41–50 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are owned by people though and your wife's underwear drawer is not a person either.
> They are owned by people though That does not mean the corporate entity has personhood and the rights that status conveys.
> technology company systematically paid its white, male employees more than other workers and unlawfully favored Asian applicants in its recruiting and hiring efforts. Wow...this is big.
And also not believable. The idea Oracle had a system that paid white guys more because they were white guys isn't credible without more than just salary evidence.
> technology company systematically paid its white, male employees more than other workers and unlawfully favored Asian applicants in its recruiting and hiring efforts. Wow...this is big.
And also not believable. The idea Oracle had a system that paid white guys more because they were white guys isn't credible without more than just salary evidence.
They are one of the most outwardly testosterone-y companies anywhere. That kind of bullshit is catnip for fratbro types, who trend white.
This is the first legal test of the pervasive practice of Indian nationals hiring predominantly or exclusively other Indian nationals from their same region in India. edit: From the Department of Labor complaint: "...Oracle nevertheless preferred Asian applications over other qualified applicants in the Professional Technical 1, Individual Contributor Job group and in the Product Development job group at statisticall…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are owned by people though That does not mean the corporate entity has personhood and the rights that status conveys.
The data they requested didn't have personhood either yet the discussion went straight to whether the corporation does. Why is that if ownership doesn't encompass property rights?
EDIT:
> I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.
Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? The law is all that matters, as that's what will be enforced.
> The department also said that during its investigation, which began in 2014, Oracle refused to provide relevant information about its pay practices. That's the part that doesn't help Oracle at all in this. If you really don't have anything to hide/cleanup, why avoid providing useful information for 2+ years? (Granted, 'relevant information' might be loosely defined here) Tangent: I know several employers use the co…
> If you really don't have anything to hide/cleanup, why avoid providing useful information for 2+ years? Would you mind if a snoop through your wife's underwear drawer? You have nothing to hide. Right? Why do you close your window blinds at night? You have nothing to hide. Right? Would you mind if a place a GPS tracker on your vehicle for data collection purposes? You have nothing to hide. Right?
This is a public company and federal contractor. That status has some expectation and if the article is to be believed, those expectations include "don't racially discriminate".
This isn't DoJ harassing some poor startup. This is "hey, it seems you're discriminating against these people based on things you shouldn't legally discriminate on. Can you provide us with data to show otherwise?"
Couple points: First, this is where the meat is: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/ofccp/ofccp20170118-0 Second: "...Oracle nevertheless preferred Asian applications over other qualified applicants in the Professional Technical 1, Individual Contributor Job group and in the Product Development job group at statistically significant rates." [1] [1] https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/newsroom/newsrelease... --…
"Oracle was far more likely to hire Asian applicants - particularly Indian people - for product development and technical roles than black, white or Hispanic job seekers." Can the DOL back up this claim with salary data to see if Oracle is abusing the H1-B visa system by purposefully keeping wages low? Most of the time it is just easier to hire Asian/Indian employees because they are readily available (larger proport…
" Most of the time it is just easier to hire Asian/Indian employees because they are readily available " - I doubt that. It's "easier" to hire because they "agree" to lower wages and its easier to retain them, because their visa status is tied to the employer. The employers have H1B workers on a leash. The process of hiring an H1B worker in short. - Hire an immigration lawyer. - Post an LCA. - Apply petition to USCIS…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The data they requested didn't have personhood either yet the discussion went straight to whether the corporation does. Why is that if ownership doesn't encompass property rights?
Because ownership rights are not absolute. The IRS can dig through your personal and corporate finances to ensure you're compliant with your required tax liability payments, why would you think the Department of Labor wouldn't be permitted the same? EDIT: > I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry. Why would we discuss theory and not the actual law? The law is all that matters, as that's what will be enforced .
I'm sure the department of labor knows exactly what it can and can't request and even if it doesn't it, an entity with lawyers on payroll, would definitely have more of an idea on US law than me, a non-American non-lawyer.
I don't care to discuss what the law is sorry.