3 ms·
I'd be VERY careful here! Please evaluate YOUR OWN downside risk vs upside risk. Your supervisor has asked you discriminate. Politically, under current admin
by tempnow987 5y ago
I'd be VERY careful here!
Please evaluate YOUR OWN downside risk vs upside risk.
Your supervisor has asked you discriminate.
Politically, under current administration, almost EVERY enforcement body will not actually take action here even if its clear cut discrimination. Ie, they won't care.
Out in the job market, if you are anti-diversity / take any steps to undermine a diversity initiative - that can follow you now for a very long time.
Wilberg, who recruited candidates for engineering and technology positions for YouTube and parent company Google, also alleges in the suit that for several quarters Google would not make employment offers for technical positions to applicants “who were not ‘diverse,’" which the lawsuit alleges Google defined as women, black and Latino.
The lawsuit said Wilberg complained about this to his managers and HR. He was fired in November for, among other things, “not meeting goals” and “talking too much in meetings,” reasons that the lawsuit called “pretextual.”
“Plaintiff was an exemplary employee and received positive performance evaluations until he began opposing illegal hiring and recruiting practices at Google,” the complaint asserts.
The reality is that to get diversity anywhere close to what Silicon Valley is being asked to get it too, pretty significant steps like this will need to be taken. The company may have evaluated that the downside of NOT having women / minorities in positions is too high.
- anon7725 5y ago> I'd be VERY careful here! Please evaluate YOUR OWN downside risk vs upside risk. +1. I work in a senior engineering role at a large tech company. While not a HM, I have been in similar situations to OP - where apparent EEOC violations are casually discussed and documented. I would never comment on or report these issues, though I have saved some "evidence" just in case it’s needed. It’s literally all downside risk to engage in the subject matter. At this point the goal is to get to retirement/FI/downshifting in a few years without being irradiated by these issues.
- waterhouse 5y agoI agree with all the above until this point: > The company may have evaluated that the downside of NOT having women / minorities in positions is too high. I don't think that's the exact calculus that gets made. I think it's more of a social process, where one person decides to suggest it, and anyone who has misgivings keeps their mouth shut, while anyone who thinks it's a good idea says so with enthusiasm. There probably was a time when hard-nosed cost-benefit evaluations governed decisions like these, but I think that's not how it tends to work currently (although there's enough variation across companies that who knows).