3 ms·

I dislike employment anti-discrimination laws. They were originally designed for manual labor jobs and the like. I would be willing to compromise by limiting th

by yuhong 10y ago

I dislike employment anti-discrimination laws. They were originally designed for manual labor jobs and the like. I would be willing to compromise by limiting them to these kinds of jobs.

sdenton4 10y ago
You're seriously suggesting legalizing racial and gender discrimination for all jobs except digging ditches? Please consider any group that you were born into, and imagine being denied entry to an industry based solely on your inclusion in that group. Or perhaps being admitted, but at a fraction of the pay off someone bit in your group. Anti discrimination laws exist because historically dominant groups in the US have treated people from protected classes very, very poorly in matters of employment, housing, and access to services. Removal of these laws could very easily lead to reinstatment of segregation or other kinds of severe abuses that we as a society have decided are odious. We can see this directly with the pretty blatant anti black voting laws being enacted in many of the southern states after the supreme Court gutted the voting Rights act recently.
- yuhong 10y ago
  Manual labor was just an example. The key is that the job performance for example is easily measurable.
  - sdenton4 10y ago
    Are you arguing that discrimination should be illegal only when it's difficult to cover up? Not sure I see where you're coming from here.
    - yuhong 10y ago
      Well, you need evidence to prove discrimination, and not all discrimination leave evidence. This is unlike things like theft or injury.
      - sdenton4 10y ago
        Luckily, the courts require evidence to make a decision. With a large company, systematic pay discrimination can certainly be observed (or not, if no pay discrimination is taking place). If, for example, all women at a large enough company were being parted a fraction of what men in comparable positions were making, we would have strong statistical evidence of discrimination, and the courts could make a decision against that company. Requesting data from Google is presumably for this kind of a statistical investigation into whether systematic discrimination has taken place. Google, for its part, is arguing that the particular kinds of data being requested are beyond what is needed for this kind of analysis.
        yuhong 10y ago
        But there are things like "PIPs" that have problems, just to name one example. Of course, it is probably a good idea to mention that some of this stuff varies by state. I think California is one of the most strict in this area, making it even worse (a lot of posters mentioned this when Yishan, a former Reddit CEO, posted against an employee).

by yuhong 10y ago

I dislike employment anti-discrimination laws. They were originally designed for manual labor jobs and the like. I would be willing to compromise by limiting them to these kinds of jobs.

sdenton4 10y ago

You're seriously suggesting legalizing racial and gender discrimination for all jobs except digging ditches? Please consider any group that you were born into, and imagine being denied entry to an industry based solely on your inclusion in that group. Or perhaps being admitted, but at a fraction of the pay off someone bit in your group. Anti discrimination laws exist because historically dominant groups in the US have treated people from protected classes very, very poorly in matters of employment, housing, and access to services. Removal of these laws could very easily lead to reinstatment of segregation or other kinds of severe abuses that we as a society have decided are odious. We can see this directly with the pretty blatant anti black voting laws being enacted in many of the southern states after the supreme Court gutted the voting Rights act recently.

yuhong 10y ago
Manual labor was just an example. The key is that the job performance for example is easily measurable.
- sdenton4 10y ago
  Are you arguing that discrimination should be illegal only when it's difficult to cover up? Not sure I see where you're coming from here.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    Well, you need evidence to prove discrimination, and not all discrimination leave evidence. This is unlike things like theft or injury.
    - sdenton4 10y ago
      Luckily, the courts require evidence to make a decision. With a large company, systematic pay discrimination can certainly be observed (or not, if no pay discrimination is taking place). If, for example, all women at a large enough company were being parted a fraction of what men in comparable positions were making, we would have strong statistical evidence of discrimination, and the courts could make a decision against that company. Requesting data from Google is presumably for this kind of a statistical investigation into whether systematic discrimination has taken place. Google, for its part, is arguing that the particular kinds of data being requested are beyond what is needed for this kind of analysis.
      - yuhong 10y ago
        But there are things like "PIPs" that have problems, just to name one example. Of course, it is probably a good idea to mention that some of this stuff varies by state. I think California is one of the most strict in this area, making it even worse (a lot of posters mentioned this when Yishan, a former Reddit CEO, posted against an employee).