2 ms·
Why those three specifically? Why not degree. Or years of experience. Or whether someone grew up in poverty. Or LGBTQIA+ split out. I really don't understand t
by rowanG077 4y ago
Why those three specifically? Why not degree. Or years of experience. Or whether someone grew up in poverty. Or LGBTQIA+ split out.
I really don't understand the politics here. Isn't this way more likely to sew even more polarisation?
- codefreeordie 4y agoThat's the actual goal.
- feet 4y agoPolarization already exists, this is shining a light on it so people can work to fix it
- jt2190 4y ago> Why [gender, race, and ethnicity] specifically? I suspect that companies are already required to collect this information, so the extra burden from this law is mostly around how to report it.
- tzs 4y ago> Why those three specifically? Why not degree. Or years of experience. Or whether someone grew up in poverty. Or LGBTQIA+ split out. It's only companies with 100 or more employees. That's a big clue that suggests why those categories. The EEOC already requires all private employers in the US with 100 or more employees to annually report demographic workforce data, including race and sex data [1]. I'd bet that California picked those categories, and only those categories, and only made it apply to 100+ employee companies to make it easily fit in with that. [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo-1-data-collection https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo-1-data-collection