Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 163 posts

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#51

Post by test6554 »

slg wrote: post #25
yieldcrv wrote: post #3

> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. The mere fact that this is deemed as "novel" or newsworthy or intriguing is a poor reflection of society itself. Fortunately the…

>> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. >To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this is less obvious when looking at how they define age discrimination. Specifically…

One could argue that a younger person could still be developing mentally and their decision quality and impulsiveness is undergoing change. Someone under 21 or 18 for example. But the same argument would be pretty nasty if applied to race.

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#52

Post by FredPret »

chitowneats wrote: post #23
striking wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing is explicitly about giving unequal (more favorable) treatment to people who aren't white/male/cis It's too bad you see it that way when in a lot of cases it's explicitly about giving equal consideration to everyone rather than giving anyone more favorable treatment. Not every case, obviously, but that shouldn't invalidate attempting to level the playing field.

Where is this the case? I haven't witnessed it at any of my previous jobs, especially when I worked at a tech giant (Lyft). One of the higher ups in "DEI" at my local office said to me in an elevator, while it was just the two of us, "white guys are just the worst, aren't they?" Given the bizarre state of American racial politics, it was actually unclear if she was flexing on me, or if she genuinely expected me, a wh…

I'd uninstall Lyft again right now if I could. Removed it years ago fortunately

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#53

Post by mathgladiator »

CodeSgt wrote: post #35
MontyCarloHall wrote: post #13

>The complaint recounts an incident, for instance, about Johnson telling DiBenedetto in 2020 that he expected to retire in a couple of years. DiBenedetto said he was interested in applying for his boss’ job. Johnson allegedly noted DiBenedetto’s short "runway." According to DiBenedetto, the boss said, “In these roles, you know, you've got to be able to adapt and move, and I'm not saying you can't, but a 58-year-old w…

When I initially read that I honestly didn't think it was all that bad. Inappropriate? Yes. Lawsuit worthy? No. But then, I imagined if the same thing were said to a 58 year old black woman, and immediately realized that it's severity. Is it just me, or has racism towards white people become acceptable/main stream (at least, much more so than racism towards other races)? I feel as if my lack of a visceral reaction to…

I was once in a DEI focused meeting with directors where a VP basically said that we had too many white men. A director even mentioned ways of treading the line of the law (after the VP shut down an illegal recommendatio), so it is pretty gnarly.

What I think it is happening is that people are competing in a who can be the most racist/sexist.

It was nauseating.

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#54

Post by sjtindell »

TeaDrunk wrote: post #42
slg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. >To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this is less obvious when looking at how they define age discrimination. Specifically…

I think part of this is that, obviously it is totally fine to discriminate based on age. Children aren't allowed to work, vote, buy certain items, etc. You're also not allowed certain public offices if you're too young.

I don’t know if the term discrimination fits there. Employers would gladly employ children if not for the law.

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#56

Post by Enginerrrd »

TeaDrunk wrote: post #42
slg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. >To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think this is less obvious when looking at how they define age discrimination. Specifically…

I think part of this is that, obviously it is totally fine to discriminate based on age. Children aren't allowed to work, vote, buy certain items, etc. You're also not allowed certain public offices if you're too young.

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I'm fairly sure this is the correct reasoning. We generally think it's acceptable to discriminate on the basis of age in many contexts, one of the most important of those being experience. If you are selecting candidates with more experience or "maturity" than is possible for someone of a particular age, you are effectively discriminating by age.

Perhaps people have morphed their internal definition of the word "discrimination" into something that differs from the dictionary and therein lies the objection?

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#57

Post by BurningFrog »

RappingBoomer wrote: post #27
yieldcrv wrote: post #3

> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. The mere fact that this is deemed as "novel" or newsworthy or intriguing is a poor reflection of society itself. Fortunately the…

law school grad here--generic white males are not afforded the same protections as protected classes

How many people are in the unprotected class?

The details depend on the jurisdiction, but I think we're talking about straight cis white able bodied US born men under 40?

That minority is maybe 20% of the workforce at most?

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#58

Post by tsuujin »

adra wrote: post #20

Not to make light of the possibly real allegations, but I'd argue the most likely outcome has to do with compensation and productivity than "discrimination" against a class. The target was probably the least productive employees, aka the ones who make the most and seemingly produce the least amount of value per their compensation. Fleets of middle class people lost their jobs in the decades predating this for the sam…

That you’re making an assumption that older people can’t be as—or even more—productive than younger people is strikingly on point for this topic.

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#59

Post by mise_en_place »

RappingBoomer wrote: post #27
yieldcrv wrote: post #3

> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. The mere fact that this is deemed as "novel" or newsworthy or intriguing is a poor reflection of society itself. Fortunately the…

law school grad here--generic white males are not afforded the same protections as protected classes

Did you really go to law school? Or do they not teach the Constitution anymore?

Re: 'Old white guy' can move forward with workplace bias suit against AT&T

#60

Post by throwawaylinux »

yieldcrv wrote: post #3

> Employees who have historically been entrenched in the majority are also entitled to protection under laws that were intended to assure equal treatment for women and racial minorities. To me this is obvious. A plain reading of EOCC employment discrimination regulations make this obvious. The mere fact that this is deemed as "novel" or newsworthy or intriguing is a poor reflection of society itself. Fortunately the…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN