4 ms·

> Tesla has denied the charges that the situation was as bad as alleged in the two suits, but it has admitted there were problems which needed to be addressed a

by Spivak 4y ago

> Tesla has denied the charges that the situation was as bad as alleged in the two suits, but it has admitted there were problems which needed to be addressed at the plant [...] We do recognize that in 2015 and 2016 we were not perfect. We’re still not perfect. But we have come a long way from 5 years ago. Discrimination lawsuits are not exactly an easy thing to win, it usually becomes unbearable long before it's overt enough you can take it to court. If we're at the point where he won and this is by the VPs own admission significantly better than 5 years ago then good lord.

_8j50 4y ago
[flagged]
- xupybd 4y ago
  I don't think that is fair. I don't think he has pushed a culture of racism but one of rapid growth. That rapid growth has allowed racism to grow unchecked, and that is a failure of management at the highest level. But, to say that is the same as joining the klan goes beyond hyperbole.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    I don't care what caused it, right now he is denying there is a culture of racism that needs to be weeded out despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. I am not saying elon is neccesarily racist but his denial of it and obvious pepetuation of it (and this isn't being called names, look at the actual suits, this is the shit you see in jim crow era movies) means if you support him knowing this you support that also. You can admire his accomplishments but you can't support only part of someome, you support all of this stuff too. The klan made theit stance obvious they didn't hide it. That's what I am encouraging, if you're going to support racism don't hide behind meaningless excuses.
- decremental 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - _8j50 4y ago
    You know, good for mighty elon! But he should do what's right because it's right not to please people.
culi 4y ago
> Discrimination lawsuits are not exactly an easy thing to win To expand upon this. You not only have to prove that a, e.g., policy or manager's behavior, resulted in negative effects distributed along racial lines but also that there was racist intent behind that policy or behavior. This is a lot more than "neglecting to address racial biases"
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > To expand upon this. You not only have to prove that a, e.g., policy or manager’s behavior, resulted in negative effects distributed along racial lines but also that there was racist intent behind that policy or behavior. No, you don’t. Once you show that a policy creates concrete disadvantage on racial lines, to overcome liability the employer must prove a sufficient business justification. (Griggs v. Duke Energy, the case often misrepresented as prohibiting IQ tests in employment, instead established that rule.) If you can establish specific intent regarding creating racial disadvantage, then no business justification can overcome that, but you don’t have to establish that to establish unlawful discrimination.
  - culi 4y ago
    If you wanna get into the weeds, it's "disparate treatment discrimination" that requires “intent,” whereas disparate impact discrimination does not. But this is maybe a useless discussion about the technical requirements. In practice winning a case without proving intent is extremely rare from what I've read Please correct me if I'm wrong
ToValueFunfetti 4y ago
The suit is regarding discrimination that occurred in 2015-2016; the VP was saying that they had improved since then rather than that they had improved for 5 years to get to that point.

by Spivak 4y ago

_8j50 4y ago

[flagged]

xupybd 4y ago
I don't think that is fair. I don't think he has pushed a culture of racism but one of rapid growth. That rapid growth has allowed racism to grow unchecked, and that is a failure of management at the highest level. But, to say that is the same as joining the klan goes beyond hyperbole.
- _8j50 4y ago
  I don't care what caused it, right now he is denying there is a culture of racism that needs to be weeded out despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. I am not saying elon is neccesarily racist but his denial of it and obvious pepetuation of it (and this isn't being called names, look at the actual suits, this is the shit you see in jim crow era movies) means if you support him knowing this you support that also. You can admire his accomplishments but you can't support only part of someome, you support all of this stuff too. The klan made theit stance obvious they didn't hide it. That's what I am encouraging, if you're going to support racism don't hide behind meaningless excuses.
decremental 4y ago
[flagged]
- _8j50 4y ago
  You know, good for mighty elon! But he should do what's right because it's right not to please people.

culi 4y ago

> Discrimination lawsuits are not exactly an easy thing to win To expand upon this. You not only have to prove that a, e.g., policy or manager's behavior, resulted in negative effects distributed along racial lines but also that there was racist intent behind that policy or behavior. This is a lot more than "neglecting to address racial biases"

dragonwriter 4y ago
> To expand upon this. You not only have to prove that a, e.g., policy or manager’s behavior, resulted in negative effects distributed along racial lines but also that there was racist intent behind that policy or behavior. No, you don’t. Once you show that a policy creates concrete disadvantage on racial lines, to overcome liability the employer must prove a sufficient business justification. (Griggs v. Duke Energy, the case often misrepresented as prohibiting IQ tests in employment, instead established that rule.) If you can establish specific intent regarding creating racial disadvantage, then no business justification can overcome that, but you don’t have to establish that to establish unlawful discrimination.
- culi 4y ago
  If you wanna get into the weeds, it's "disparate treatment discrimination" that requires “intent,” whereas disparate impact discrimination does not. But this is maybe a useless discussion about the technical requirements. In practice winning a case without proving intent is extremely rare from what I've read Please correct me if I'm wrong

ToValueFunfetti 4y ago

The suit is regarding discrimination that occurred in 2015-2016; the VP was saying that they had improved since then rather than that they had improved for 5 years to get to that point.