B&H forced Hispanic workers to use separate bathroom: feds(nypost.com)
nypost.com
B&H forced Hispanic workers to use separate bathroom: feds
http://nypost.com/2016/02/25/bh-forced-hispanic-workers-to-use-separate-bathroom-feds/
38 comments
It's also interesting to note that this is not a prosecution, but a compliance review for federal contract requirements. I'm unsure if the requested injunction would carry the force of law or merely put at risk B&H's federal contracts.
Historically speaking, there were no women's restrooms in workplaces and this was used to exclude women from public life. Women were not permitted to share the male restroom space with the idea women should be staying at home. Massachussets legislated women's restrooms into existence in the late 1880s and other states followed suit thereby permitted increase women's labor participation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinary_segregation
and...
http://www.livescience.com/54692-why-bathrooms-are-gender-se...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urinary_segregation
and...
http://www.livescience.com/54692-why-bathrooms-are-gender-se...
For those that are a little skeptical of NYPost, here's the DOL press release:
https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/20160225-2
And here's the same story on some other news sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/nyregion/bh-electronics-s...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/us/bh-photo-lawsuit/
https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/20160225-2
And here's the same story on some other news sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/nyregion/bh-electronics-s...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/us/bh-photo-lawsuit/
Notice the date on all of these, they are from 2016. I wonder why this story is popping up on HN now.
EDIT: Just to clarify since I am getting downvoted, I am not necessarily against this being on HN, but at the very least the post should have the year in the title to indicate it is old.
EDIT: Just to clarify since I am getting downvoted, I am not necessarily against this being on HN, but at the very least the post should have the year in the title to indicate it is old.
Often people don't notice right away that it's old, or aren't aware of the HN convention to include that in the submission title, or just forget. I agree it should be there. (I've also seen people argue it shouldn't because it may prejudice a reader from reading it.)
Sometimes the submitter will notice comments about the year and update it. Sometimes mods do. If you contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer, they'll update it. They're quite responsive.
Sometimes the submitter will notice comments about the year and update it. Sometimes mods do. If you contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer, they'll update it. They're quite responsive.
Might have been confusion over the date; it's nearly exactly a year ago. I thought it was current when I saw it; missed the '2016'.
The poster likely came across it and thought it was interesting enough to post to HN. I haven't looked, but I wouldn't be surprised if the front page doesn't include a few other older submissions.
Whenever I hear allegations like this I always wonder what reason the company could possibly have for this. I like assume, perhaps naively, that there was some reason other than "we don't like Latino people and want to avoid them." Even as a black man it seems bizarre to me that at this day in age that kind of racism still exists. In no way do I mean to relieve B&H of any responsibility because in the end the actions are the same regardless of the intention. It just seems really, really weird.
The offending company has a bit of a history of this sort of thing; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%26H_Photo_Video#Controversie...
On the fourth offence, I think it's time to consider that maybe it's a deeper problem. Looks like it's a "family company" (that is privately-held); these can sometimes be surprisingly dysfunctional, because the "boss" doesn't really have to answer to anyone.
EDIT: From the NYTimes article: 'Lawyers for B&H offered $112,000 in what they called a “take-it-or-leave-it good faith offer.” The department left it.' - Seems like a bizarre thing to do; it's not like the Dept of Labor's really in it for the money.
On the fourth offence, I think it's time to consider that maybe it's a deeper problem. Looks like it's a "family company" (that is privately-held); these can sometimes be surprisingly dysfunctional, because the "boss" doesn't really have to answer to anyone.
EDIT: From the NYTimes article: 'Lawyers for B&H offered $112,000 in what they called a “take-it-or-leave-it good faith offer.” The department left it.' - Seems like a bizarre thing to do; it's not like the Dept of Labor's really in it for the money.
I can imagine a situation like:
- Store has both a back-room toilet for staff only & show-room toilet for customers and initially allows the staff to use either. THe Show-room toilet is nicer than back-room toilet.
- Store worries customers are put-off by staff in customer toilets. Perhaps some customers even complain. Perhaps some of those complaints are even specifically about visible minorities.
- Store responds by asking visible minority staff not to use show-room toilet.
I don't know whether that is what happened here, but it is a plausible pattern. Of course this is still inexcusable, classic discrimination.
- Store has both a back-room toilet for staff only & show-room toilet for customers and initially allows the staff to use either. THe Show-room toilet is nicer than back-room toilet.
