5 ms·

So tell me, what exact dollar amount do you need to make where discrimination against you is ok?

by st3v3r 10y ago

yuhong 10y ago
It would not be OK just because it is not illegal.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  You're depriving people of a legal remedy, so you are de facto making it ok. So why do you want to make it ok to discriminate depending on the job title? Why are some people not deserving of the same protections as others?
int_19h 10y ago
I think it's more of a question of how much leverage do you have. If everyone is discriminating against you, like Jim Crow South, it doesn't really matter how much you make, because you can't go and find a different job easily. But if discrimination is limited, and the job market for this particular job and in this particular area favors employees, then it's a self-correcting problem - people will just walk. And if an effective boycott is possible and will take care of it, why go through the slower and more resource constrained court system?
- yuhong 10y ago
  There is also the problems of how to prove discrimination, which is why I suggested this particular compromise.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    Those problems exist no matter who the victim is. So your "solution" doesn't help anyone except for big businesses.
    - yuhong 10y ago
      For example, proving that an employee is performing or not is relatively easy with most manual labor jobs. This is why performance reviews are often used in these lawsuits (particularly wrongful termination). This is not true for something like programming. Remember that they were designed back in the 1960s.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  I fail to see why the ability to get a job easily should be taken into account whether you get to have a legal remedy or not. And quite frankly, I have no faith whatsoever that a boycott would work, or gain any traction at all. We have had numerous stories of companies acting shitty all over, and yet they don't seem to have problems hiring.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    Let me clarify that. I don't actually particularly care about whether the boycott would work or not, in a sense of preventing the affected company from hiring more people. What I care about is remedying the material harm that is caused to people discriminated against. If you are looking for a job, and they tell you that you needn't apply because of your race/gender/..., but there are thousands more equivalent jobs in your market that don't have such restrictions, there's no substantial harm to you - you can just pick any of those other jobs. If this particular business can hire enough bigots (or just people who don't care) to keep them running - so what? It still doesn't harm you. So it becomes a matter of principle, and from that perspective, I think freedom of speech and association is a more important principle than private non-discrimination, and so for the lack of measurable harm, the former should be preferred. It's not just about jobs, too - same principle applies to services. if you have 100 bakers around you that aren't bigoted, and one who is, they cannot cause any meaningful amount of harm to anyone but themselves, by driving customers away. Of course, if other businesses take note and start discriminating too, at some point, there are enough of them that your ability to get a job or service is hampered - you can't just go elsewhere (not easily, at least). Where and when that happens, discrimination should become illegal - but localized to the affected area and/or industry. Think of it as anti-monopoly legislation. There are many shady practices that we don't punish businesses for until they are in a market dominant position (either by themselves, or through collusion with other businesses, which sometimes can be implicit). Same principle - shady or not, it shouldn't be prohibited unless it clearly harms someone.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - 10y ago

So tell me, what exact dollar amount do you need to make where discrimination against you is ok?

by st3v3r 10y ago

So tell me, what exact dollar amount do you need to make where discrimination against you is ok?

yuhong 10y ago

It would not be OK just because it is not illegal.

st3v3r 10y ago
You're depriving people of a legal remedy, so you are de facto making it ok. So why do you want to make it ok to discriminate depending on the job title? Why are some people not deserving of the same protections as others?

int_19h 10y ago

I think it's more of a question of how much leverage do you have. If everyone is discriminating against you, like Jim Crow South, it doesn't really matter how much you make, because you can't go and find a different job easily. But if discrimination is limited, and the job market for this particular job and in this particular area favors employees, then it's a self-correcting problem - people will just walk. And if an effective boycott is possible and will take care of it, why go through the slower and more resource constrained court system?

yuhong 10y ago
There is also the problems of how to prove discrimination, which is why I suggested this particular compromise.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Those problems exist no matter who the victim is. So your "solution" doesn't help anyone except for big businesses.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    For example, proving that an employee is performing or not is relatively easy with most manual labor jobs. This is why performance reviews are often used in these lawsuits (particularly wrongful termination). This is not true for something like programming. Remember that they were designed back in the 1960s.
st3v3r 10y ago
I fail to see why the ability to get a job easily should be taken into account whether you get to have a legal remedy or not. And quite frankly, I have no faith whatsoever that a boycott would work, or gain any traction at all. We have had numerous stories of companies acting shitty all over, and yet they don't seem to have problems hiring.
- int_19h 10y ago
  Let me clarify that. I don't actually particularly care about whether the boycott would work or not, in a sense of preventing the affected company from hiring more people. What I care about is remedying the material harm that is caused to people discriminated against. If you are looking for a job, and they tell you that you needn't apply because of your race/gender/..., but there are thousands more equivalent jobs in your market that don't have such restrictions, there's no substantial harm to you - you can just pick any of those other jobs. If this particular business can hire enough bigots (or just people who don't care) to keep them running - so what? It still doesn't harm you. So it becomes a matter of principle, and from that perspective, I think freedom of speech and association is a more important principle than private non-discrimination, and so for the lack of measurable harm, the former should be preferred. It's not just about jobs, too - same principle applies to services. if you have 100 bakers around you that aren't bigoted, and one who is, they cannot cause any meaningful amount of harm to anyone but themselves, by driving customers away. Of course, if other businesses take note and start discriminating too, at some point, there are enough of them that your ability to get a job or service is hampered - you can't just go elsewhere (not easily, at least). Where and when that happens, discrimination should become illegal - but localized to the affected area and/or industry. Think of it as anti-monopoly legislation. There are many shady practices that we don't punish businesses for until they are in a market dominant position (either by themselves, or through collusion with other businesses, which sometimes can be implicit). Same principle - shady or not, it shouldn't be prohibited unless it clearly harms someone.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - 10y ago