15 ms·

That means we so far have: * Palantir sued for not hiring enough Asians [0] * Google sued for not turning over compensation data [1] * Oracle sued for hiring

• paulddraper 10y ago
  > unless companies hire in exact quotas (which would also be discriminatory really). Ironically, that's probably the safest.
  • ballsohardy 10y ago
    And a guaranteed way to not be competitive with firms that do not have these restrictions
• blazespin 10y ago
  Lol, please. "Exact quotas". Gimme a break. There are no exact quotas here. These companies have just gone overboard and getting their hands slapped. But, by all means, MAGA. Let's go back to the time when no XXXX are allowed on my watch.
  • SamUK96 10y ago
    Rather daft comment. And these companies haven't "gone crazy". There is zero evidence for that. Also, exact quotas is discriminatory by definition. You are, by definition, hiring and/or not hiring somebody because of their race, which itself is becoming a rather tenuous concept in itself due to globalisation (mixing of races).
    • blazespin 10y ago
      Without these sorts of rules than it's a free for all. I have zero evidence except life experience to say that if people could hire their preferred tribe, they would. The homogeneous work culture alone would probably be very effective. But wow, what a horrendous world to live in. I mean, seriously, you kids have no idea.
      • pitaj 10y ago
        That's discrimination based on culture, not on race, though.
  • SamUK96 10y ago
    Rather daft comment. These companies haven't "gone crazy". There is zero evidence for that. Also, exact quotas is discriminatory by definition. You are, again by definition, hiring and/or not hiring somebody because of their race. Even then, race is becoming a rather tenuous concept in itself due to globalisation (mixing of races).
• lucisferre 10y ago
  Not saying that I agree with quotas as a solution to problems like discriminatory biases in hiring, but how is a quota system "discriminatory"? What race, sex or age group is discriminated against by a requirement that appropriate proportions of those demographics make up the companies employees? (Heck in most cases quotas are simply a low bar, they are not even proportional to the population demographics.) I can understand how it perhaps seems unfair if someone is not hired purely on perceived talent alone, but they are not being discriminated against. That's not the right word for that.
  • maxxxxx 10y ago
    Sure people with the right skills are being discriminated against if they aren't in one of the favored groups. There is also no quota for white people or men. In my company these groups seem pretty underrepresented in some departments. Maybe they should do blind tests like government often does.
    • kjfskadhjkfahs 10y ago
      White people are underrepresented at most large tech companies[1]. So is almost every other race. The exception is Asians. Asians are vastly overrepresented. I don't think this is a bad thing. It is meritocracy in action. But it violates the common notion that meritocracy and equality are the same thing. [1] http://www.unz.com/gnxp/silicon-valley-has-an-asian-people-problem/ http://www.unz.com/gnxp/silicon-valley-has-an-asian-people-p...
      • sidlls 10y ago
        You're saying that Asians are more meritorious of positions at large tech companies than people of other ethnicities. That's an extraordinary claim. By the way, if Asians comprise about 30% of the workforce in the Valley, I wouldn't say they're over-represented. They're probably under-represented, in fact.
  • cmdrfred 10y ago
    "We can't hire any more black people, we have too many as is, if your white friend was to apply we would hire him in a heartbeat we have trouble getting enough of those" Seems pretty discriminatory to me.
• namelezz 10y ago
  > Oracle sued for hiring too many Asians You mean Indians not East Asians, right? From the OP: > Oracle was far more likely to hire Asian applicants - particularly Indian people
  • shrewduser 10y ago
    so what kind of discrimination is this then i wonder? hiring people from cultures / places who tend to do more computer science? ie. white guys, indians and east asians?
