What is the opposite of red-lining? It's what Bank of America is getting sued for, nothing more or less than blackface capitalism. Well here's an ass-biter right on cue. Michel Martin gives us the following news:
The issue: a group of black professional employees -- personal bankers, financial advisers -- say they were steered to offer their services only in majority black neighborhoods. And when they complained, their employer, industry behemoth Bank of America, told them that's the way customers would want it to be. Now, B of A didn't want to talk to us -- they said they weren't ready and they issued a statement about how they don't discriminate (you can read it here).
But we were interested in the issue of customer preference. Can an institution do that, if it believes that's what customers want?
We heard from the lawyer for the plaintiffs, and a lawyer for the EEOC (NOT a party to the suit, we just wanted the big picture). We still hope to hear rfom B of A. It's an interesting dilemma.
Like I said, it's an ass-biter. Be careful what you ask for, a big, responsive well-managed corporation might actually deliver it to you, and then what will you do? Why you'll sue them for not understanding what you really mean of course. So with any luck, we'll get a Supreme Court decision defining black community service once and for all. Comfy? I didn't think so.
Of course this sword cuts both ways, but I think in the end the employees ought to lose. A company's first obligation is to fulfill its business. So if it makes employees uncomfortable to tend to the business of the company, then they are not really in much of a position to choose. If the company fails its customers, then employees will eventually be laid off. You can smell the racial double standard a mile away. If white employees said they were uncomfortable being assigned to work black neighborhoods, they'd be tarred and feathered and hung from the highest tree, virtually.
But there are some interesting old black empowerment tactics going on here. Here's my thumbnail sketch on four economic tactics for black empowerment that we discussed a couple years ago at Vision Circle:
* Black Capitalism
* Blackface Capitalism
* Invisiblack Capitalism
* Ujamaa
Blackface capitalism would be Revlon through their 'Dark & Lovely' product line. White owned and controlled but strictly for the benefit of black consumers.
Ujamaa is small time, cooperative economics. It means going to the black owned barbershop instead of Supercuts.
Black capitalism is best exemplified by some of the black owned and operated car dealerships in Atlanta that I hear on the black radio station with black voices using black vernacular to attract black customers.
My position is that they are all good but black capitalism is best. I would add that there is a fourth, which is 'invisiblack' capitalism in which black controlled corporations provide goods and services to the mainstream in which the race of the management team is black but unknown and materially irrelevant. American Express, Avis, AOL Time Warner are all run by black men, few people know, it makes no impact on their marketing.
The first complaint I would see as legitimate is if a sizable majority of black employees of the bank were directed to serve black customers, such that a reasonable person could conclude that Bank of America expects blacks only to service blacks and that black customers could not or should not be serviced by people other than blacks. That seems to me to be a prima facia racial discrimination case.
Secondly I would say that it would be a legitimate although much less substantial complaint that black employees were not consulted or notified with regard to their re-assignments or were transferred in ways that were disruptive and/or out of their field of expertise. That's small d, discrimination, that given the failure to prove #1 will be but a blip on B of A's radar. Basically it's pissed off employees and race doesn't matter. If the company has a standing policy to target and serve (underserved) black communities, then dammit that's what the company does, and what's wrong with that?
Thirdly and most weakly I would say B of A employees have some right to say they simply don't want to be assigned to work those underserved black areas, which it must go without saying are not plum territories. Obviously if if they were considered to be the road to advancement within B of A, we wouldn't hear a peep.
I think much depends upon how the company handles it, but there's probably no way for them to win because #2 has all the weight. On the one hand, I think the B of A employees will not be able to evade the perception of being a bunch of (ahem) 'Uncle Toms' who can't stand the prospect of serving 'their own people'. On the other hand, it's their word as blacks against the company which will inevitably have to respond by pointing to more competent and/or complacent blacks in the company who are serving white customers proving complaint #1 wrong, which is the most damaging complaint.
Be prepared for some character assassination.
If I were B of A, I would put a high level black employee forward to talk about the depth and length of the banks commitment to serve black communities nationwide and basically how these overpaid whiners are sabotaging that commitment because they and their lawyers just want to get paid, and that as long as we don't discriminate it's our business which employees we assign to which markets.
If I were one of the black employees in question I would suggest how demeaning it is for a person of my professional caliber to be summarily assumed to have a career interest in working such weak markets simply because of the color of my skin, and that B of A is trying to use me as window dressing without my knowledge or consent. And I'd keep a hella low profile and get the resume ready, like yesterday.
So maybe we'll get that old discussion going again. I can see Ward Connorly just chuckling derisively.
Recent Comments