Wife not happpy with Lund lawsuit

[Blackmacs]

[QUOTE=the big lake;1371844][SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Obviously they wouldn’t publish an article like this without having some merit, or there probably would be another lawsuit. It would be sad if it was true, are we not in the year 2011?[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

You must not read the startribune much. There isn't much merit in that entire fish wrap.

[Litchfieldwalleye]

I applied for a managers job at the local Victorias Secret. I think I was turned down... because I'm a man. Seriously, I just want the best workers available to rivet my baby - if it happens to be a ham-fisted Minnesotan lady, so be it.

[Eric_CO]

[quote=doubleheader;1371846]So let's say statistically it is true. Are they to hire exactly at the same ratio? If not, how much are they allowed to deviate? If they hire a higher % of women is the fed going to jump in and tell them to hire more men?[/quote]

Not exactly. There is a formula based on the demographics in their community.

No the feds would not do that. There is not a history of men being discrimated against that legislation had to correct.

Lund is probably in this position because of adverse impact. They can either remedy the situation as is recommended by the agency, they can validate the hiring criteria, and/or they can stop doing business with the government.

I'm guessing that they will still make a profit by doing business with the government which is why they will continue to have that agency's oversight of their hiring statistics.

[jigngrub]

Those women need to apply at a Sarah Lee bakery or something... boats is mans work!

[the big lake]

[quote=Blackmacs;1372017]You must not read the startribune much. There isn't much merit in that entire fish wrap.[/quote]
That might be true if the Tribune was the only paper or TV that ran the story. I also saw the story on Kare 11, KSTP and also other paper publications. All being said, I think it's sad if it's true and if they are found in the wrong, guess what, you will all be paying more for your next Lund that you might buy.

[SteveJ]

[QUOTE=Buck Snort;1371826]I have to agree with Brunswick on this one. It's their company.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you are siding wint Brunswick on yet, but the EEOC has been around fo ra long time. Brunswick apparently is a federal contractor, which gives teh EEOC the opportunity to demand a lot of information about their employment demographics and hiring demographics without any formal complaints from individuals.

In terms if it being Brunswick's company, that statement would apply to all companies but it doesn't give any the right to violate federal law. When you agree to be a federal contractor you agree to be proactive in the area of Equal Employment Opportunity.

[Juls]

[quote=jigngrub;1372059]Those women need to apply at a Sarah Lee bakery or something... boats is mans work![/quote]

:horsepoop: :bang-bang: :ban: :howdy:

[Jack G]

kaptinfish

You have my sympathy, on multiple levels.

Jack

[DXO]

[QUOTE=kaptinfish;1371735]Hi everyone,
I have plans to purchase a new boat this spring and the wife has given me the green light. I have been talking a lot about Lunds boats and had my eye on a couple different models. She must listen more then I give her credit for because she showed me an article why I won't be getting a Lund. [URL="http://www.startribune.com/business/134853523.html"] http://www.startribune.com/business/134853523.html [/URL]
I am not sure whether this is a frivolous lawsuit or not? I was hoping someone here might work or have worked in one of the factories and could shed some light and help me convince the wife. Has anyone heard anything else about this lawsuit? Thanks in advance for any help.
Kaptinfish[/QUOTE]

It is simple. Lund(Brunswick) has enjoined itself to the federal government. They entered into that agreement with full knowledge of its' commitment and requirements.
Now, the federal government finds them(Lund/Brunswick) faulting in the contract.

Like me, you've options. The Lund/Brunswick connection ties itself not only to the federal government, but has promoted some outboard manufacturing to China.

Voting does not stop in November.

[the big lake]

[quote=DXO;1372137]It is simple. Lund(Brunswick) has enjoined itself to the federal government. They entered into that agreement with full knowledge of its' commitment and requirements.
Now, the federal government finds them(Lund/Brunswick) faulting in the contract.

Like me, you've options. The Lund/Brunswick connection ties itself not only to the federal government, but has promoted some outboard manufacturing to China.

Voting does not stop in November.[/quote]
Well said.