7 ms·

Our partner companies are not hiring Jopwell users because of their race, they are using Jopwell as a tool to ensure they have a diverse pool of candidates appl

Our partner companies are not hiring Jopwell users because of their race, they are using Jopwell as a tool to ensure they have a diverse pool of candidates applying for their roles. They then hire the best candidate, regardless of race, for the job.

jerf 11y ago
When that logic is run in the other direction, the courts smack it down. "We weren't discriminating against race, we just happened to use $CRITERION that effectively discriminated against race." Does it really change its force if it's discriminating "for"? To concretize the discussion, I suppose I'll stick to the legal aspects here, in that, yes, let's not mince words or pretend otherwise, there is certainly a direction of "discrimination" that courts will prefer, but are you really sure you can be this blatant about it, legally? It is possible to get in trouble for going too far, for instance see http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/justice/scotus-michigan-affirmative-action/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/justice/scotus-michigan-affirm... . (Which I freely acknowledge is not directly related to this business model, but it does show that the courts do have some degree of limits on "affirmative action".) Edit: To further clarify, I assume you have considered this question, and I'm curious what the answer you already have must be. I am not thinking this is a new thought to you.
- _pius 11y ago
  When that logic is run in the other direction, the courts smack it down. "We weren't discriminating against race, we just happened to use $CRITERION that effectively discriminated against race." Does it really change its force if it's discriminating "for"? Utter strawman. The pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired. This startup is providing a tool for counteracting that selection bias. It isn't "discrimination" to strive for the broadest possible pool of qualified candidates.
  - jerf 11y ago
    "The pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired." That makes no sense. It seems far more likely you've just got correlation effects going on; a given physical office has a certain local distributing of people. And this is part of the reason I'm trying to keep to the legal aspects. Any new pool of applicants can only broaden the "diversity", but that doesn't mean you could use the complementary service without getting into serious legal trouble. Preferences are one thing, but this appears to be out-and-out racially discriminatory. Even as part of a recruiting diet it seems legally dangerous, because as I tried to show with my link, there are limits to the preferences that can be displayed.
    - _pius 11y ago
      [The idea that the pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired] makes no sense. You don't seem to be familiar with how hiring works. Referrals are a thing, for instance. Job openings tend to get shared within the networks of employees. I'm honestly amazed that this is a point of debate.
      - jerf 11y ago
        You're basically claiming that the details of this service can't possibly be relevant because effectively nobody ever uses these sorts of recruiting services. Along with it being pretty "scorth-the-Earth" as defenses go, I would submit the alive-and-well recruiting industry of which this startup is trying to become a part is a sufficient counterpoint. Referral networks are great for Silicon Valley startups... I mean that fully seriously, not merely rhetorically, it's a legitimate advantage that Silicon Valley has over any other region trying to become Silicon Valley because you just can't legislate those networks into existence... but you tap them out as you grow. Especially if you're not in Silicon Valley. Hence the market for things like, oh, say, Jopwell.
        _pius 11y ago
        You're basically claiming that the details of this service can't possibly be relevant because effectively nobody ever uses these sorts of recruiting services. Yet another strawman. We haven't even gotten to the details yet; remarkably, you've argued against increasing the pool of qualified applicants, on principle. Referral networks are great for Silicon Valley startups And another strawman! I never claimed referral networks are bad for startups. But those networks also tend to miss large swaths of qualified potential hires. You yourself admitted that eventually those networks get tapped out. Meanwhile ... is the applicant pool a function of the current employees or not? If not, why are referrals an advantage? In one breath, the claim makes "no sense" to you, but in the next, that fact is a "huge advantage."
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > When that logic is run in the other direction, the courts smack it down. Really? Has there ever been a situation in which the courts have smacked down a firm for including a funnel which overrepresented (perhaps to the extreme of exclusively representing), say, whites and/or Asians in order to compensate for underrepresentation of those groups in its other sources of candidates? Because I don't think that's happened, or even been tested. So I think you misunderstand the logic here if you claim that the courts have smacked it down when run in reverse. > "We weren't discriminating against race, we just happened to use $CRITERION that effectively discriminated against race." That's not the logic behind using Jopwell, which isn't being marketed as a sole funnel for companies, and companies would be pretty clearly breaking the law in most cases were they to use it that way.
  - jerf 11y ago
    "Running it in reverse" would be claiming that you didn't actively discriminate in favor of the majority, it just so happened to happen because you did something else. This has been tested over and over again... for instance, it is the reason why IQ tests are de facto illegal to use for hiring. (There's some good reason to believe that it could conceivably be used safely, but most people just aren't willing to take the risk for what gain you might get.) So, yes, it's been tested a ton. You can not "discriminate" by using standards that just happen to discriminate but you can "plausibly deny" any discriminatory intent. The reasons why you're doing it don't matter much to the courts. "which isn't being marketed as a sole funnel for companies, and companies would be pretty clearly breaking the law in most cases were they to use it that way." Yes, but again, de facto it's not safe to use things that would be discriminatory as even part of the hiring process if it were going the other direction. It seems like you're opening a dangerous door to even have something like this in your pipeline, where a rejected candidate could sue and then start arguing about how some balance or other was not precisely correctly maintained. And remember, this isn't just about "white males" suing either... right now Jopwell explicitly mentioned the minorities they're going to start with... how would you like defending against a suit raised by a minority not in that set?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago

