Think your job is rough

[eye95]

imported post

Thoreau wrote:

eye95 wrote:

I could be looking square at Diane Chambers' alabaster skin, and if she said, "African American," I would put the X in the box next to "African American."

Thanks for proving how worthless, pointless, and UNNECESSARY some of those questions are. Please state again why they feel that it is constitutional to ask them in the first place since you've shown us how it is of zero real value?

First of all, the overwhelming majority of respondents answer (actually, EVERY respondent, in my experience, answered) precisely the way I would have, had I guessed. So the information is far from "zero real value." The point behind taking one's word for his race is that we should not make assumptions. Some black people look white. It would be insulting for us to make an incorrect assumption. It would be rude to question someone's answer based upon our visual impression of what the answer should be.

As to the constitutionality, that has already been answered. For details, check the above posts. In summary, the Census is mandated by the Constitution. The manner in which it is conducted is, per the Constitution, up to the laws passed in the matter. Courts could, of course, find that the manner violates the intent of the Constitution, making that manner unconstitutional. However, that has not happened.

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

As to the constitutionality, that has already been answered. For details, check the above posts. In summary, the Census is mandated by the Constitution. The manner in which it is conducted is, per the Constitution, up to the laws passed in the matter. Courts could, of course, find that the manner violates the intent of the Constitution, making that manner unconstitutional. However, that has not happened.

I have already read prior posts, and explained why they hold no water. You can reference them all you wish, but that doesn't make your interpretation any more valid than it was before (nor mine if one wants to stick to full disclosure.)

The fact that a declaration of unconstitutionality hasn't been made (yet) doesn't validate the actions/laws in place. It simply shows the unfortunately state of this country which is a mindset of apathy and ignorance.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Thoreau wrote:

eye95 wrote:

As to the constitutionality, that has already been answered. For details, check the above posts. In summary, the Census is mandated by the Constitution. The manner in which it is conducted is, per the Constitution, up to the laws passed in the matter. Courts could, of course, find that the manner violates the intent of the Constitution, making that manner unconstitutional. However, that has not happened.

I have already read prior posts, and explained why they hold no water. You can reference them all you wish, but that doesn't make your interpretation any more valid than it was before (nor mine if one wants to stick to full disclosure.)

The fact that a declaration of unconstitutionality hasn't been made (yet) doesn't validate the actions/laws in place. It simply shows the unfortunately state of this country which is a mindset of apathy and ignorance.

Well, considering that this decennial census is asking the fewest questions in decades and that these particular questions have been asked for decades, ample opportunity has existed to declare them unconstitutional.

If you refuse to answer, you are breaking the law. Feel free to exercise your conscience. However, not answering is still breaking the law that is de facto (if not de jure) constitutional.

 

[IndianaBoy79]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Who said the answer to the race question would be used to enforce equal opportunity laws? Certainly not the Census Bureau.

The United States government and the Census Bureau did.

"The EEO data file is used by many organizations to develop and update their affirmative action plans."
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/eeoindex/faqs.html#Q2

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/census/2010/50WaysDataUsed.html

"Many federal programs are put into effect based on the race data obtained from the decennial census (i.e., promoting equal employment opportunities; assessing racial disparities in health and environmental risks). Race data are also critical for the basic research behind many policy decisions. States require these data to meet legislative redistricting requirements. The data are needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act by local jurisdictions."
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/epss/glossary_e.html

There are many other uses for this, and the other questions asked, that I won't be party to. How can you work for the Census and not know what you're collecting the data for???

Edited to add references/proof.

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Well, considering that this decennial census is asking the fewest questions in decades and that these particular questions have been asked for decades, ample opportunity has existed to declare them unconstitutional.

If you refuse to answer, you are breaking the law. Feel free to exercise your conscience. However, not answering is still breaking the law that is de facto (if not de jure) constitutional.

Relativity to prior census events is irrelevant. That the 'well he did it, so why can't I' theory. It doesn't hold water. As for the ample opportunity portion, there's been ample opportunity for the government to eliminate all wasteful spending, pork, corruption, etc. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't needed.

 

[ecocks]

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

I have seen news reports that say the penalty can be up to $250,000 and or 5 years in jail, $100 per question not answered, $500 per question answered untruthfuly, to $100 total (as you mentioned) for not answering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZz8KSkN1NQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL6712oouzA&feature=related

You need to do your research.

The ACS is conducted by the Census Bureau but isNOT part of the 2010 Census.

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

 

[Thoreau]

imported post

ecocks wrote:

You need to do your research.

The ACS is conducted by the Census Bureau but isNOT part of the 2010 Census.

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/

+1

However:

"Every address receives a 2010 Census form.

A random sample of addresses also receives an American Community Survey form.

Both require your response."


This of course is above and beyond the current debate in this thread, but since it is relevant, I'd love to hear someone (eye95 comes to mind) defend the Census Bureau on this one.

Edit: Ok, maybe not so much +1 after all:

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/SBasics/acs_2010.htm

"The American Community Survey is a separate part of the 2010 Census program."



Also:

http://askacs.census.gov/cgi-bin/askacs.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=642&p_created=1093522639&p_sid=9V4EQH2k&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_srch=1&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9Niw2JnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0mcF9jdj0mcF9wYWdlPTEmcF9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1yZXF1aXJlZA!!&p_li=&p_topview=1

"The ACS is part of the Decennial Census Program."

 

[ecocks]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

ecocks wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ecocks wrote:

...The only information you were required to provide was the number of people living at the address. The other information is not required and properly-trained workers would not have pressed you for it after you explained you didn't wish to provide it. ...

This is not true. Responders are required by law to provide the information requested. A well-trained census worker will attempt to elicit the information through motivation, not by demand. He will walk away when motivation does not work only because we will make many attempts to get the information some other way--not because the law does not require the information be given.

Under the law, the information requested by the census must be provided.

I have had a whopping two refusals that I was not able to convince the respondent over their objections. It is a matter of technique, the number one tactic being politeness. (Oh, and one of the objectors called me later, apologized, and offered the information. However, I had already gotten very detailed information from a proxy and no longer had the EQ. So, I referred her to the LCO.)

LOL - I plainly said "after you explained you didn't wish to provide it."

That is the law/requirement and your decision was your decision. When the question as to "what was the minimum information?" was asked by the respondent providing the information, workers attempted to explain the additional information was for statistical purposes, blah, blah, blah...in a friendly, non-threatening manner, often overcoming RELUCTANCE. Several people did not wish to provide pieces of the info, most often birthdays of children. No one refused the mortgage/rent/own clearquestion which I personally thogt was the most intrusive. Training in my area CLEARLY emphasized not to persistafter a respondent stated explicitly that they did not wish to give more information than required, and the workers were told to leave politely and graciously, thanking the person for their cooperation.

Numerous people provided only the minimum information (number of people living at that address) and this sufficed for the census requirements. If I had to guess percentages in my area I would say maybe 15% provided only the number of people living in that home. I had one person who became irate and abusive, insisting he didn't need to tell me anything and slamming the door. As mentioned above our first recourse was to simply walk over to a neighbor's house and seek the information since nobody (worker/managers/police) really wanted to deal with forcing the citizen to provide information if possible. This worked equally well for those who simply refused to answer the door or respond to the flyers requesting contact which were left on their doors.

I suspect the irate guy would have had a stroke if he knew his neighbor's reaction which was actually kind of funny. As to how many of the non-responsive realized we just got the information from their neighbors I also suspected thatsome would have been upset about their neighbors giving the info.

Our training was VERY clear that only the numbers of people living at that address was required under the law.

Please. You are wrong when you talk of a minimum amount of information or of folks explaining that they do not wish to provide it.

While the Census Bureau, in any of the operations to date, is not pressing the legal requirement, respondents are required by law to answer the questions being asked--all of them.

It is important that we not provide misinformation to the public about what the law says on providing the requested information.

You are simply wrong.

Take it up with the LCO Management who provided my training and accuse them of falsifying the training documentation. Since we rotated reading from the mandatory training script you're going to be taking on the whole Census Department training program as well.

This was repeatedly covered in training sessions andteam meetingswith numerous questions from the group. My team of 14 people turned in dozens of EQ's with the minimum requiredinformationwith the proper notations as to respondents refusal to provide additional information. Some EQ's were even kicked back with reminders that we needed to notate the refusal in the proper section.

So, take up your POV with your LCO manager and tell them how frustrated you are that at least one other LCO does not agree with your statement.

As you like to say, Moving On.

 

[erichonda30]

imported post

someones going to need this

 

[ecocks]

imported post

Every now and then Eric, you provide value in your presence.

I, for one, appreciate it.

 

[erichonda30]

imported post

ecocks wrote:

Every now and then Eric, you provide value in your presence.

I, for one, appreciate it.

they used to say the same thing when i was a apprentice and i got the coffee order right

 

[eye95]

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Who said the answer to the race question would be used to enforce equal opportunity laws? Certainly not the Census Bureau.

The United States government and the Census Bureau did.

