Summarizing My 2008 in One Word: Discrimination! (Part 2 of 4)

Yes, I know that because I am a white male Christian that I should only be the perpetrator of discrimination and never the victim. However, I managed to get the short end of the stick four times this year. These have resulted in me having to endure serious finical hardship.

The second occurrence of discrimination is one that I can never prove, but I have been a security officer long enough to know what standard operating procedures are. Therefore, when they are set aside, I start wondering why. The nature of what I believe to discrimination was ethnic and religious in nature. The funniest thing about this is that I am not of the targeted ethnicity and I reject the targeted religion.

From March – June, I was assigned to the Ulta Cosmetics warehouse here in Phoenix while working for Allegiance Security. My duties were centered around loss prevention, which required me to be by the employee entrance so I could inspect all containers for client merchandise. The client allowed me to bring my laptop to work during slow periods as long as it did not distract me when the employees did come through.

One night in June, I was working on the Microsoft Power Point slide presentation to be used prior to the start of my Arabic church’s Sunday morning service. My pastor had e-mailed me a copy of the bulletin that he does on Microsoft Word and I was copy and pasting the various sections. Because my church ministers to the Arab community, the texts were both in English and Arabic. On the night in question, I was working on the following slide:

كيف أصبح عضوا في هذه الكنيسة

HOW TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH

يجب أن أقابل الرب وما فعله من أجلي على الصليب
YOU MUST HAVE A MEETING WITH THE LORD AND SEE WHAT HE HAS DONE FOR YOU

يجب أن أعترف في حاجتي الى خلاصه العجيب وأختبر ذاك الخلاص
YOU MUST CONFESS YOUR NEED FOR HIS WONDERFUL SALVATION AND EXPERIENCE IT

يجب أن أعلن رغبتي للإنضمام إلى الكنيسة
YOU MUST DECLARE YOUR DESIRE TO JOIN HIS CHURCH

تجب أن أتبع وصية المسيح بالمعمودية بالتغطيس

YOU MUST FOLLOW IN BAPTISM THROUGH IMMERSION AS HE COMMANDED

While I was working on this slide, a client employee (whom I had a good rapport with at the time) briefly glanced over my shoulder. Apparently, he only noticed the Arabic script as he went out the door. He asked me if I was reading “al-Qaeda c***” and left without giving me a chance to respond. The client, whom had made no complaints about me prior to this, requested that I be removed from site three days later.

Because we security officer are “contracted employee,” we are not entitled to any right of due process from the client. Technically speaking, the client can have us removed for site just because they feel like it. Our employers themselves are required to give us due process before imposing disciplinary action, but the client does not. A run of the mill transferring of a guard to another site is not considered a disciplinary action in and of its self because their employment is not interrupted.

Security industry standard operating procedure for a guard being removed from site at the client’s request is to call him or her into the office and tell them why. When I went in, that told me not to worry about it. They did not believe what the client said and all of my fellow guards speak highly of me. What? Why did my supervisors go to my fellow guards in order to get their opinion of me? Why will they not tell me what the clients said about me? I have been in the security industry for most of the past seven years and this is not consistent with the industries professional standards.

The following week, my supervisor came to check on me at the site were they had transferred me. As we talk, I found opportunity to talk to him about my involvement with my church. It is just something that Christians like me naturally do. He claimed to be a Christian as well, but I did not sense that he was asking more about my church out of curiosity. I felt like he was being an inquisitor right from the beginning when he said, “So your a Christian.”

I entertained the possibility that they could be another explanation as to why I was removed from site up until this conversation. If I am right, Ulta Cosmetics put Allegiance Security in a bind. This act of discrimination, if I could prove it, could have resulted in a lawsuit against both of them. However, you are supposed to give the client what they want in order to keep the contract. On this occasion, Allegiance Security got to have their cake and eat it too.

Summarizing My 2008 in One Word: Discrimination! (Part 1 of 4)

Yes, I know that because I am a white male Christian that I should only be the perpetrator of discrimination and never the victim. However, I managed to get the short end of the stick four times this year. These have resulted in me having to endure serious finical hardship.

