4 ms·

If you fire say 10% of those 20 to 45, and 20% of those 46 and up, you have some explaining to do. Assuming you fire people only on merit, which should be IBM's

by tabtab 8y ago

If you fire say 10% of those 20 to 45, and 20% of those 46 and up, you have some explaining to do. Assuming you fire people only on merit, which should be IBM's claim, then the percentage should be about the same. I suppose IBM could make a case that older people are simply less productive, which may not go over well with a jury. They could also claim HR "inadvertently paid too much" for years spent at the company, and that they are now correcting it. That's also a hard sell. Going to be an interesting trial... As an "older person" I find that experience has made me cynical such that I'm less likely to be enthusiastic about bullsh&t fads, and managers don't like people second-guessing their poor decisions (even if right). Ego often trumps merit of a argument. Maybe we oldbies need to take Fake Smile classes. "Distributed node.js microservice blockchains for a 7-user CRUD app? Oh wonderful, I'm so happy, I can fart rainbows!" I wish my experience-induced skills in spotting BS were more valued. (Yes, it's good to keep up on trends, but there's so many that one has to pick with care.)

lacker 8y ago
Assuming you fire people only on merit, which should be IBM's claim, then the percentage should be about the same. This is not accurate. Older people being more likely to be fired in a particular layoff could be a correlation, not a causation. You can't statistically prove discrimination in this way.
- tabtab 8y ago
  Every "correlation" reason I've seen anyone come up with still looks pretty much like discrimination done in a round-about way, or at least could be seen as such in front of a jury. Still, I could be surprised.
  - lacker 8y ago
    The point of "correlation is not causation" is that doesn't need to be a reason for every correlation. Things can be correlated without there being a clear reason. It's like how a reduction in piracy is correlated with global warming. see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/#2fc8b5943a67 https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-f...
    - tabtab 8y ago
      An org doesn't have to "intend" to discriminate to actually discriminate. Plus, the jury may not care about "causation" and instead focus on whether some filter of some kind somewhere screened out older people. It depends on the jury instructions and the personalities of the jurors.

by tabtab 8y ago

lacker 8y ago

Assuming you fire people only on merit, which should be IBM's claim, then the percentage should be about the same. This is not accurate. Older people being more likely to be fired in a particular layoff could be a correlation, not a causation. You can't statistically prove discrimination in this way.

tabtab 8y ago
Every "correlation" reason I've seen anyone come up with still looks pretty much like discrimination done in a round-about way, or at least could be seen as such in front of a jury. Still, I could be surprised.
- lacker 8y ago
  The point of "correlation is not causation" is that doesn't need to be a reason for every correlation. Things can be correlated without there being a clear reason. It's like how a reduction in piracy is correlated with global warming. see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-fact-the-lack-of-pirates-is-causing-global-warming/#2fc8b5943a67 https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2012/03/23/true-f...
  - tabtab 8y ago
    An org doesn't have to "intend" to discriminate to actually discriminate. Plus, the jury may not care about "causation" and instead focus on whether some filter of some kind somewhere screened out older people. It depends on the jury instructions and the personalities of the jurors.