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

151–160 of 163 posts

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

#151

Post by moron4hire »

mise_en_place wrote: post #132
falcolas wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have retirement sooner By that logic, you shouldnt hire women, since they may get pregnant and take extensive leave on your company’s dime. Or men, whose partner could get pregnant (or adopt). > have/spend time with their families Applies to anyone over the age of 18. Probably under 18 too. > theyve already been trained in some other work method Which is why once you learn one programming language, you are immediat…

I just want to comment that your comment reminded me of min wage requirements. I'd love to hire a really Jr DevOps engineer but because of min wage and benefits that makes it impossible. If there was no min wage requirements I could hire a high school student with interest and not get destroyed financially by regulations

Maybe you can't hire anyone because your business model just sucks.

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

#153

Post by RappingBoomer »

preordained wrote: post #34
RappingBoomer wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What the hell is a "generic" white male? Imagine if this was used for other groups...it's messed up

um, well, an older white male is not a generic white male because age is a protected classification...a disabled white male is also part of a protected class.

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

#154

Post by tomhyggja »

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.

Let's abolish these discriminatory labour laws. If a child can go to school he can also work, why rob 8 year olds of this opportunity & force them to school when they could be working in a sweatshop?

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

#155

Post by helloworld11 »

Thermosetty wrote: post #109
helloworld11 wrote: post #39

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…

Of course you see yourself differently as an "Eastern European" - Those distinctions don't translate to the US because when juxtaposed with darker skinned people (particularly the Descendants of Slaves in the US), the differences between Europeans becomes negligible. Eg - When the Irish/Italians immigrated here in the 20th century they were initially seen as "other" but after a few decades "graduated" to white. So ye…

No. Whatever qualities, privileges or detriments that ignorant others ascribe to my skin color are not my fault or my responsibility to feel guilty over. This applies in all cases for anyone of any color.

What's more, your simplistic, ignorant color-based dismissal of an entire and enormous range of historical, cultural and personal history differences between certain eastern Europeans and certain other Europeans is no less insulting than the kind of low key racism that some people apply by labeling all blacks or brown-skinned people the same. The differences in both cases are emphatically not negligible. That you openly think this way is likely only because it's been instilled as politically acceptable. It sure as hell has no real merit.

That some so-called progressives often think this way today is a sad reminder of how old stupidities can come full circle to infect new generations.

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

#156

Post by moron4hire »

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…

A few years ago, I worked at a place that wanted to terminate someone for basically gross incompetence and harassment. The person was bad at their job and would yell at anyone who tried to fix anything they made. There was a lot of hand-wringing in the company about how exactly they were going to fire this person, because they also happened to be a black woman. Now, that was certainly also an instance of prejudice on the company's part--assuming a black woman would be more likely to sue for wrongful dismissal--but the point is that a lot of concern and effort was put in to making sure the firing of this woman was not in any way motivated by race.

At the same time, I knew a couple of project leads, two men, who were themselves Indian, who openly discussed their hatred of Pakistani people. If a Pakistani person ended up on one of their projects, they would just lie about that person's performance, say whatever was necessary to get them reassigned or fired. People knew what they were like. But no scrutiny was ever applied to these guys.

I don't think "racism towards white people [has] become acceptable". What I think is happening is that racism from white people is getting a lot more scrutiny, but that same scrutiny is not being applied to all people. Many working environments are getting more diverse, so we end up getting exposed to opinions that we've just never had the chance to hear before. If this had been 50 years ago, two Indian guys would probably have the same opinions about Pakistani people. But they also probably wouldn't have been project leads at such-and-such company.

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

#157

Post by camdat »

usrn wrote: post #147
camdat wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He edited his comment to include the additional information. I assume that's easier than confronting that his worldview "has no basis in fact"

I would have rather replied but because I participate in these sorts of discussions from this side I'm often not allowed to.

And when you say this side, you're referring to the side with no basis in fact? What a self-own

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

#158

Post by yieldcrv »

helloworld11 wrote: post #39
colordrops wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. The biggest flaw in all this thinking is that an individual should suffer because an arbitrary grouping they're placed in historically has been abusive or advantaged, even if the individual is neither. And the groupings are usually flawed. For instance I'm an Arab, and have been discriminated against and even beaten for it. My ancestors are not Yale alumni ex-slave owner families, and I've never gotten a job fo…

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…

> Again, despite many PC narratives, slavery was hardly the exclusive province of European colonial powers working against oppressed others around the world.

Which PC narrative suggests otherwise? I'm not familiar which one pretends and relies on the exclusion of various slave trades, can you elaborate?

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

#159

Post by striking »

chitowneats wrote: post #137
gedy wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In zero cases have I heard of of any DEI efforts talk about economically disadvantaged candidates. It's always pop culture visible or sexual diversity.

I was really hoping the parent commenter would give me an example of a place that does this. Seems like it would be nice place to work.

You can look at any one of the articles that mention companies and their case studies in applying these exact methods. I don't want to name my workplace.

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

#160

Post by mise_en_place »

moron4hire wrote: post #151
mise_en_place wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want to comment that your comment reminded me of min wage requirements. I'd love to hire a really Jr DevOps engineer but because of min wage and benefits that makes it impossible. If there was no min wage requirements I could hire a high school student with interest and not get destroyed financially by regulations

Maybe you can't hire anyone because your business model just sucks.

No, the req just becomes a senior role because comp has to be adjusted accordingly. Do you think min wage creates jobs?
Post reply on HN