- Store worries customers are put-off by staff in customer toilets. Perhaps some customers even complain. Perhaps some of those complaints are even specifically about visible minorities.
- Store responds by asking visible minority staff not to use show-room toilet.
I don't know whether that is what happened here, but it is a plausible pattern. Of course this is still inexcusable, classic discrimination.
The warehosue & showroom are in different locations, miles apart.
[deleted]
Let me assuage your fears a bit. Having contracted with a number of large automotive factories in the US and Mexico, I've seen a similar - but not identical - disparity at dozens of locations. And it's not a decision motivated by bigotry, as far as I can tell.
There's a very common practice to separate the offices/engineering from production/maintenance. Two reasons are given: there's sensitive, valuable pre-production/financial/proprietary data in the offices, and there's dangerous equipment on the plant floor, requiring safety glasses/steel toes/hard hats. It goes unstated that the plant floor and coverall-clad workers are dirty in comparison to the cubicles, carpet, and dress clothes in the offices.
And the bathrooms for the laborers are filthy, even with multiple daily cleanings, while the bathrooms for the office would still be nice even if it was only the office staff themselves that kept them clean.
The tasks in the office are cerebral, while the tasks on the plant floor may require manhandling (a sexist term?) a 9" angle grinder all day. This results in an age, gender, and (in conditions where people of ethnic minorities are cheaply available for entry-level labor) ethnic disparity.
It's by no means absolute - there are women on the plant floor, and young ethnic men get promoted into management all the time. The DOL report [1] is careful to call out B&H's error only as "This hiring disparity ... remains after adjusting for differences in legitimate hiring factors".
There's nothing wrong with hiring mostly young men to shoulder heavy boxes all day, but if a strong woman or wiry old man willing and able to do the work comes in, you'd ought to hire her or him as readily as an equally qualified and capable young man, discarding your bias that you've previously hired mostly young men. And if someone comes in for office work, and has the necessary credentials, but is of the same age/ethnicity/gender as the production personell, you'd ought to hire him for office work as well, dispite the fact that you usually hire older, or that young men usually work on the plant floor.
[1] https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20160384.pdf
There's a very common practice to separate the offices/engineering from production/maintenance. Two reasons are given: there's sensitive, valuable pre-production/financial/proprietary data in the offices, and there's dangerous equipment on the plant floor, requiring safety glasses/steel toes/hard hats. It goes unstated that the plant floor and coverall-clad workers are dirty in comparison to the cubicles, carpet, and dress clothes in the offices.
And the bathrooms for the laborers are filthy, even with multiple daily cleanings, while the bathrooms for the office would still be nice even if it was only the office staff themselves that kept them clean.
The tasks in the office are cerebral, while the tasks on the plant floor may require manhandling (a sexist term?) a 9" angle grinder all day. This results in an age, gender, and (in conditions where people of ethnic minorities are cheaply available for entry-level labor) ethnic disparity.
It's by no means absolute - there are women on the plant floor, and young ethnic men get promoted into management all the time. The DOL report [1] is careful to call out B&H's error only as "This hiring disparity ... remains after adjusting for differences in legitimate hiring factors".
There's nothing wrong with hiring mostly young men to shoulder heavy boxes all day, but if a strong woman or wiry old man willing and able to do the work comes in, you'd ought to hire her or him as readily as an equally qualified and capable young man, discarding your bias that you've previously hired mostly young men. And if someone comes in for office work, and has the necessary credentials, but is of the same age/ethnicity/gender as the production personell, you'd ought to hire him for office work as well, dispite the fact that you usually hire older, or that young men usually work on the plant floor.
[1] https://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/ofccp/OFCCP20160384.pdf
See my top-level post, where I hypothesize that the racial issue w/r/t restrooms might have been incidental to other issues with hiring and promotion.
I wish everyone were this level headed and reasonable. Unfortunately jumping to conclusions, especially those that align with your favourite "narrative" seems to be the funnest new way to make your mind up.
I don't know the real reason why they did this, but the first thing which came up to my mind was that in some cultures they use water to wash than to wipe, and that results in some unsanitary conditions from the perspective of paper users. There are technological solutions for that (like a bidet installation), but chances are some one low in the command chain made that decision.
Also decision was probably 'If you wanna use water, use that bathroom', and it resulted in this effect that Hispanics used one restroom and whites/others the other.
