3 ms·

I can see hiring managers avoiding Indian candidates if they think it would add risk of future lawsuits from that candidate’s subordinates in the future. (“Don

I can see hiring managers avoiding Indian candidates if they think it would add risk of future lawsuits from that candidate’s subordinates in the future. (“Don’t hire him, he might use caste-ist decision-making when building his team.”) In practice, only other South Asians would likely run afoul of this law, so they now have baggage that workers of other national origins would not have.

ribosometronome 3y ago
If the law already covers it, why would explicitly enumerating its coverage add risk of lawsuit?
- function_seven 3y ago
  I'm describing what I think is a predictable second-order effect of this explicit enumeration. Prop 65 seemed like a fine idea. Let's make sure people know about the carcinogens in their daily lives! Oops, now that stupid sticker is on everything, because you've created a fear in the minds of retailers and manufacturers. It's entirely useless, nothing has improved, but now people spend additional time wasting paper and ink and resources to stay clear. Or for a more recent backfire example, see the FDA's new rules on sesame seed labeling (https://reason.com/2023/07/28/fda-commissioner-no-one-envisioned-the-consequences-of-new-sesame-seed-labeling-rule/ https://reason.com/2023/07/28/fda-commissioner-no-one-envisi...) The law itself thinks it's covering a hole in existing protections, so people are going to modify their behavior accordingly to make sure they don't get in trouble. What's the easiest way to do that? For Hindus already employed, they can take extra care to ask about a candidate's background to ensure they're not skewing their workforce. Indians applying for a job now get to check a box next their caste. Most will probably check "prefer not to say", or maybe they check whatever one they think will give them an advantage. For non-Hindus, they can just decide to hire Mike Smith, who doesn't even know what a caste is. There's this whole new thing that must be accounted for, and those doing the accounting will find the easiest path through it.
  - ribosometronome 3y ago
    >The law itself thinks it's covering a hole in existing protections I don't think that was quite the argument. Per Sen. Wahab: >It’s largely believed that California’s civil rights law does cover caste to some degree, because some people will put it under the concept of ancestry or race. But caste is very specific; it encompasses more than just those two factors. We are just trying to clarify the law to explicitly include protection against discrimination based on a person’s caste, which we define as a system of social stratification, in which people are characterized by hereditary status, social barriers and other forms of segregation. The intent seems to be to ensure no future confusion based upon something we all presently read in the law. Given how Gavin Newsom has recently been publicly at odds with judges over the interpretation of laws and that we've seen interpretations change radically over time (2nd amendment!), it's hardly without precedent. >predictable second-order effect of this explicit enumeration... and those doing the accounting will find the easiest path through it. Rather than comparing to consumer labeling laws, what about comparing to other presently enumerated forms of discrimination (and information collection requirements). Do you think we are presently harming minorities with these same second order effects from explicitly listing race and requirements to measure race in hiring? Or that non-heterosexual folk were harmed by explicitly adding sexual orientation (courts had previously inferred it based on prohibiting sex based discrimination)?

ribosometronome 3y ago

If the law already covers it, why would explicitly enumerating its coverage add risk of lawsuit?

function_seven 3y ago
I'm describing what I think is a predictable second-order effect of this explicit enumeration. Prop 65 seemed like a fine idea. Let's make sure people know about the carcinogens in their daily lives! Oops, now that stupid sticker is on everything, because you've created a fear in the minds of retailers and manufacturers. It's entirely useless, nothing has improved, but now people spend additional time wasting paper and ink and resources to stay clear. Or for a more recent backfire example, see the FDA's new rules on sesame seed labeling (https://reason.com/2023/07/28/fda-commissioner-no-one-envisioned-the-consequences-of-new-sesame-seed-labeling-rule/ https://reason.com/2023/07/28/fda-commissioner-no-one-envisi...) The law itself thinks it's covering a hole in existing protections, so people are going to modify their behavior accordingly to make sure they don't get in trouble. What's the easiest way to do that? For Hindus already employed, they can take extra care to ask about a candidate's background to ensure they're not skewing their workforce. Indians applying for a job now get to check a box next their caste. Most will probably check "prefer not to say", or maybe they check whatever one they think will give them an advantage. For non-Hindus, they can just decide to hire Mike Smith, who doesn't even know what a caste is. There's this whole new thing that must be accounted for, and those doing the accounting will find the easiest path through it.
- ribosometronome 3y ago
  >The law itself thinks it's covering a hole in existing protections I don't think that was quite the argument. Per Sen. Wahab: >It’s largely believed that California’s civil rights law does cover caste to some degree, because some people will put it under the concept of ancestry or race. But caste is very specific; it encompasses more than just those two factors. We are just trying to clarify the law to explicitly include protection against discrimination based on a person’s caste, which we define as a system of social stratification, in which people are characterized by hereditary status, social barriers and other forms of segregation. The intent seems to be to ensure no future confusion based upon something we all presently read in the law. Given how Gavin Newsom has recently been publicly at odds with judges over the interpretation of laws and that we've seen interpretations change radically over time (2nd amendment!), it's hardly without precedent. >predictable second-order effect of this explicit enumeration... and those doing the accounting will find the easiest path through it. Rather than comparing to consumer labeling laws, what about comparing to other presently enumerated forms of discrimination (and information collection requirements). Do you think we are presently harming minorities with these same second order effects from explicitly listing race and requirements to measure race in hiring? Or that non-heterosexual folk were harmed by explicitly adding sexual orientation (courts had previously inferred it based on prohibiting sex based discrimination)?