[fallible humanbe...]

When several top GC officials were challenged directly, face to face, in an open "small group" meeting, with the question, "Do we, or do we not, believe in equality?" There was a very embarrased silence and much looking from one to the other, and the silence grew uncomfortably long, before one man finally took the mike and answered, "In principle, we do." When pressed with whether this extended to practice, the same man took a deep breath and answered honestly, "No, it does not."

I was there. I heard it with my own ears and saw the speakers (and the non-speakers) with my own eyes. I took notes. But I do not think I should name names as to who was there and did not answer, nor who finally answered.

WB,

This is an example of what I have found as disingenuous in these threads. If you don't think you should name names, then don't make that comment because it "titillates instead of illuminates."

I think, however, that the fact it was a public meeting means that anything that happened there, or was said is open for public discussion, including who said it since that gives the hearer context - you violate no "non-disclosure" agreements by sharing what happened at a public meeting.

As for the Alyssa disclosure, my understanding (from reading here) is that this was a quasi-public statement in that it was made public selectively. But, once one makes a statement like this and it begins the dissemination process you have to be prepared for it make a nonsanctioned public apperance - it is just going to happen eventually.

- fhb

[Observer]

My comment only applied to the United States. I should have so stated.

[watchbird]

My comment only applied to the United States. I should have so stated.

Thank you for the clarification. Do you.... or anyone else ... have any indication that this has been extended to other parts of the world field in the last ten years?

[watchbird]

WB,

This is an example of what I have found as disingenuous in these threads. If you don't think you should name names, then don't make that comment because it "titillates instead of illuminates."

"Titillation" is an act of the hearing mind as it chooses its way to react to things it hears. If this is your chosen reaction... that is your problem and I am under no compunction to stimulate your mind any further by giving you more precise information.

I think, however, that the fact it was a public meeting means that anything that happened there, or was said is open for public discussion, including who said it since that gives the hearer context - you violate no "non-disclosure" agreements by sharing what happened at a public meeting.

You are correct. It was a public meeting, duly announced well ahead of time in a public place. I neither signed nor was I asked to sign any "non-disclosure" agreements. My choice of what I think is appropriate to say in this venue is strictly my decision.... and my decision is that the point of my comment would not be enhanced by giving more details than what I have given.

As for the Alyssa disclosure, my understanding (from reading here) is that this was a quasi-public statement in that it was made public selectively. But, once one makes a statement like this and it begins the dissemination process you have to be prepared for it make a nonsanctioned public apperance - it is just going to happen eventually.

- fhb

The facts are that it was accompanied ... or was supposed to be accompanied..... by a letter that clearly stated the stipulations as to how it was to be circulated..... and among whom. It is true that this request had no legal standing, since no recipient was forced to sign a "non-disclosure" agreement before receiving the document.

It is also true that human nature being what it is, it was inevitable that eventually someone would step outside the bounds of the conditions that were stated. Once that has happened, it hardly adds anything of value to keep defending the actions of the person who did so in ways which in effect become yet another ............

For the facts of life are also that no matter how much one is "prepared for" it..... more still hurts.

Or, to put it another way ...

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

"Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" Matthew 18:6-8 (KJV)

[fallible humanbe...]

"Titillation" is an act of the hearing mind as it chooses its way to react to things it hears. If this is your chosen reaction...

I respectfully disagree. "Titillation" is a verb applied to the intent of the speaker not the hearer. One can listen for it, but it can only be given by the speaker. To suggest, as you do, that it is the hearer's "fault" means that the speaker bears no responsibility for their words or the effect of their words.

RE: the Alyssa comments, I merely made comment to them because they too were a disclosure of information and I thought it pertinent to make comment to them - not for the purpose of defending the poster but rather as a "by comparison" comment because you had referenced a public forum Q and A.

- fhb

[Observer]

Thank you for the clarification. Do you.... or anyone else ... have any indication that this has been extended to other parts of the world field in the last ten years?

As to other parts of the world, I simply do not know.

I have lived in other parts of the world. But, I do not have inside knowledge as to their pay practices.

[watchbird]

I respectfully disagree. "Titillation" is a verb applied to the intent of the speaker not the hearer. One can listen for it, but it can only be given by the speaker. To suggest, as you do, that it is the hearer's "fault" means that the speaker bears no responsibility for their words or the effect of their words.- fhb

Then you are presuming to judge my intent..... and you are judging wrongly, for it was not my intent to "tease" anyone .... in fact, quite the opposite...... anticipating that someone might ask who the speaker was, I gave my position as to whether I would identify them in advance. This, then, is not a "tease" at all.... but a shutting the door on such "teasing" challenges with which you and others are in the habit of confronting us who are giving information. If you persist in accusing us of that, then indeed, the only conclusion I can reach is that it is you who are doing the "teasing" .... the "titillating".... as you call it ... though with the sexual overtones usually associated with that word, I personally avoid and especially resent the use of it. Maybe it is commonly used in your world.... in mine it is seldom used and I consider it uncouth, unkind, improper, impolite, and inappropriately suggestive..... and those are only the milder words that express my feelings about it.

Now ... hopefully .... back to our regular programming.

[PeacefulBe]

I respectfully disagree. "Titillation" is a verb applied to the intent of the speaker not the hearer. One can listen for it, but it can only be given by the speaker. To suggest, as you do, that it is the hearer's "fault" means that the speaker bears no responsibility for their words or the effect of their words.

RE: the Alyssa comments, I merely made comment to them because they too were a disclosure of information and I thought it pertinent to make comment to them - not for the purpose of defending the poster but rather as a "by comparison" comment because you had referenced a public forum Q and A.

- fhb

As you recently posted here, the Free Online dictionary contains the following:

v. tit·il·lat·ed, tit·il·lat·ing, tit·il·lates
v.tr.
1. To stimulate by touching lightly; tickle.
2. To excite (another) pleasurably, superficially or erotically.
v.intr.
To excite another, especially in a superficial, pleasurable manner: "Once you decide to titillate instead of illuminate . . . you create a climate of expectation that requires a higher and higher level of intensity" Bill Moyers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, while the wider use may be of an erotic nature, the word clearly has an application in the world of information sharing, of verbal communication.

Whether some are less than comfortable with its use here is a matter of personal choice.

[justme]

As you recently posted here, the Free Online dictionary contains the following:

v. tit·il·lat·ed, tit·il·lat·ing, tit·il·lates
v.tr.
1. To stimulate by touching lightly; tickle.
2. To excite (another) pleasurably, superficially or erotically.
v.intr.
To excite another, especially in a superficial, pleasurable manner: "Once you decide to titillate instead of illuminate . . . you create a climate of expectation that requires a higher and higher level of intensity" Bill Moyers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, while the wider use may be of an erotic nature, the word clearly has an application in the world of information sharing, of verbal communication.

Whether some are less than comfortable with its use here is a matter of personal choice.

I am quite sure that any recipirnt of "T" will have the option of making the decision as to whether the "T" actions are "offensive' or "exciting". For many I have known, "T" attempts got them a slap in the face. Based upon the "interpretation" by the recipient.