Also decision was probably 'If you wanna use water, use that bathroom', and it resulted in this effect that Hispanics used one restroom and whites/others the other.
Are you suggesting that Hispanic people in New York generally don't use toilet paper? This seems... far-fetched.
You wonder what reason? I've never been to BH, but warehouse people almost always have a different bathroom to use than customers or even retail employees. Mostly because of location to said bathroom. And to say a bathroom is unsanitary in a warehouse, yeah that's pretty common and has nothing to do with race. It has almost everything to do with how people take care of it.
Was this worker able to speak english well? Could s/he articulate that the bathroom needs to be fixed or cleaned regularly? Was there an employee tasked with that particular bathroom and did they not do their job, were they instead slacking or not informed of that.
Curious also what is the demeanor and look to these employees? Were they scummy warehouse workers who would be a poor showing to BH customers. Perhaps they were breaking company rules of their own by showing up to work looking and smelling like garbage. Maybe their behavior is offputting to customers because they don't have politeness training that the other retail employees are trained or have naturally.
Was this worker able to speak english well? Could s/he articulate that the bathroom needs to be fixed or cleaned regularly? Was there an employee tasked with that particular bathroom and did they not do their job, were they instead slacking or not informed of that.
Curious also what is the demeanor and look to these employees? Were they scummy warehouse workers who would be a poor showing to BH customers. Perhaps they were breaking company rules of their own by showing up to work looking and smelling like garbage. Maybe their behavior is offputting to customers because they don't have politeness training that the other retail employees are trained or have naturally.
B&H is run by ultra conservative orthodox Jews and they've gotten into trouble in the past for refusing to hire women and for their treatment of latinos. Their preference seems to be to only hire orthodox Jewish men in the main office and the store and to only hire latino men in the warehouses.
Damn. Very sad to read this. I have been using B&H for IT hardware purchases for work to lessen reliance on Amazon a bit and their service has been great.
Sad to hear this about a company run by Orthodox Jews. This is a company that visibly keeps the Sabbath by refusing to take online orders from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday.
The Hebrew Bible, which I guess they honor in the breach, calls upon people to treat immigrants with respect MORE THAN TWICE AS MANY TIMES as it calls on people to love God.
Grumble. I have to find a new vendor.
The Hebrew Bible, which I guess they honor in the breach, calls upon people to treat immigrants with respect MORE THAN TWICE AS MANY TIMES as it calls on people to love God.
Grumble. I have to find a new vendor.
May I explain my statement "I have to find a new vendor"?
As a matter of personal principle, I try to place my business and spend my money with vendors who treat their staff with respect.
I relied on BHPhotoVideo.com's visible adherence to a principle of Judaism (shutting off their shopping cart during the hours of Sabbath in New York City where they are based) as evidence of the business's commitment to treating workers respectfully.
The Sabbath commandment in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 20:8-10) is about respect for workers. Specifically, it's about letting all workers -- even immigrants -- take a rest. It reads "Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female servant, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."
I assumed BH's obeying the letter of this commandment kinda sorta spilled over into other sorts of respect for "the alien resident in your towns." Guess not. Too bad.
As a matter of personal principle, I try to place my business and spend my money with vendors who treat their staff with respect.
I relied on BHPhotoVideo.com's visible adherence to a principle of Judaism (shutting off their shopping cart during the hours of Sabbath in New York City where they are based) as evidence of the business's commitment to treating workers respectfully.
The Sabbath commandment in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 20:8-10) is about respect for workers. Specifically, it's about letting all workers -- even immigrants -- take a rest. It reads "Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female servant, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns."
I assumed BH's obeying the letter of this commandment kinda sorta spilled over into other sorts of respect for "the alien resident in your towns." Guess not. Too bad.
I'm not sure how the religion of the owner of the company factors in here. If they were atheist would that change the situation?
It's ironic (or perhaps hypocritical) that the business owners strongly adhere to their religion's standards for the Sabbath and holidays but not its standards for the treatment of people. There is no atheist belief system to be inconsistently applied.
To be fair, B&H is well known for following Jewish customs very zealously - their website won't even take orders during the Sabbath, for instance.
I understand that, but I fail to see how it has any bearing on the story.
They just explained why. They're very religious, they believe strongly in their religious text, and yet they've been accused of violating one of the teachings of that text. It doesn't matter what religion they support, what matters is that they're violating one of its tenants.
> If they were atheist would that change the situation?
Yes. Atheists aren't well known for making women ride in the back of buses and banning them from public places.
Granted the skeptic community had a lot of issues with women also, but they are completely different issues.
Yes. Atheists aren't well known for making women ride in the back of buses and banning them from public places.
Granted the skeptic community had a lot of issues with women also, but they are completely different issues.
[deleted]
Why do you have to find a new vendor? This story has little to no information and you certainly don't have multiple sides to the story. New York is extremely hostile when it comes to collecting settlements and fines of retail establishments. There are stories of restaurants getting railroaded by inspectors to the point where it's clearly a kickback operation.
I'd stick with BH through this. Warehouse bathrooms are notoriously disgusting and race has nothing to do with it. Tribalism of this kind of stuff is pathetic.
I'd stick with BH through this. Warehouse bathrooms are notoriously disgusting and race has nothing to do with it. Tribalism of this kind of stuff is pathetic.
This did resurface recently. As of January, they are moving their warehouse to NJ.
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170113/navy-yard/bh-photo...
https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20170113/navy-yard/bh-photo...
Ugh, there goes getting laptops sales tax free here. Thanks for the heads up.
Logical move on their part though, the Satmars also have a huge presence in Lakewood and it's way cheaper to plop a warehouse in NJ than Brooklyn.
Logical move on their part though, the Satmars also have a huge presence in Lakewood and it's way cheaper to plop a warehouse in NJ than Brooklyn.
The headline is misleading.
Warehouse workers use separate bathroom facilities than other workers? This is common.
Unsanitary conditions for warehouse workers ... sadly, this is probably common.
I once worked in the front office of a fairly clean paper company. The workers bathroom in the back was a little messy. That said - the duderinos in there didn't keep it very clean either. They also didn't wash their hands.
There's possibly a racial issue here, but more likely the systematic effects of undocumented labour and the fact those are more amenable to 'warehouse' jobs, as opposed to jobs requiring other skills. The natural dissonance in skills may lead to a stronger bifurcation of attitudes, rights etc. (i.e. "Hey, they're just undocumented people, they don't need clean bathrooms, let's skimp on the cleaning etc")
I'd suggest the issue is probably more of a general thing, than a specific concern.
I wonder if the specifically misleading headlines are going to help or hinder the problem.
Warehouse workers use separate bathroom facilities than other workers? This is common.
Unsanitary conditions for warehouse workers ... sadly, this is probably common.
I once worked in the front office of a fairly clean paper company. The workers bathroom in the back was a little messy. That said - the duderinos in there didn't keep it very clean either. They also didn't wash their hands.
There's possibly a racial issue here, but more likely the systematic effects of undocumented labour and the fact those are more amenable to 'warehouse' jobs, as opposed to jobs requiring other skills. The natural dissonance in skills may lead to a stronger bifurcation of attitudes, rights etc. (i.e. "Hey, they're just undocumented people, they don't need clean bathrooms, let's skimp on the cleaning etc")
I'd suggest the issue is probably more of a general thing, than a specific concern.
I wonder if the specifically misleading headlines are going to help or hinder the problem.
Old news from 2016.
February 25, 2016
It said that they found that B&H "OFCCP found that B&H’s Brooklyn Navy Yard warehouse [...] [r]elegated Hispanic warehouse workers to separate, unsanitary and often inoperable restrooms" Previous to that, it says "OFCCP found that [...] B&H’s Brooklyn Navy Yard warehouse exclusively hired Hispanic men into its entry-level laborer job group, contributing to the complete exclusion of female employees at the warehouse and the near exclusion of black and Asian employees at the facility." Seeing that all entry-level workers were apparently Hispanic, it seems reasonable that the unsanitary restrooms might be on the warehouse floor, where the staff may have been 100% Hispanic.
Likewise, the press release claims that they "[f]ailed to provide designated restroom or changing facilities for females". Note that above, there were no female employees at that location. Again, that doesn't make it right, but it's also not the case that B&H had women working in the warehouse that had to share a restroom with male employees.
My intuition tells me that the lack of women's facilities was being used as justification for not hiring female employees.
In summary, B&H definitely did wrong here. It's just very frustrating to me that the reporting on this was so shallow.
1: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/20160225-2