3 ms·

US Department of Labor to Cease and Desist All Investigation and Enforcement

28 points by wahnfrieden 2y ago

wahnfrieden 2y ago
What does this mean for us tech workers?
- allears 2y ago
  It's bad news for any worker. If the Feds won't enforce, then it's up to the individual states. And of course there's lots of states that want to attract industry, and lowering worker protections is one way to do that. It also means that the FAANG monsters, among others, will have an easier time screwing, I mean controlling, their workforce. Salaries will probably decline, shareholder profits will improve.
  - epicureanideal 2y ago
    If I understand correctly this relates to affirmative action and related topics, they’re not stopping all enforcement of all types. This will likely not decrease our salaries. It may increase them as funds get reallocated away from HR.
    - takeda 2y ago
      > This will likely not decrease our salaries. It may increase them as funds get reallocated away from HR. You have serious misunderstanding how companies operate.
      - epicureanideal 2y ago
        Please explain.
        wahnfrieden 2y ago
        Same argument as AI efficiencies: when automation (or another change such as arguably less HR activity) results in more free time for employees, the result is not higher wages because this is the type of competitive edge that is sought in order to increase profits rather than redistribute wealth. The result of efficiency for workers is either more work, or layoffs. Wages don't come from surplus. Wages come from negotiation power. Surplus goes to ownership
        jaredklewis 2y ago
        Your salary is determined by your replacement cost. Let’s say your company renegotiates their office lease and now pays half what it cost before. Are they going to give everyone a pay bump? Unlikely. Might give a bonus to whoever renegotiated the lease. They might reward shareholders by buying back some stock or paying out dividends. They might invest in future growth by hiring new people or by buying new equipment. But why would they give the money to the employees? That doesn’t reward shareholders or increase productivity; it might make everyone a little happier but that is unlikely to increase productivity enough for it to be worth it (and even if was, management doesn’t think like that).
- ADeerAppeared 2y ago
  If you're a federal contractor: Congratulations you can now be discriminated against on the grounds of "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin" And as a reminder to the lurkers who don't do their homework: The rescinded EO is from 1965. This is not just "woke nonsense". I will also note that Elon Musk has recently made statements about white tech workers being "retarded" and needing to be replaced by immigrants. And he's just been put in charge of government efficiency.
  - pipes 2y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246 Presumably the problem is with the affirmative action part of the executive order.
    - ADeerAppeared 2y ago
      What the claimed motivation is does not matter; the order is gone in it's entirity now. Frankly, it's just conservatives using "affirmative action" as a buzzword, because it really doesn't describe affirmative action as it's colloquially understood. "affirmative action" is followed by an immediate and explicit requirement of equal treatment. > "(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. Genuinely, this is just a lot of words to say "don't do a racism". The examples are on the level of "consider doing recruitment advertising outside of places visited primarily by white dudes"
  - Frost1x 2y ago
Terr_ 2y ago
Since we're back in the Conflict of Interest years, I'd note that DoL is also involved in the applicability of work visas, not just H1-B that most tech workers are familiar with, but also H2-B visas that used for "temporary non-agricultural workers", such as servers and cooks at the President's private companies.
johnneville 2y ago
the title is misleading, this is specific to investigations regarding the now rescinded executive order: "Executive Order 11246 requires affirmative action and prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. Contractors also are prohibited from discriminating against applicants or employees because they inquire about, discuss, or disclose their compensation or that of others, subject to certain limitations."
- djoldman 2y ago
  The submitter cut the end of the title off, which was reasonable given the super long title. However it dropped critical information.
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    Give me another title
    - thrill 2y ago
      US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TO DROP INVESTIGATIVE/ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY UNDER RESCINDED EO 11246 (91 characters)
      - wahnfrieden 2y ago
        Too late
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
smegsicle 2y ago
first the department of education and now this?
readthenotes1 2y ago
The USA is really screwed if all the protections against discrimination are based on one executive order from the 1960s

