Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

81–90 of 163 posts

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

#81

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'm sorry you had an experience like that, and I understand that it can be really tough to take concepts like these seriously when your personal experience clearly demonstrates the opposite effect.

There's nothing I can say or do to counteract what you've experienced, but I will note that successful DEI work is often like successful SRE work: you generally only notice it if you're watching the statistics carefully or if things start going wrong.

What might convince you this isn't totally baseless is if I give some suggestions for simple enough policies that an organization can implement without falling afoul of either the law or ethical considerations. Here are a few:

* Ensure a diverse slate. If you start hiring as soon as you have just a couple of people in the pipeline, the likelihood that someone not in the majority is hired goes way down; correct that by ensuring at least N applicants in the pool are not in the majority before you kick things off.

* Update your job descriptions. A lot of job descriptions have some really extreme and fairly specific demands of skills or experience gained but end up with hiring people who don't strictly meet every one. People not in the majority are pretty especially prone to impostor syndrome (for reasons whose explanation goes beyond the scope of this comment), so don't provide an unnecessarily high bar to entry if it isn't actually there. Include only skills that are actually necessary.

* Take a closer look at your hiring pipeline. Is your pipeline fed from sources that are homogeneous themselves? If so, look for sources that aren't. If you offer a referral program, ensure that that isn't defeating your efforts and encourage those who refer others to share with more diverse groups if they can.

* Ask everyone the same questions. Don't let someone bring their pet problem to an interview or crank up the difficulty unnecessarily. Standardize your questions and ensure interviewers are interviewing the same way by having folks shadow each other.

There are lots of things you can do beyond hiring, but it's what I'm more familiar with. I can say as a quick aside that ensuring everyone gets the same opportunity to level up in their career and making sure they feel welcome goes a long way towards mitigating diversity attrition, but it's not something I'm as comfortable giving suggestions for.

Hopefully this helps you feel like not everyone who advocates for DEI is out to get you or make your life worse for the sake of making others' lives better.

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

#82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> How many people are in the unprotected class?

To not be in any protected class in US labor law, you need to:

(1) Not be a veteran.

(2) Not have a physical or mental disability.

(3) Not be over 40.

(4) Have neither a religion nor the absence of one.

(5) Not have a race (including White.)

(6) Not have a skin color (including any of those typically described as “white” when discussing skin color.)

(7) Not have a gender (either gender assigned at birth, perceived gender, or gender identity; including “male” for any one or more of those.)

(8) Not have a national origin.

(9) Be neither a citizen nor non-citizen.

(10) Not have genetic information.

There is no one to whom this applies, obviously.

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

#83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the rulings of liberal judges. The constitution and civil rights statutes are written in a race neutral way. The judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own.

> judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own Do you have cases which survived appeal which sustain this? Judges' opinions tend to be way more sober than they're portrayed in the media, which mostly focusses on which side won.

Griggs vs. Duke Power. The CRA explicitly allows testing. It was amended to introduce the word “intentionally.” The courts ignored the text of the bill and the intent of the congressmen who voted for it in developing disparate impact theory.

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

#84
post #58
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.

I made so such point and in fact we have no idea how well or poorly performing/paid these workers were vs their peers. All anyone reading this article could do is speculate, and my opinion stated was my speculation of the articles statements. I'm very happy to be proven wrong when the facts are brought to light in court but until then, all we can do is navel gaze.

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

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm sorry you had an experience like that, and I understand that it can be really tough to take concepts like these seriously when your personal experience clearly demonstrates the opposite effect. There's nothing I can say or do to counteract what you've experienced, but I will note that successful DEI work is often like successful SRE work: you generally only notice it if you're watching the statistics carefully or…

Hiring is zero sum. The reality is that DEI departments at many tech companies work diligently to make life harder for white and Asian men. It's even explicitly stated some places.

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

#86
post #35

>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…

[deleted]

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

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you had an experience like that, and I understand that it can be really tough to take concepts like these seriously when your personal experience clearly demonstrates the opposite effect. There's nothing I can say or do to counteract what you've experienced, but I will note that successful DEI work is often like successful SRE work: you generally only notice it if you're watching the statistics carefully or…

Hiring is zero sum. The reality is that DEI departments at many tech companies work diligently to make life harder for white and Asian men. It's even explicitly stated some places.

Yes, hiring is zero sum, but if you're complaining about the suggestions I just gave, those work to remedy bias in a hiring pipeline rather than explicitly making people's lives harder.

In other words, if you are unhappy that you no longer have an advantage because those rules are being implemented, you are seeking to benefit from policies that would otherwise advantage you as a result of your attributes, ones that make the lives of those with other attributes that much harder. There is nothing acceptable about that, even if in a technical sense this makes your life harder.

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

#88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> judges have refused to enforce the law, and made up their own Do you have cases which survived appeal which sustain this? Judges' opinions tend to be way more sober than they're portrayed in the media, which mostly focusses on which side won.

Griggs vs. Duke Power. The CRA explicitly allows testing. It was amended to introduce the word “intentionally.” The courts ignored the text of the bill and the intent of the congressmen who voted for it in developing disparate impact theory.

> Griggs vs. Duke Power.

Griggs vs. Duke Power does not, in any way, establish that White males are less protected than anyone else, which was the question. And your rants about it in this post wouldn't make that different even if they were accurate.

> The CRA explicitly allows testing.

So does Griggs. If, and here Griggs quotes the language of the statute authorizing the use of professionally-developed tests, they are not “designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race. . . .”; and the EEOC had, at the time, under its explicir regulatory authority under the act, specifically allowed only job-related tests.

> It was amended to introduce the word “intentionally.”

It's a big act, and I am sure that word exists somewhere in it, but nowhere germane to the case. And if it did, you, being the law-school grad you are, would surely quote it in context, and explain the conflict with the ruling in Griggs.

> The courts ignored the text of the bill and the intent of the congressmen who voted for it in developing disparate impact theory.

No, they didn't, but even if they had, that wouldn't make your case: disparate impact applies equally to discrimination against White candidates as that against blacks.

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

#89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't speak for your family history in a personal sense and I get your main point about the ridiculous absurdity of racial groupings, but Islamic states and kingdoms which include the Arabic peninsula, were also notorious slave states for centuries. Again, despite many PC narratives, slavery was hardly the exclusive province of European colonial powers working against oppressed others around the world. Again though…

My family are poor christians from a 2000 year old farming village in southern lebanon who almost certainly nothing to do with the Islamic slave trade. But I get your point.

Yes, I'm sorry if I came across as at all pointing a finger at you or your family, not at all the case and it would be foolish given the rest of my comment narrative. Just mentioned the Arabic history of slave trading as a general counterpoint to a dominant narrative of it being a European custom above all else.

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

#90
post #62

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.

I think equal consideration should be given regardless of race and think DEI departments can be forces of good and improve organizations. However, my limited experience with them is I can’t figure out their data driven decisions. For example, my org is 25% African American and 70% female and DEI gave a presentation on underrepresentation in the workplace and how we need to shift hiring to increase African American an…

Their goal may just be to keep their job as head of the DEI department. Seeking out a solution to a problem that doesn't exist keeps them employed.

EDIT: this can also apply to various other functions within a company. Doesn’t have to be DEI.

Post reply on HN