3 ms·

The employment anti-discrimination laws was originally designed for manual labor and similar jobs. I suggest a compromise limiting the kinds of jobs these laws

by yuhong 10y ago

The employment anti-discrimination laws was originally designed for manual labor and similar jobs. I suggest a compromise limiting the kinds of jobs these laws apply to.

matt4077 10y ago
Kindly point me to any version of these laws that specifies the restriction to manual labor? Also, please elaborate why you think your idea of relegating minorities protected by these laws to manual labour "and similar jobs" doesn't deserve to be called "fucking racist".
- yuhong 10y ago
  The point is whether the anti-discrimination laws are effective or not. And yes this is just a proposal and I'd welcome other suggestions.
dfabulich 10y ago
The world today is so weird that I have to ask. Are you proposing that we should modify anti-discrimination laws so employers can take affirmative action to increase diversity? Or are you saying we should allow employers to discriminate against minorities for technical jobs?
- yuhong 10y ago
  I am mainly saying that the laws are fundamentally flawed when applied to anything but manual labor and similar jobs. The key difference is whether the job is easily measurable. This does not imply that I approve of discrimination.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    > This does not imply that I approve of discrimination. Yeah, it kinda does. Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in discrimination cases. If there are any problems with applying these laws to high-skilled work (I'm guessing you mean something like "it's too hard to compare people for this sort of work"), those problems would diminish the plaintiffs' cases more than anything.
    - yuhong 10y ago
      Too subjective, more importantly. A Slashdot comment compared it to selecting friends: https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9857155&cid=53238301 https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9857155&cid=53238301
      - matt4077 10y ago
        aka "The Old Boys' Club". I think your idea that you should be allowed not to hire African-Americans or women even if they're equally or better qualified is quite offensive. Even worse is that your argument now seems to be that you wouldn't want them as friends, either. And, worst of all, that you think that this community would share this attitude and could be convinced by it.
        yuhong 10y ago
        The point is that selecting programming team members is more like selecting friends than selecting for example assembly-line workers, which makes anti-discrimination laws less effective.
      - dfabulich 10y ago
        You linked approvingly to that comment. I downvoted your post and your upthread comment as a result. I would flag that comment if it were posted to HN, and I'll explain why below. The comment argues that a woman (a "girl") should have no more or less control over her body than a corporation should have over its employees. One reason that's immoral is that people want autonomy, they thrive under it, and they deserve autonomy as a basic human right. Therefore, we should minimize the amount of control that corporations have over employees and maximize the amount of control people have over their own bodies. (And for too long, too many men think they should have control over women's bodies, especially deciding who women should be "allowed"/forced to partner with, so it's especially important that women be allowed to control their own bodies.) The comment you linked to isn't just incorrect; it's gross. It reduces the quality of HN as a forum, and it leaves me unwilling to read your upthread comment in a positive light.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The employment anti-discrimination laws was originally designed for manual labor and similar jobs. No, they weren't. They were designed for all jobs, which weren't just manual labor then. Obviously, lots of the jobs people in groups which had been systematically discriminated against in work, education, and every place else for centuries were working in or trying to get work in were at or near the bottom of the prestige and pay heirarchy, and thus manual labor, so certainly a lot of the early application was there. But nothing about the motivation or design of the laws was limited to that domain.
- yuhong 10y ago
  One example is performance reviews and performance improvement plans that is often used in firing for example. I should mention that some of the laws here vary by state. I think California is one of the strictest here, right?
- yuhong 10y ago
  Another example is the kinds of statistics that are often used, which tends to assume large amount of workers being hired for things like manual labor jobs.
edblarney 10y ago
"The employment anti-discrimination laws was originally designed for manual labor and similar jobs. " Google is not being discriminatory in any way - so I don't think this is the issue here.

by yuhong 10y ago

The employment anti-discrimination laws was originally designed for manual labor and similar jobs. I suggest a compromise limiting the kinds of jobs these laws apply to.

matt4077 10y ago

Kindly point me to any version of these laws that specifies the restriction to manual labor? Also, please elaborate why you think your idea of relegating minorities protected by these laws to manual labour "and similar jobs" doesn't deserve to be called "fucking racist".

yuhong 10y ago
The point is whether the anti-discrimination laws are effective or not. And yes this is just a proposal and I'd welcome other suggestions.

dfabulich 10y ago

The world today is so weird that I have to ask. Are you proposing that we should modify anti-discrimination laws so employers can take affirmative action to increase diversity? Or are you saying we should allow employers to discriminate against minorities for technical jobs?

yuhong 10y ago
I am mainly saying that the laws are fundamentally flawed when applied to anything but manual labor and similar jobs. The key difference is whether the job is easily measurable. This does not imply that I approve of discrimination.
- matt4077 10y ago
  > This does not imply that I approve of discrimination. Yeah, it kinda does. Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in discrimination cases. If there are any problems with applying these laws to high-skilled work (I'm guessing you mean something like "it's too hard to compare people for this sort of work"), those problems would diminish the plaintiffs' cases more than anything.
  - yuhong 10y ago
    Too subjective, more importantly. A Slashdot comment compared it to selecting friends: https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9857155&cid=53238301 https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9857155&cid=53238301
    - matt4077 10y ago
      aka "The Old Boys' Club". I think your idea that you should be allowed not to hire African-Americans or women even if they're equally or better qualified is quite offensive. Even worse is that your argument now seems to be that you wouldn't want them as friends, either. And, worst of all, that you think that this community would share this attitude and could be convinced by it.
      - yuhong 10y ago
        The point is that selecting programming team members is more like selecting friends than selecting for example assembly-line workers, which makes anti-discrimination laws less effective.
    - dfabulich 10y ago
      You linked approvingly to that comment. I downvoted your post and your upthread comment as a result. I would flag that comment if it were posted to HN, and I'll explain why below. The comment argues that a woman (a "girl") should have no more or less control over her body than a corporation should have over its employees. One reason that's immoral is that people want autonomy, they thrive under it, and they deserve autonomy as a basic human right. Therefore, we should minimize the amount of control that corporations have over employees and maximize the amount of control people have over their own bodies. (And for too long, too many men think they should have control over women's bodies, especially deciding who women should be "allowed"/forced to partner with, so it's especially important that women be allowed to control their own bodies.) The comment you linked to isn't just incorrect; it's gross. It reduces the quality of HN as a forum, and it leaves me unwilling to read your upthread comment in a positive light.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The employment anti-discrimination laws was originally designed for manual labor and similar jobs. No, they weren't. They were designed for all jobs, which weren't just manual labor then. Obviously, lots of the jobs people in groups which had been systematically discriminated against in work, education, and every place else for centuries were working in or trying to get work in were at or near the bottom of the prestige and pay heirarchy, and thus manual labor, so certainly a lot of the early application was there. But nothing about the motivation or design of the laws was limited to that domain.

yuhong 10y ago
One example is performance reviews and performance improvement plans that is often used in firing for example. I should mention that some of the laws here vary by state. I think California is one of the strictest here, right?
yuhong 10y ago
Another example is the kinds of statistics that are often used, which tends to assume large amount of workers being hired for things like manual labor jobs.

edblarney 10y ago

"The employment anti-discrimination laws was originally designed for manual labor and similar jobs. " Google is not being discriminatory in any way - so I don't think this is the issue here.