28 points by wahnfrieden 2y ago

wahnfrieden 2y ago

What does this mean for us tech workers?

allears 2y ago
It's bad news for any worker. If the Feds won't enforce, then it's up to the individual states. And of course there's lots of states that want to attract industry, and lowering worker protections is one way to do that. It also means that the FAANG monsters, among others, will have an easier time screwing, I mean controlling, their workforce. Salaries will probably decline, shareholder profits will improve.
- epicureanideal 2y ago
  If I understand correctly this relates to affirmative action and related topics, they’re not stopping all enforcement of all types. This will likely not decrease our salaries. It may increase them as funds get reallocated away from HR.
  - takeda 2y ago
    > This will likely not decrease our salaries. It may increase them as funds get reallocated away from HR. You have serious misunderstanding how companies operate.
    - epicureanideal 2y ago
      Please explain.
      - wahnfrieden 2y ago
        Same argument as AI efficiencies: when automation (or another change such as arguably less HR activity) results in more free time for employees, the result is not higher wages because this is the type of competitive edge that is sought in order to increase profits rather than redistribute wealth. The result of efficiency for workers is either more work, or layoffs. Wages don't come from surplus. Wages come from negotiation power. Surplus goes to ownership
      - jaredklewis 2y ago
        Your salary is determined by your replacement cost. Let’s say your company renegotiates their office lease and now pays half what it cost before. Are they going to give everyone a pay bump? Unlikely. Might give a bonus to whoever renegotiated the lease. They might reward shareholders by buying back some stock or paying out dividends. They might invest in future growth by hiring new people or by buying new equipment. But why would they give the money to the employees? That doesn’t reward shareholders or increase productivity; it might make everyone a little happier but that is unlikely to increase productivity enough for it to be worth it (and even if was, management doesn’t think like that).
ADeerAppeared 2y ago
If you're a federal contractor: Congratulations you can now be discriminated against on the grounds of "race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin" And as a reminder to the lurkers who don't do their homework: The rescinded EO is from 1965. This is not just "woke nonsense". I will also note that Elon Musk has recently made statements about white tech workers being "retarded" and needing to be replaced by immigrants. And he's just been put in charge of government efficiency.
- pipes 2y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11246 Presumably the problem is with the affirmative action part of the executive order.
  - ADeerAppeared 2y ago
    What the claimed motivation is does not matter; the order is gone in it's entirity now. Frankly, it's just conservatives using "affirmative action" as a buzzword, because it really doesn't describe affirmative action as it's colloquially understood. "affirmative action" is followed by an immediate and explicit requirement of equal treatment. > "(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. Genuinely, this is just a lot of words to say "don't do a racism". The examples are on the level of "consider doing recruitment advertising outside of places visited primarily by white dudes"
- Frost1x 2y ago

Terr_ 2y ago

Since we're back in the Conflict of Interest years, I'd note that DoL is also involved in the applicability of work visas, not just H1-B that most tech workers are familiar with, but also H2-B visas that used for "temporary non-agricultural workers", such as servers and cooks at the President's private companies.

johnneville 2y ago

the title is misleading, this is specific to investigations regarding the now rescinded executive order: "Executive Order 11246 requires affirmative action and prohibits federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. Contractors also are prohibited from discriminating against applicants or employees because they inquire about, discuss, or disclose their compensation or that of others, subject to certain limitations."

djoldman 2y ago
The submitter cut the end of the title off, which was reasonable given the super long title. However it dropped critical information.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  Give me another title
  - thrill 2y ago
    US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR TO DROP INVESTIGATIVE/ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY UNDER RESCINDED EO 11246 (91 characters)
    - wahnfrieden 2y ago
      Too late
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

smegsicle 2y ago

first the department of education and now this?

readthenotes1 2y ago

The USA is really screwed if all the protections against discrimination are based on one executive order from the 1960s