  • FT_intern 10y ago
    Classifying East Asians and Indians in the same group is redundant to begin with. The difference in culture, languages, etc. between East Asian and Indian immigrants is much higher than the differences between white (European) and Hispanic immigrants and Americans. On that point, the entire racial taxonomy, especially when used in the context of "diversity in tech", is elementary and useless. The average black American has more in common with an Asian American than an Asian American and an Asian immigrant or a black American and an African immigrant. If you want diversity, you have it in the tech world. True diversity (in terms of communication style, beliefs, culture, etc.) is found in the taxonomy of country of origin. The tech world has a high immigrant %. Ironically, the group of people who are most vocal about "diversity in tech" are less diverse than people in tech since most people who are advocating for "diversity" are American.
    • garanduss 10y ago
      No, they're just using a different definition of diversity. Many people oppose mass immigration for reasons other than xenophobia. Speaking personally, I found that work environments with lots of new or unamericanized immigrants had little collaboration, little in-office comraderie, and no socialization outside of work (e.g. pub nights). It was boring and I pined for a culturally American setting. Sometimes "multicultural" just means the subset of all cultures involved.
      • rifung 10y ago
• pippy 10y ago
  This is why merit based evaluation is the only sane hiring practice. I'd love to see legal protection for companies that can provide evidence they strictly adhered to the merit based hires. You can also apply this rationale to your own projects, by including the Code of Merit into your projects[0][1]. [0] https://github.com/rosarior/Code-of-Merit/blob/master/CODE_OF_MERIT.md https://github.com/rosarior/Code-of-Merit/blob/master/CODE_O... [1] http://code-of-merit.org/ http://code-of-merit.org/
  • zo1 10y ago
    It'll never work. Because it is accepted that "diversity" is a good thing, without question. So you could argue with stats to prove you're doing merit-based hiring only. But then they will force to you "measure" that merit against a nebulous term or benefit such as "racial/gender diversity". Edit. Removed stuff about types of diversity; not relevant.
  • anw 10y ago
    Until the idea of meritocracy is considered too messy in the real world.[0] > GitHub’s Julie Ann Horvath, a designer who also founded the company’s all-female lecture series Passion Projects, said the rug first became a problem when photos of it made their way into feminist discussions online. > The false idea that the tech industry is a meritocracy hurts everyone. It allows Paul Graham to continue thinking that the founders who make it into Y Combinator are the best of the best, not just the best people with the most privileges. It also furthers a culture of entrepreneur worship. Make of it what you will. But it seems GitHub at least doesn't want their floors to reflect a meritocracy. [0] http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/ http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/
  • flamedoge 10y ago
    Meritocracy is great. Just when everyone has equal access to education.
    • opportune 10y ago
      I'd argue that it's not the jobs of universities or employers to try to "fudge the difference" between actual outcomes and what they believe outcomes should be. By that I mean, just because not everybody has equal access to education doesn't mean employers and universities should be lowering their hiring standards (like it or not, this is what affirmative action necessitates) for people belonging to groups that on average come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Not only is it bad for business or the academic reputation of the university, it can also do more harm than good by placing people from disadvantaged groups in environments they are not prepared for, harming their growth and unnecessarily exposing them to discouraging failure. So by that I mean, why can't we just evaluate individuals based on their own merits? If you want to stop inequality, fight to stop inequality of opportunity. Stopping inequality of outcomes makes little sense.
• wyager 10y ago
  Indeed. Just by normal statistical variance, we should expect that at least a few companies would have employee distributions that aren't exactly in line with the applicant population. When the government looks at everyone's employment data and seeks out people who are deviating from the mean, they are guaranteed to turn up spurious results. This is known as "Data Dredging" in science, and it is very bad.
• wallace_f 10y ago
  >It's always going to be possible to find data that indicates discrimination, unless companies hire in exact quotas (which would also be discriminatory really). There already are off-the-record quotas. Who in management hasn't heard discussion at least eluding the the need for a diversity hire? Probably very few people at this point. I believe a distinction must be made: Equality of opportunity is good. Equality of outcome will lead us to the world of Harrison Bergeron's.
