3 ms·

Right, but what is that evidence of? I don't see how that is suggestive of anything other than them caring about liability risk.

• shakna 9y ago
  You've moved the target. You said it was all PR, it isn't. As for liability, it stinks to high heaven. Age discrimination was picked out for extra protection, shortly before the layoffs began. It is the only form of descrimination where forced arbitration was applied. It was the only place where a complaint was required to be kept secret. And the only complaint where you could not join others with similar complaints. None of this is damning, but it is highly indicative. Most of the bigger companies, like IBM has in the past, will increase contractors in a demographic if that demographic is overly proportionate in a layoff. It's a simple PR stunt that helps show that it isn't likely intentional. Or issue numbers, or statements, like IBM has in the past. They have done nothing to show the public this wasn't on purpose, despite having successfully done so in the past, under the same PR director.
  • darawk 9y ago
    > You've moved the target. You said it was all PR, it isn't. ...when did I say that? What i've said, consistently, is that it's unclear from the evidence presented whether they targeted older workers, or whether they chose some legitimate axis along which to fire people that happens to correlate with age. Like high salaries, or lack of expertise in newer technologies. You responded saying that their PR strategy is evidence that it was specifically about age. That's the only context in which PR has come up, and I still don't see how it proves or otherwise susbtantiates the connection.