11 ms·

I'd argue against a law like this (if it isn't already illegal). Like most discrimination laws it would be complete unenforceable. Since an employer can not h

I'd argue against a law like this (if it isn't already illegal). Like most discrimination laws it would be complete unenforceable. Since an employer can not hire you for any other reason. They can claim they didn't hire you because you have a mustache (completely legal) when really it was because you were previously unemployed. Given that if I were unemployed I think I'd prefer employers who have no intention of hiring me not waste my time with an interview.

kenjackson 16y ago
It's enforceable, just hard to enforce. But we shouldn't stop laws from being on the books because they're hard to enforce. . Given that if I were unemployed I think I'd prefer employers who have no intention of hiring me not waste my time with an interview. While true in the abstract, how would you feel if couldn't get a job and people said, "We don't give jobs to your race. But aren't you glad you know so you don't waste time applying? And don't bother starting your own company, no one buys products from companies of your kind either. Better hope there's space in the welfare line." While I may appreciate the time saved, I'd think it would be nice to be able to prevent this sort of practice from running rampant. Even if through some artificial measures like gov't contracts.
- maxharris 16y ago
  The problem with your argument: you choose how hard you want to work at your job, but you can't choose your race. Racism is always irrational, and it's absolutely against the employer's long-term rational self-interest to let race impact employment decisions. Refusing to hire the unemployed no matter what the circumstance is definitely irrational, but is that really what employers are doing?
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    To be clear I think that being unemployed, in of itself, isn't sufficient reason to bring lawsuit. But, as stated in the video, if unemployed status is a suitable proxy for a protected group then its a problem. So it has to live in some context. People can use whatever metric they want for hiring, IMO. But when the metric is used as a means to get around other laws then its a problem (for example, a bank saying, "We won't hire people that listen to Lil Wayne"). I thought that's what the crux of the argument was about from the video.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  I don't think I made my point clear here. What I'm saying is a racist would never say "I'm not hiring you because you're skin's [Whatever Color]". He'd just make up a legitimate excuse. And since everything other than race, religion and a few others is a legitimate excuse he could say anything and get away with it. The only way to enforce an anti-discrimination law would be to definitively prove what's in that person's mind and we can't do that. So the law is unenforceable. Given that a law just forces that racist person to interview even though he knows from the start that he's never going to hire you. Which is just a waste of his time and yours.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Honestly, I'm not clear what your point is. Are you saying: 1) Racists should put up signs that say, "Coloreds need not apply?" Because that will save you time from applying there (if you were Black). or 2) They should put up a sign that says, "If you haven't worn sunscreen in the past decade, you need not apply?" That way they effectively screen out Black people w/o having to seem racist. or 3) They shouldn't say anthing, and presumably waste your time applying? (This seems to clearly not be what you're saying, but I through it in there for completeness). Have I missed an alternative? In any case, regarding discrimination cases, there are plenty that are actually won by employees. While you'd like to think racists and sexists are smart enough to at least keep their mouth shut, enough of them apparently aren't so. I haven't seen a lot of race based discrimination in the tech industry (what I have is usually against Asian/Indians), but I've seen a LOT of sex discrimination. I've even written an affidavit on behalf of a woman, based on discussions I had during annual review with her manager. So yes, it is hard to prove. And if they were smart, nearly impossible. But still doesn't mean the laws should be off the books or ignored.
    - TomOfTTB 16y ago
      Basically #1. If there's absolutely no chance someone is going to hire me I'd just assume not spend my time going through an interview with them. The entire idea that racist should hide what they are is flawed in my opinion. I see far more advantages in knowing who and where they are.

kenjackson 16y ago

It's enforceable, just hard to enforce. But we shouldn't stop laws from being on the books because they're hard to enforce. . Given that if I were unemployed I think I'd prefer employers who have no intention of hiring me not waste my time with an interview. While true in the abstract, how would you feel if couldn't get a job and people said, "We don't give jobs to your race. But aren't you glad you know so you don't waste time applying? And don't bother starting your own company, no one buys products from companies of your kind either. Better hope there's space in the welfare line." While I may appreciate the time saved, I'd think it would be nice to be able to prevent this sort of practice from running rampant. Even if through some artificial measures like gov't contracts.

maxharris 16y ago
The problem with your argument: you choose how hard you want to work at your job, but you can't choose your race. Racism is always irrational, and it's absolutely against the employer's long-term rational self-interest to let race impact employment decisions. Refusing to hire the unemployed no matter what the circumstance is definitely irrational, but is that really what employers are doing?
- kenjackson 16y ago
  To be clear I think that being unemployed, in of itself, isn't sufficient reason to bring lawsuit. But, as stated in the video, if unemployed status is a suitable proxy for a protected group then its a problem. So it has to live in some context. People can use whatever metric they want for hiring, IMO. But when the metric is used as a means to get around other laws then its a problem (for example, a bank saying, "We won't hire people that listen to Lil Wayne"). I thought that's what the crux of the argument was about from the video.
TomOfTTB 16y ago
I don't think I made my point clear here. What I'm saying is a racist would never say "I'm not hiring you because you're skin's [Whatever Color]". He'd just make up a legitimate excuse. And since everything other than race, religion and a few others is a legitimate excuse he could say anything and get away with it. The only way to enforce an anti-discrimination law would be to definitively prove what's in that person's mind and we can't do that. So the law is unenforceable. Given that a law just forces that racist person to interview even though he knows from the start that he's never going to hire you. Which is just a waste of his time and yours.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Honestly, I'm not clear what your point is. Are you saying: 1) Racists should put up signs that say, "Coloreds need not apply?" Because that will save you time from applying there (if you were Black). or 2) They should put up a sign that says, "If you haven't worn sunscreen in the past decade, you need not apply?" That way they effectively screen out Black people w/o having to seem racist. or 3) They shouldn't say anthing, and presumably waste your time applying? (This seems to clearly not be what you're saying, but I through it in there for completeness). Have I missed an alternative? In any case, regarding discrimination cases, there are plenty that are actually won by employees. While you'd like to think racists and sexists are smart enough to at least keep their mouth shut, enough of them apparently aren't so. I haven't seen a lot of race based discrimination in the tech industry (what I have is usually against Asian/Indians), but I've seen a LOT of sex discrimination. I've even written an affidavit on behalf of a woman, based on discussions I had during annual review with her manager. So yes, it is hard to prove. And if they were smart, nearly impossible. But still doesn't mean the laws should be off the books or ignored.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    Basically #1. If there's absolutely no chance someone is going to hire me I'd just assume not spend my time going through an interview with them. The entire idea that racist should hide what they are is flawed in my opinion. I see far more advantages in knowing who and where they are.