"The EEO data file is used by many organizations to develop and update their affirmative action plans."
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/eeoindex/faqs.html#Q2

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa/census/2010/50WaysDataUsed.html

"Many federal programs are put into effect based on the race data obtained from the decennial census (i.e., promoting equal employment opportunities; assessing racial disparities in health and environmental risks). Race data are also critical for the basic research behind many policy decisions. States require these data to meet legislative redistricting requirements. The data are needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act by local jurisdictions."
http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/epss/glossary_e.html

There are many other uses for this, and the other questions asked, that I won't be party to. How can you work for the Census and not know what you're collecting the data for???

Edited to add references/proof.

Your quotes do not support your assertion. Close, though, but not precisely.

 

[eye95]

imported post

Thoreau wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Well, considering that this decennial census is asking the fewest questions in decades and that these particular questions have been asked for decades, ample opportunity has existed to declare them unconstitutional.

If you refuse to answer, you are breaking the law. Feel free to exercise your conscience. However, not answering is still breaking the law that is de facto (if not de jure) constitutional.

Relativity to prior census events is irrelevant. That the 'well he did it, so why can't I' theory. It doesn't hold water. As for the ample opportunity portion, there's been ample opportunity for the government to eliminate all wasteful spending, pork, corruption, etc. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't needed.

The point of my post is that they have been asking these questions for decades, therefore there have been decades of opportunity for courts to rule them unconstitutional. Since no court has, clearly no serious legal authority thinks that they are.

In no way did my post attempt to justify the questions simply because they had been asked before.

 

[IndianaBoy79]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Your quotes do not support your assertion. Close, though, but not precisely.

Not gonna argue semantics. You should get the drift of what I was trying to communicate, especially after after reading the quotes. "Monitor compliance" = "enforce" in my mind. Pick a better word if you like.

And now in support of your position on the law:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/13/7/II/221

We are REQUIRED by law to answer every question. Unless people think a training manual trumps federal laws, someone may want to start filling out the above posted form after all.

 

[eye95]

imported post

ecocks wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ecocks wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ecocks wrote:

...The only information you were required to provide was the number of people living at the address. The other information is not required and properly-trained workers would not have pressed you for it after you explained you didn't wish to provide it. ...

This is not true. Responders are required by law to provide the information requested. A well-trained census worker will attempt to elicit the information through motivation, not by demand. He will walk away when motivation does not work only because we will make many attempts to get the information some other way--not because the law does not require the information be given.

Under the law, the information requested by the census must be provided.

I have had a whopping two refusals that I was not able to convince the respondent over their objections. It is a matter of technique, the number one tactic being politeness. (Oh, and one of the objectors called me later, apologized, and offered the information. However, I had already gotten very detailed information from a proxy and no longer had the EQ. So, I referred her to the LCO.)

LOL - I plainly said "after you explained you didn't wish to provide it."

That is the law/requirement and your decision was your decision. When the question as to "what was the minimum information?" was asked by the respondent providing the information, workers attempted to explain the additional information was for statistical purposes, blah, blah, blah...in a friendly, non-threatening manner, often overcoming RELUCTANCE. Several people did not wish to provide pieces of the info, most often birthdays of children. No one refused the mortgage/rent/own clearquestion which I personally thogt was the most intrusive. Training in my area CLEARLY emphasized not to persistafter a respondent stated explicitly that they did not wish to give more information than required, and the workers were told to leave politely and graciously, thanking the person for their cooperation.

Numerous people provided only the minimum information (number of people living at that address) and this sufficed for the census requirements. If I had to guess percentages in my area I would say maybe 15% provided only the number of people living in that home. I had one person who became irate and abusive, insisting he didn't need to tell me anything and slamming the door. As mentioned above our first recourse was to simply walk over to a neighbor's house and seek the information since nobody (worker/managers/police) really wanted to deal with forcing the citizen to provide information if possible. This worked equally well for those who simply refused to answer the door or respond to the flyers requesting contact which were left on their doors.

I suspect the irate guy would have had a stroke if he knew his neighbor's reaction which was actually kind of funny. As to how many of the non-responsive realized we just got the information from their neighbors I also suspected thatsome would have been upset about their neighbors giving the info.

Our training was VERY clear that only the numbers of people living at that address was required under the law.

Please. You are wrong when you talk of a minimum amount of information or of folks explaining that they do not wish to provide it.

While the Census Bureau, in any of the operations to date, is not pressing the legal requirement, respondents are required by law to answer the questions being asked--all of them.

It is important that we not provide misinformation to the public about what the law says on providing the requested information.

You are simply wrong.

Take it up with the LCO Management who provided my training and accuse them of falsifying the training documentation. Since we rotated reading from the mandatory training script you're going to be taking on the whole Census Department training program as well.

This was repeatedly covered in training sessions andteam meetingswith numerous questions from the group. My team of 14 people turned in dozens of EQ's with the minimum requiredinformationwith the proper notations as to respondents refusal to provide additional information. Some EQ's were even kicked back with reminders that we needed to notate the refusal in the proper section.

So, take up your POV with your LCO manager and tell them how frustrated you are that at least one other LCO does not agree with your statement.

As you like to say, Moving On.

You are quoting training. I am quoting law (also my training). Near as I can figure, you are talking about what constitutes a "completed" (I forget the precise word the training uses) ICR (i.e. three of the first five questions being answered). This is a QC standard, not the law. If any three of the first five questions were answered, the questionnaire could be accepted. If not, further efforts would be needed to get more information.

I hope you understand this subtle distinction.

Once again, I conducted training for two of the operations so far. I know what the verbatim training says about completeness of forms.

 

[eye95]

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Your quotes do not support your assertion. Close, though, but not precisely.

Not gonna argue semantics. You should get the drift of what I was trying to communicate, especially after after reading the quotes. "Monitor compliance" = "enforce" in my mind. Pick a better word if you like.

And now in support of your position on the law:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/13/7/II/221

We are REQUIRED by law to answer every question. Unless people think a training manual trumps federal laws, someone may want to start filling out the above posted form after all.

It's not semantics. "Enforce" is a strong word with a clear meaning. This data will not be used to enforce any law or regulation. It simply established a baseline for percentages of the population of varying races and origins.

Others my use this data in any way they see fit. The Census Bureau is merely trying to provide it.

 

[IndianaBoy79]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Others my use this data in any way they see fit. The Census Bureau is merely trying to provide it.

ROFL I never said the Census Bureau is going to enforce anything. They are simply the branch of government collecting the information. This doesn't negate my position that the government is going to use the data to enforce compliance with highly questionable (at least in my opinion) laws.

 

[PT111]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

ecocks wrote:

Any gerrymandering will occur in the computer manipulation of the collected data. "Co-opting" individual census worker to this end is far, farbeyond the competence of even an ACORN-trained street supervisor.

Good point.

Co-opting census workers would be the most inefficient way of gerrymandering!

Gerrymandering is going to happen. It always does. It will happen in a way that favors the party doing the districting. BTW, doesn't districting happen at the State level?

If you are from Alabama or anywhere in the South you should know that all districting here happens at the Federal level. Every voting district or school district has to have Federal approval before it can be implemented. The last time our local shool board tried to rezone all of the schools they submitted 3 different plans before the Justice Department would finally approve one that met the guidelines established by the NAACP. This is just the way that the US Government continues to punish the South for the Civil War. By the time the NAACP finally gave their blessing to a rezoning plan for the schools the balance had changed so much that we almost had to start over.

 

[eye95]

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Others my use this data in any way they see fit. The Census Bureau is merely trying to provide it.

ROFL I never said the Census Bureau is going to enforce anything. They are simply the branch of government collecting the information. This doesn't negate my position that the government is going to use the data to enforce compliance with highly questionable (at least in my opinion) laws.

I love "I never said"s.

I never said that you said that the Census Bureau is going to enforce anything.

Your turn.

The data is the data. It can't be used to enforce laws. It can be used to set standards. But, if you think they can't come up with relative percentages of the population in order to set those standards without the Census...anyway...

The Census is simply the best way to get the most precise data. And, if they are going to collect the data, wouldn't you like it to be as precise as possible? I would. Precise data is better for getting at the truth.

If you believe that some so-called "equal opportunity" laws are unconstitutional and anti-Liberty (I do), then attack the laws, not a constitutional and lawful data collection effort.

 

[eye95]

imported post

PT111 wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ecocks wrote:

Any gerrymandering will occur in the computer manipulation of the collected data. "Co-opting" individual census worker to this end is far, farbeyond the competence of even an ACORN-trained street supervisor.

Good point.

Co-opting census workers would be the most inefficient way of gerrymandering!

Gerrymandering is going to happen. It always does. It will happen in a way that favors the party doing the districting. BTW, doesn't districting happen at the State level?

If you are from Alabama or anywhere in the South you should know that all districting here happens at the Federal level. Every voting district or school district has to have Federal approval before it can be implemented. The last time our local shool board tried to rezone all of the schools they submitted 3 different plans before the Justice Department would finally approve one that met the guidelines established by the NAACP. This is just the way that the US Government continues to punish the South for the Civil War. By the time the NAACP finally gave their blessing to a rezoning plan for the schools the balance had changed so much that we almost had to start over.

Approval is not the same as doing. The feds look to make sure "protected classes" do not have their voting strength diluted through gerrymandering. The feds do not do the districting. States are allowed to gerrymander all they want to dilute Republican or Democrat voting strength. The party in power in that State will decide which party's vote gets diluted.