4 ms·
Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the sta
by DangerousPie 5y ago
Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start.
I guess the difference is whether you can hire a minority candidate even if they are objectively less qualified for a job? My understanding was that you could only use the characteristics as a tie breaker if two candidates were otherwise the same, but maybe that's wrong.
- ravenstine 5y ago> Hmm, isn't that what I said? They can treat people with a characteristic more favourably, but they can't exclude people without that characteristic from the start. How would one even begin to prove the difference? This seems like some sort of mental gymnastic to explain away well meaning discrimination. If I had a thing against men, I'd take their applications, maybe give a few of them interviews for the sake of plausible deniability without a plan to actually hire them. And fortunately for me, society is callously indifferent to men in general unless they are part of a protected class.
- DangerousPie 5y agoWell that's a problem you always have with subjective decisions during hiring. At the end of the day you'll most likely get away with it unless you're being as blatant as OP's company. But it only takes one disgruntled whistleblower to get yourself into trouble. And at least historically it's usually been the men who benefitted from this.