3 ms·

(from another thread very similar to this) I really don't see how the companies placing the ads, aren't going to get hammered for it. But Facebook is doing no

(from another thread very similar to this) I really don't see how the companies placing the ads, aren't going to get hammered for it. But Facebook is doing nothing illegal, unless the ads, were placed for jobs with Facebook. Just as newspaper/radio/tv aren't required not to post job adverts that violate the EEOC's rules. For clarity, According to the EEOC (https://www1.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm?renderforprin... https://www1.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm?renderforprin...) Recruitment It is also illegal for an employer to recruit new employees in a way that discriminates against them because of their race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. For example, an employer's reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic work force may violate the law if the result is that almost all new hires are Hispanic.

scarface74 8y ago
Just as newspaper/radio/tv aren't required not to post job adverts that violate the EEOC's rules. http://panewsmedia.org/legal/legaltopics/legalemployment http://panewsmedia.org/legal/legaltopics/legalemployment
mbrumlow 8y ago
> For example, an employer's reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic work force may violate the law if the result is that almost all new hires are Hispanic. I think the key here is may. Nothing I have read seems to indicate that targeting men only violates the EEOC rules. The rule only seems to be if the result is almost all new hires are X. What if we had a good pool of men working, and the company was a perfect example of diversity but found that it lacked women needed for a spot to keep their 50/50 ratio. Now let's say they had a lot of qualified men candidates already lined up. Why should the be forced to put ads out for men they know they won't hire because the next 5 hires are going to be women to keep their diversity ratio? Side note (off topic), I was unaware of the EEOC rules on this sort of thing and am a bit shocked knowing that on HN and various places on the internet I have seen people promoting jobs that flat out say "POC or Woman applicants will only be considered". It Think Evergreen and UCLA recently had job postings with this type of wording recently. How is that not a EOC violation?

scarface74 8y ago

Just as newspaper/radio/tv aren't required not to post job adverts that violate the EEOC's rules. http://panewsmedia.org/legal/legaltopics/legalemployment http://panewsmedia.org/legal/legaltopics/legalemployment

mbrumlow 8y ago

> For example, an employer's reliance on word-of-mouth recruitment by its mostly Hispanic work force may violate the law if the result is that almost all new hires are Hispanic. I think the key here is may. Nothing I have read seems to indicate that targeting men only violates the EEOC rules. The rule only seems to be if the result is almost all new hires are X. What if we had a good pool of men working, and the company was a perfect example of diversity but found that it lacked women needed for a spot to keep their 50/50 ratio. Now let's say they had a lot of qualified men candidates already lined up. Why should the be forced to put ads out for men they know they won't hire because the next 5 hires are going to be women to keep their diversity ratio? Side note (off topic), I was unaware of the EEOC rules on this sort of thing and am a bit shocked knowing that on HN and various places on the internet I have seen people promoting jobs that flat out say "POC or Woman applicants will only be considered". It Think Evergreen and UCLA recently had job postings with this type of wording recently. How is that not a EOC violation?