3 ms·
You can’t really evaluate if it was bad or not unless you know what percentage of the total workforce was over 40 before the layoffs. The lower that number is (
by p49k 8y ago
You can’t really evaluate if it was bad or not unless you know what percentage of the total workforce was over 40 before the layoffs. The lower that number is (below 40%), the more disproportionate the action was.
- pc86 8y agoYeah the math is a LOT more complicated than that. You just say say "only 25% of employees are 41+ therefore this was discriminatory" unless the goal of the layoffs is a normal distribution of ages company-wide, which I think is unlikely. What departments were affects most? Was seniority a factor? Was pay a factor? Were certain projects, departments, or teams exempt from layoffs? Without having very detailed data about who was let go and what the justification was nobody can say whether it was discriminatory.
- wooter 8y agodiscrimination vs. discrepancy. I find it odd that many people jump to the first while simultaneously holding the belief that corporations only care about profit.
- pc86 8y agoWhat do you meant as far as discrimination v. discrepancy? Just because numbers don't line up doesn't automatically mean there is nefarious intent. Corporations can care only about profit and still operate within the bounds of the law.
- wooter 8y agothats what I'm saying. many people jump to 'discrimination' when its merely a discrepancy. discrepancies exist everywhere for entirely benign reasons. furthermore, believing its discrimination for its own sake (like age discrimination) would contradict the belief that companies optimize for profit (which I don't think is a bad thing) since there no absolute causality there.