211–220 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's always going to be possible to find data that indicates discrimination, unless companies hire in exact quotas (which would also be discriminatory really). There already are off-the-record quotas. Who in management hasn't heard discussion at least eluding the the need for a diversity hire? Probably very few people at this point. I believe a distinction must be made: Equality of opportunity is good. Equality of o…
I've been in software for ~10yrs now and can only count the number of engineers I've met who weren't white or Asian (Indians included) on one hand. And that doesn't say anything about anyone's particular ability to be engineers. It's just less likely to happen via the available applicants. Although I have noticed a spike in women, that doesn't seem to be the issue here. It seems to me the Dept of Labor is trying to s…
I agree the state should be acting at a much higher level to solve these problems. This could take the form of education incentives to get a more diverse workforce or do something about income inequality that prevents some demographics from pursuing certain career paths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's always going to be possible to find data that indicates discrimination, unless companies hire in exact quotas (which would also be discriminatory really). There already are off-the-record quotas. Who in management hasn't heard discussion at least eluding the the need for a diversity hire? Probably very few people at this point. I believe a distinction must be made: Equality of opportunity is good. Equality of o…
> "I believe a distinction must be made: Equality of opportunity is good. Equality of outcome will lead us to the world of Harrison Bergeron's." People have been trying to hammer that distinction for a long time. For certain people, it just doesn't "stick". They believe there is a boogey man, and by golly they will make sure to get the state to punish any scenario that hints to its existence. If anything, I'd argue t…
Most of the problems I've seen with diversity hires being "less capable" has been because they've had to work with people who are poor communicators and can't get past the idea that not everyone has the same shared background they do.
That means your co-worker from Taiwan doesn't recognize your carefully constructed metaphors based arounds star wars quotes, and they will likely try their best to understand what you meant, but you should have just communicated like an adult instead of an excited teenager.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Corporations are not people my friend. They do not (and should not) have the same rights. EDIT: Going through my wife's underwear drawer is not the same as having to provide payroll data to enforce labor law. EDIT 2: If you're a government contractor, you have certain labor rights obligations, by law . If you violate those, the US government has the authority to pursue you. "The department in a complaint filed with a…
It doesn't matter. That wasn't the argument stated; What was proposed was "Why does it matter if you have nothing to hide."
> They do not (and should not) have the same rights.
Corporations are protected from illegal search and seizures just like people.
> Does anyone read the article anymore?
I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to the previous poster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's always going to be possible to find data that indicates discrimination, unless companies hire in exact quotas (which would also be discriminatory really). There already are off-the-record quotas. Who in management hasn't heard discussion at least eluding the the need for a diversity hire? Probably very few people at this point. I believe a distinction must be made: Equality of opportunity is good. Equality of o…
I've been in software for ~10yrs now and can only count the number of engineers I've met who weren't white or Asian (Indians included) on one hand. And that doesn't say anything about anyone's particular ability to be engineers. It's just less likely to happen via the available applicants. Although I have noticed a spike in women, that doesn't seem to be the issue here. It seems to me the Dept of Labor is trying to s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Come on, you know this isn't an argument about privacy. 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 wi…
Hey, we're going to assume you are guilty. Can you prove otherwise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's always going to be possible to find data that indicates discrimination, unless companies hire in exact quotas (which would also be discriminatory really). There already are off-the-record quotas. Who in management hasn't heard discussion at least eluding the the need for a diversity hire? Probably very few people at this point. I believe a distinction must be made: Equality of opportunity is good. Equality of o…
You know what, though? If we actually had equality of opportunity, it doesn't seem like we'd see the kind of disparity we do. Certainly not at a big corporation where there should be enough of an employee pool to have it at least somewhat reflect the general population of the region. But then, when I listen to the stories women in tech (for example) tell, and they do tell a LOT of the same stories, it's clear we're p…
Palantir got sued for hiring Asians at a ratio of 20%. 4 out of 21 were Asians, this was too low given the size of the applicant pool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's always going to be possible to find data that indicates discrimination, unless companies hire in exact quotas (which would also be discriminatory really). There already are off-the-record quotas. Who in management hasn't heard discussion at least eluding the the need for a diversity hire? Probably very few people at this point. I believe a distinction must be made: Equality of opportunity is good. Equality of o…
You know what, though? If we actually had equality of opportunity, it doesn't seem like we'd see the kind of disparity we do. Certainly not at a big corporation where there should be enough of an employee pool to have it at least somewhat reflect the general population of the region. But then, when I listen to the stories women in tech (for example) tell, and they do tell a LOT of the same stories, it's clear we're p…
That is a drastic oversimplification.
The employee pool can only hope to be reflective of the pool of those who seek employment at that company and are qualified.
Which can only hope to be reflective of the employee marketplace for that industry at large.
Which can only hope to be reflective of the pool of people who have the right education and experience.
Which can only hope to be reflective of the people who graduated with the appropriate degree for which they're hiring (in most cases).
Which can only hope to be reflective of the people who got accepted into those schools.
Which can only hope to be reflective of those who chose that education/career path to begin with.
Which can only hope to be reflective of the population that sought out things like math and science when in secondary school.
Which only then can only hope to be reflective of the general population.
At each step there is filtration. It's affected by people's upbringing, their role models, what advertising they were heavily exposed to as impressionable children, who their friends are, who their teachers were, whether computers were popular when they were going through school, the list goes on and on.
The problem of under and over-representation in tech is a real one, but pretending that companies just need to somehow make up for all of this filtration, at the very very end of a literal lifetime-sized pipeline, is folly. Outreach needs to happen much, much, much sooner than that. At the end of the day, companies are at the mercy of who's in their hiring pool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Not the same context, are they? Federal investigators asking to review documents and information that portain to areas that they provide regulation for is completely different than someone arbitrarily digging through a spouse's underwear drawer.
Of course it is. The context is/was (as stated by the previous poster), if you have nothing to hide, then why not be completely open?
Which is what my point is; You don't need to justify your reasoning for privacy. It is a constitutional right. No justification is needed.