The first occurrence happened in February while I was with my first employer of the year, ResCare Homecare. I was hired to provide services to my assigned clients who mostly required respite and personal care. The discriminatory act in this instance was committed by the next-door neighbor of a 4-year-old autistic boy who I was to provide respite and habitation. Her complaint of me “touching him inappropriately” centered around my use of the intervention technique call, “the bear hug.” There is no doubt in my mind that she would have never made such an accusation against a woman using this technique. After all, I am a man and some view all men as being abusers of women and children.

Lisa Ratan taught “The bear hug” technique to me when I worked in the Early Childhood Department of Word of Grace Church in Mesa, AZ. (March 1993 - August 1995) Ms. Ratan was a member of the ASU faculty were she taught a course on Early Childhood. She was a staunch advocate of children’s rights and had classroom standards that were far superior to those of the State of Arizona. Example: the State allowed for a 15/1 student/teacher ratio in daycare kindergarten classrooms and did not require a second teacher unless the attendance reached 16 or more. Ms. Ratan’s ratio was 12/1 and that there was always to be at least two teachers no matter how small your attendance.

Ms. Ratan taught “the bear hug” as a non-abusive “intervention technique.” It was used a child needed to be restrained from doing something that could injure themselves or others. The hug it self, couple with speaking to the child in a calm-firm voice, was designed to stop the behavior in a way that also show affection. In this manner, the behavior is ended while your rapport with the child is strengthened. As I used this technique, I noticed that many of the children that I used it on regularly actually enjoyed being held. It therefore dawned on me to try to use it as a “preemptive” technique. I would give these children the affection they craved before they acted up and therefore would not have to act inappropriately in order to receive it, and it worked!

The boy that I worked with in February was the first autistic child that I have ever tried using it with. It was all that I knew to do with a child who’s out of control behavior was chasing away caregivers left and right. It is hard for me to say whether or not it would have been effective with him because the allegation was made less then a week and a half after I started working with him. There was no question that he and I were bonding; the question was whether or not he would start minding. His autism seemed to make him “randomly tactile defensive” meaning that what he like one day, including “the bear hug,” he did not like the next. I defiantly need a more comprehensive strategy for working with him that may or may not have included a limited use of “the bear hug,” but I was never given the opportunity to ask.

I was placed on immediate administrative leave without pay because of this allegation. After about six weeks, ResCare finally asked me to come in and give my side of the story. Why so long? They claimed there were a spike in various allegations made against various caregivers and they handled them in the order of gravity. Those who were accused of worst acts were moved ahead of mine. They were also required by law to report allegations of this nature to both the police and Child Protective Services, neither of which ever contacted me.

ResCare finally reached their decision in August after about five months of them sometime investigating the allegation and sometimes putting me on the back burner. They offered me my job back; but would only allow me to work with adults. What they did not say is that I had been exonerated of this allegation. If I truly were, they would not have placed this restriction upon me. They found no reason to believe that I was guilty and that is all they cared about. Some of my clients that I worked with before being placed on administrative leave were adults and I had no objections to resume working with them. The three objections that I do have are: first, that such a restriction says that they believe that I might be guilty and my reputation is still in question. Second, the restriction is a condemnation of a technique taught to me be a mentor that I highly respect and that I have used effectively ever since. Finally, my right to an expedient due process was violated.

I have use Ms. Ratan’s “bear hug” technique in a number of volunteer Church setting and have been praised for my ability to handle children. I have also tried to use this same technique in professional settings, such as daycare, respite care, etc and have been run out every time. Why the difference? The mission of the Churches is, in part, to minister to the needs of those who come to them. When they see someone is good at doing just that, most will stand up to those who would make unmerited allegations against them.

The mission of any business is to make money. This is the case in almost all corporations whether you are talking about childcare, security, etc. Negative publicity and lawsuits, whether they are won are lost, hurts profit margins. Most corporate policy makers consist of bean counters and civil law lawyers who can and will override the judgment of genuine industry experts. This veto power rest solely in the hands of those who care nothing about what is in the best interest of the customers, clients, employee, etc. They are only concerned that their corporate executives get their new 50’ yachts.