  • zo1 10y ago
    >"I believe a distinction must be made: Equality of opportunity is good. Equality of outcome will lead us to the world of Harrison Bergeron's." People have been trying to hammer that distinction for a long time. For certain people, it just doesn't "stick". They believe there is a boogey man, and by golly they will make sure to get the state to punish any scenario that hints to its existence. If anything, I'd argue that they are creating a boogey man. E.g. You push an agenda that promotes certain groups or genders above actual merit, and pretty soon I'd argue that people will develop a subconscious bias against individuals in those groups. I.e. They will compensate and they will discriminate in order to fix the bias that they are seeing unfold in front of their eyes. And they will probably apply it to everyone, just like a stereotype.
    • bobdole1234 10y ago
      I'd argue that most people will only pay lip service to the idea of equality until someone steps in to actually force them to walk their talk. Most of the problems I've seen with diversity hires being "less capable" has been because they've had to work with people who are poor communicators and can't get past the idea that not everyone has the same shared background they do. That means your co-worker from Taiwan doesn't recognize your carefully constructed metaphors based arounds star wars quotes, and they will likely try their best to understand what you meant, but you should have just communicated like an adult instead of an excited teenager.
      • AnthonyMouse 10y ago
• jlarocco 10y ago
  > While it's possible that discriminatory processes have happened at all these places, it seems these lawsuits can be targeted at whoever one wishes. I think you're jumping too far to that conclusion. The only conclusion we can draw along those lines is that if there's evidence of discrimination the DOL will investigate and take action if it finds enough supporting evidence. It's entirely possible for different companies to discriminate against several different groups in several different ways. A major function of the DOL is to investigate discrimination claims, and they don't jump straight to a huge lawsuit because one or two people claimed discrimination. By the time they file these lawsuits they've probably had a lot of complaints, done an investigation and found supporting evidence.
• lobotryas 10y ago
  What's even worse is how easy it is to keep moving the goal post. "Oh, you have 50% female workforce? Well, what about women of color? Not enough of them = you're discriminating!"
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• kyrra 10y ago
  The Google one is interesting. Page 4 points 9a-c outline what the DOL wants. Point C says they want names and contact information for Google employees. https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsreleases/OFCCP20162406_0.pdf https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease...
• azernik 10y ago
  Oracle was sued for hiring too many Indians, and for paying not-(white and male) employees less than white male employees of the same job title, seniority, and experience.
• mordant 10y ago
  >While it's possible that discriminatory processes have happened at all these places, it seems these lawsuits can be targeted at whoever one wishes. That's no accident.
• MarkMc 10y ago
  > Palantir sued for not hiring enough Asians Was the evidence against Palantir simply the rate at which they hired Asians? Or was there some other evidence that indicated discrimination?
• general_ai 10y ago
  I feel like "Asians" is too broad a grouping. I think if we split "Asians" into Indians and the Chinese the stats would be a lot more illuminating. Microsoft, for instance, seems to have a much larger percentage of Indian workers than Google does. It could be because Microsoft hires a ton more contractors (some of which convert to FTE) or it could be something else. In any case, much finer grained stats are needed to gain better understanding.
  • oculusthrift 10y ago
    microsoft has a large office in india and many transfer over to US offices
    • general_ai 10y ago
      Could be why. You can't really "transfer over" to US offices easily, however, even if you are already an employee. You have to have an H1b.
      • munchor 10y ago
        I'm pretty sure they use the L1 Visa[1]. [1]: http://www.immihelp.com/l1-visa/ http://www.immihelp.com/l1-visa/
      • oculusthrift 10y ago
        like the other poster said, they use L1 which isn't as hard to get
• sinorising 10y ago
  When you say, "...lawsuits can be targeted at whoever one wishes" it is evident that you are male, white. A bit of background on who and why may help... It is the Federal government suing these companies. Blame Obama. But not to worry, Trump will redeem male whites.
• WildUtah 10y ago
  unless companies hire in exact quotas (which would also be discriminatory really). Quota hiring is usually considered a safe harbor under the law. Non-discriminatory policy and equal opportunity, on the other hand, can still create liability under the civil rights laws. That's why quotas are so popular. But you can't run a tech company with strict quotas. There aren't enough decent engineers available at any price in many of the necessary categories.