jerf 11y ago

When that logic is run in the other direction, the courts smack it down. "We weren't discriminating against race, we just happened to use $CRITERION that effectively discriminated against race." Does it really change its force if it's discriminating "for"? To concretize the discussion, I suppose I'll stick to the legal aspects here, in that, yes, let's not mince words or pretend otherwise, there is certainly a direction of "discrimination" that courts will prefer, but are you really sure you can be this blatant about it, legally? It is possible to get in trouble for going too far, for instance see http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/justice/scotus-michigan-affirmative-action/ http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/justice/scotus-michigan-affirm... . (Which I freely acknowledge is not directly related to this business model, but it does show that the courts do have some degree of limits on "affirmative action".) Edit: To further clarify, I assume you have considered this question, and I'm curious what the answer you already have must be. I am not thinking this is a new thought to you.

_pius 11y ago
When that logic is run in the other direction, the courts smack it down. "We weren't discriminating against race, we just happened to use $CRITERION that effectively discriminated against race." Does it really change its force if it's discriminating "for"? Utter strawman. The pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired. This startup is providing a tool for counteracting that selection bias. It isn't "discrimination" to strive for the broadest possible pool of qualified candidates.
- jerf 11y ago
  "The pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired." That makes no sense. It seems far more likely you've just got correlation effects going on; a given physical office has a certain local distributing of people. And this is part of the reason I'm trying to keep to the legal aspects. Any new pool of applicants can only broaden the "diversity", but that doesn't mean you could use the complementary service without getting into serious legal trouble. Preferences are one thing, but this appears to be out-and-out racially discriminatory. Even as part of a recruiting diet it seems legally dangerous, because as I tried to show with my link, there are limits to the preferences that can be displayed.
  - _pius 11y ago
    [The idea that the pool of applicants for any given job is largely a function of the people who've already been hired] makes no sense. You don't seem to be familiar with how hiring works. Referrals are a thing, for instance. Job openings tend to get shared within the networks of employees. I'm honestly amazed that this is a point of debate.
    - jerf 11y ago
      You're basically claiming that the details of this service can't possibly be relevant because effectively nobody ever uses these sorts of recruiting services. Along with it being pretty "scorth-the-Earth" as defenses go, I would submit the alive-and-well recruiting industry of which this startup is trying to become a part is a sufficient counterpoint. Referral networks are great for Silicon Valley startups... I mean that fully seriously, not merely rhetorically, it's a legitimate advantage that Silicon Valley has over any other region trying to become Silicon Valley because you just can't legislate those networks into existence... but you tap them out as you grow. Especially if you're not in Silicon Valley. Hence the market for things like, oh, say, Jopwell.
      - _pius 11y ago
        You're basically claiming that the details of this service can't possibly be relevant because effectively nobody ever uses these sorts of recruiting services. Yet another strawman. We haven't even gotten to the details yet; remarkably, you've argued against increasing the pool of qualified applicants, on principle. Referral networks are great for Silicon Valley startups And another strawman! I never claimed referral networks are bad for startups. But those networks also tend to miss large swaths of qualified potential hires. You yourself admitted that eventually those networks get tapped out. Meanwhile ... is the applicant pool a function of the current employees or not? If not, why are referrals an advantage? In one breath, the claim makes "no sense" to you, but in the next, that fact is a "huge advantage."
dragonwriter 11y ago
> When that logic is run in the other direction, the courts smack it down. Really? Has there ever been a situation in which the courts have smacked down a firm for including a funnel which overrepresented (perhaps to the extreme of exclusively representing), say, whites and/or Asians in order to compensate for underrepresentation of those groups in its other sources of candidates? Because I don't think that's happened, or even been tested. So I think you misunderstand the logic here if you claim that the courts have smacked it down when run in reverse. > "We weren't discriminating against race, we just happened to use $CRITERION that effectively discriminated against race." That's not the logic behind using Jopwell, which isn't being marketed as a sole funnel for companies, and companies would be pretty clearly breaking the law in most cases were they to use it that way.
- jerf 11y ago
  "Running it in reverse" would be claiming that you didn't actively discriminate in favor of the majority, it just so happened to happen because you did something else. This has been tested over and over again... for instance, it is the reason why IQ tests are de facto illegal to use for hiring. (There's some good reason to believe that it could conceivably be used safely, but most people just aren't willing to take the risk for what gain you might get.) So, yes, it's been tested a ton. You can not "discriminate" by using standards that just happen to discriminate but you can "plausibly deny" any discriminatory intent. The reasons why you're doing it don't matter much to the courts. "which isn't being marketed as a sole funnel for companies, and companies would be pretty clearly breaking the law in most cases were they to use it that way." Yes, but again, de facto it's not safe to use things that would be discriminatory as even part of the hiring process if it were going the other direction. It seems like you're opening a dangerous door to even have something like this in your pipeline, where a rejected candidate could sue and then start arguing about how some balance or other was not precisely correctly maintained. And remember, this isn't just about "white males" suing either... right now Jopwell explicitly mentioned the minorities they're going to start with... how would you like defending against a suit raised by a minority not in that set?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago