3 ms·

It's already illegal to discriminate against a lot of things that people still choose to keep secret rather than rely on the law to protect them. Many people hi

It's already illegal to discriminate against a lot of things that people still choose to keep secret rather than rely on the law to protect them. Many people hide their diagnosed disabilities rather than trust that their employer will follow the law, because your advancement actually can be limited by exposing it even if it's technically illegal. Anti-discrimination laws also fail to protect people from the social consequences of the unwarranted publicity.

giantg2 2y ago
These aren't the situations we're discussing. The arrest is found through a background check, not disclosure. This is about companies avoiding public backlash for hiring someone with an arrest.
- 1659447091 2y ago
  Don't most companies have a code of conduct or reputation brand protection policies? Anything that could cause "public backlash" would violate company policy. Not sure how it works for hiring, but it seems to hold up for firing. A company should have a right to protect their brand, within anti-discrimination bounds. Being arrested and having an arrest record, wrongly or not, is not the same as intrinsic human properties, such as being--for example--black and/or female etc.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    So how would that work for types of people who maybe are arrested without being charged as a result of a protected attribute? You mentioned black people, so is it OK that they are disproportionately squeezed out of jobs this way? According to the constitution, innocence is an intrinsic human property.
    - 1659447091 2y ago
      > so is it OK that they are disproportionately squeezed out of jobs this way? I didn't say it was right, but I do believe that looking at it from the perspective of the burden being placed on a company is looking in the wrong direction. The names should not even be released unless convicted or settled--or at earliest at pre-trial (since more evidence can come forward if it's there). Those without charges should not have their name in the public, and that's where the focus should be. > how would that work for types of people who maybe are arrested without being charged as a result of a protected attribute? As I said, I am unsure how it works for hiring, but for firing it could be a violation of company policy and that's what the firing is for, not a protected attribute.
      - _heimdall 2y ago
        Even you working through this makes clear how it is to draw this line though. One extreme is only making names public after a conviction. That line is at least clear, though it does have downsides. Another extreme is making names public as soon as a person has ant interaction with police, similarly that is at least a clear line but has obvious issues. Lines like this can't be drawn easily. When in doubt inaction from the government should be the default. In this case that would mean the government not publicizing names at all, just process a case and move on.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Uh, no, I'm talking about companies finding arrest records on a cursory Google search and avoiding that candidate in favor of other options, not because they don't want the backlash but because why would they hire them when there are other options?
  - giantg2 2y ago
    If they aren't worried about some backlash for hiring a person arrested for domestic violence, then why would they pick another? If there's no potential for backlash, then there's no reason to avoid them or pick "other options".
- _heimdall 2y ago
  But why should the public backlash over a company hiring someone with an arrest? The public has direct interest in the company. More importantly, an arrest record alone means very little and if the person wasn't convicted they are supposed to be presumed innocent.

giantg2 2y ago

These aren't the situations we're discussing. The arrest is found through a background check, not disclosure. This is about companies avoiding public backlash for hiring someone with an arrest.

1659447091 2y ago
Don't most companies have a code of conduct or reputation brand protection policies? Anything that could cause "public backlash" would violate company policy. Not sure how it works for hiring, but it seems to hold up for firing. A company should have a right to protect their brand, within anti-discrimination bounds. Being arrested and having an arrest record, wrongly or not, is not the same as intrinsic human properties, such as being--for example--black and/or female etc.
- giantg2 2y ago
  So how would that work for types of people who maybe are arrested without being charged as a result of a protected attribute? You mentioned black people, so is it OK that they are disproportionately squeezed out of jobs this way? According to the constitution, innocence is an intrinsic human property.
  - 1659447091 2y ago
    > so is it OK that they are disproportionately squeezed out of jobs this way? I didn't say it was right, but I do believe that looking at it from the perspective of the burden being placed on a company is looking in the wrong direction. The names should not even be released unless convicted or settled--or at earliest at pre-trial (since more evidence can come forward if it's there). Those without charges should not have their name in the public, and that's where the focus should be. > how would that work for types of people who maybe are arrested without being charged as a result of a protected attribute? As I said, I am unsure how it works for hiring, but for firing it could be a violation of company policy and that's what the firing is for, not a protected attribute.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      Even you working through this makes clear how it is to draw this line though. One extreme is only making names public after a conviction. That line is at least clear, though it does have downsides. Another extreme is making names public as soon as a person has ant interaction with police, similarly that is at least a clear line but has obvious issues. Lines like this can't be drawn easily. When in doubt inaction from the government should be the default. In this case that would mean the government not publicizing names at all, just process a case and move on.
lolinder 2y ago
Uh, no, I'm talking about companies finding arrest records on a cursory Google search and avoiding that candidate in favor of other options, not because they don't want the backlash but because why would they hire them when there are other options?
- giantg2 2y ago
  If they aren't worried about some backlash for hiring a person arrested for domestic violence, then why would they pick another? If there's no potential for backlash, then there's no reason to avoid them or pick "other options".
_heimdall 2y ago
But why should the public backlash over a company hiring someone with an arrest? The public has direct interest in the company. More importantly, an arrest record alone means very little and if the person wasn't convicted they are supposed to be presumed innocent.