> I can see pretty clearly how it would be possible to argue legally that advertising a job internally and not externally (to a company) is discriminatory. I t

> I can see pretty clearly how it would be possible to argue legally that advertising a job internally and not externally (to a company) is discriminatory. I think the precedent is the opposite. Companies and governments in the US do this all of the time without legal risk. > And following that further along, in this way, I can see a pretty straightforward method of declaring any job advertising as discriminatory under that decision. Perhaps a bit of a stretch here. Companies and governments will continue to advertise jobs > So in that way it's not used to fight discrimination, but instead becomes yet one more way to fight the oldest battle in history: The battle to consolidate and preserve the power of existing institutions of control and weaken the influence of competition and punish outsiders. This sounds like good old competition to me. Why would an established player not weaken competition with pricing or product value?