4 ms·

No, what we have here is a SV megacorp practicing blatant racism in its hiring (or internal allocation) practices, and then firing the guy who blew the whistle

No, what we have here is a SV megacorp practicing blatant racism in its hiring (or internal allocation) practices, and then firing the guy who blew the whistle on it. It's not about the Irish guy, or the Indian guy. EDIT: for "internal allocation", above.

gaius 13y ago
Maybe, but there's not enough info in the article to conclude that. The Indian guy was already an employee remember. I simply don't know what the relevant laws are on inter-company transfers.
jusben1369 13y ago
Before we get too carried away. All the Supervisor needed to say was "for someone coming from India" and suddenly the context is non racial and hugely illuminating. Perhaps they terminated the guy because he showed he was too emotional and incapable of dealing with the way the company worked globally when hiring and promoting and transferring employees etc. So hard to know if he was just making a fair assessment of the realties of different regions or saying Indian's deserve less than Caucasian's simply because they're Indian.
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  Doubly so if the company is considering providing any sort of relocation assistance, sponsorship, or other similar things which may help the employee realize his move from India to the US -- a move which may offer well over $10k/yr worth of benefits to his overall personal well-being (and his family's).
- walshemj 13y ago
  Country of origin is considered the same as ethnicity for discrimination terms and national origin is considered a protected class under US law. Saying they where referring to the country and not the race is "not readily believable" to use a politically correct term.
- piyush_soni 13y ago
  No. It is still discrimination, howsoever euphemistic you make it. He was not to work in India. He was coming to the US and needed to have equal salary as any other employee working there.
- bonemachine 13y ago
  Perhaps they terminated the guy because he showed he was too emotional and incapable of dealing with the way the company worked globally ... If so, then evidently they're the kind of company that seems way, way more concerned with employees who get "emotional" about discriminatory practices... then about the discriminatory practices themselves.
AJ007 13y ago
Based on the article, he didn't blow any whistle, he complained to his manager and asked what to do to give the guy a higher offer. Then a few weeks later he was fired.
- bonemachine 13y ago
  They shot the messenger. That's the main point.

gaius 13y ago

Maybe, but there's not enough info in the article to conclude that. The Indian guy was already an employee remember. I simply don't know what the relevant laws are on inter-company transfers.

jusben1369 13y ago

Before we get too carried away. All the Supervisor needed to say was "for someone coming from India" and suddenly the context is non racial and hugely illuminating. Perhaps they terminated the guy because he showed he was too emotional and incapable of dealing with the way the company worked globally when hiring and promoting and transferring employees etc. So hard to know if he was just making a fair assessment of the realties of different regions or saying Indian's deserve less than Caucasian's simply because they're Indian.

fennecfoxen 13y ago
Doubly so if the company is considering providing any sort of relocation assistance, sponsorship, or other similar things which may help the employee realize his move from India to the US -- a move which may offer well over $10k/yr worth of benefits to his overall personal well-being (and his family's).
walshemj 13y ago
Country of origin is considered the same as ethnicity for discrimination terms and national origin is considered a protected class under US law. Saying they where referring to the country and not the race is "not readily believable" to use a politically correct term.
piyush_soni 13y ago
No. It is still discrimination, howsoever euphemistic you make it. He was not to work in India. He was coming to the US and needed to have equal salary as any other employee working there.
bonemachine 13y ago
Perhaps they terminated the guy because he showed he was too emotional and incapable of dealing with the way the company worked globally ... If so, then evidently they're the kind of company that seems way, way more concerned with employees who get "emotional" about discriminatory practices... then about the discriminatory practices themselves.

AJ007 13y ago

Based on the article, he didn't blow any whistle, he complained to his manager and asked what to do to give the guy a higher offer. Then a few weeks later he was fired.

bonemachine 13y ago
They shot the messenger. That's the main point.