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

Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

indiatoday.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 667 posts

Re: Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

#431

Post by tshaddox »

saalweachter wrote: post #378
adamsmith143 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most likely they struggled because the legal language in policies was ambiguous on how to handle the situation, therefore opening the room for the manager to pursue action against the company for consequences for their behavior. How? Do you really think their language specified that discrimination could only happen from white people to minorities?

I'm guessing they weren't sure whether caste was a protected class. Discrimination in law revolves around protected classes (race, religion, national origin, age and sex are the "big five" in the US, and subsequent acts and decisions have added sexual orientation/gender identity, familial status, pregnancy, disability, veteran status, and genetic information). If you act on the basis of that, someone can, well, make…

I'm not sure why laws about protected classes would be directly relevant in the case described in the top-level comment here, which is a manager who "was pretty much dismissive of everything anyone of a lower caste did / wouldn't communicate with them effectively." That just sounds like an ordinary problem with basic job performance. Surely most company policies would have ways of handling employees who are just blatantly obstinate and hostile towards other employees regardless of why they decide to act that way.

Re: Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

#432

Post by rajup »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #425
rajup wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm the current Prime Minister of India is from a "lower" caste. The current president of India is from a "lower" caste. Curious how you come up with "the current national government openly supports discrimination on religious and caste based backgrounds".

In the same way Hitler was hardly a model, muscled, blond haired Aryan. Those without the traits advocate it more.

Uhh.. what?! I’ve seen some crazy takes on here but this one is definitely new and takes the top spot.

Re: Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

#433

Post by tryfinally »

tunesmith wrote: post #398

I have this impression that casteism can commonly exist in people that are otherwise progressive and non-racist, is that true? I once had a pen-pal that worked for the UN that at some point told me that she viewed the caste system as a "useful way to organize society". I was rather taken aback since that viewpoint didn't seem to comport with my other impressions of her.

I find it endlessly impressive how people can hold two perfectly opposing viewpoints and never even notice any contradiction. Good reminder to do an occasional review of ideas one considers obvious.

Re: Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

#434

Post by toast0 »

rconti wrote: post #299
tawaywoah2 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> California treats ancestry as a protected class, and discrimination by ancestry is illegal. Not being a Desi, I struggle to see how this is not already covered. It is covered, but not enforced because evidence is difficult. Caste discrimination in Silicon Valley is usually about putting someone from a lower caste into an impossible project that is destined to fail, and boom...now you've got your PIP quota ready fo…

PIP quota? Really?

Yeah, search on "hire to fire", for more info on this. If your team is big enough, at a big enough company, you've probably got a target for attrition. If you don't have enough people with poor performance naturally, then you've got to do something to hit your numbers...

Re: Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

#435

Post by colpabar »

gedy wrote: post #401
colpabar wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> HR absolutely struggled with the issue. The HR folks tasked with dealing with discrimination issues largely had spent their time constructing company wide emails and classes that revolved around white folks discriminating against others / concepts of privilege, absolutely froze when faced with a discrimination issue outside that stereotype. Cue the pro DEI (i honestly don’t know what it’s called anymore) people cla…

Maybe "no true Scotsmxn" etc

Lol. I think it'd have to be "Scotsperson" or "Scotshuman" or "Scotsfolk" - the X is usually reserved for a vowel that indicates masculine or feminine, like the super popular "latinx" that's totally used by more than just rich white liberals.

Re: Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

#436

Post by jl6 »

duxup wrote: post #189

I worked at a company where this was an issue at one point (granted this was one situation among a lot of employees). A manager was pretty much dismissive of everything anyone of a lower caste did / wouldn't communicate with them effectively. HR absolutely struggled with the issue. The HR folks tasked with dealing with discrimination issues largely had spent their time constructing company wide emails and classes tha…

In the UK, class and ethnicity and accent intersect to create some similarly “invisible to HR” discrimination situations between people who would otherwise be lumped together as white.

Re: Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

#437

Post by outworlder »

BurningFrog wrote: post #291
duxup wrote: post #189

I worked at a company where this was an issue at one point (granted this was one situation among a lot of employees). A manager was pretty much dismissive of everything anyone of a lower caste did / wouldn't communicate with them effectively. HR absolutely struggled with the issue. The HR folks tasked with dealing with discrimination issues largely had spent their time constructing company wide emails and classes tha…

Quoted post unavailable.

> A lot of the contemporary left (...)

You lost me here. Please stop slotting everything into 'left' or 'right'.

If you said "a lot of people" I would agree.

Re: Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

#438

Post by azinman2 »

civilized wrote: post #347
azinman2 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we already do this for all other protected classes.

I don't even know what this means, let alone if it is true or not. How do you "force not to discriminate"? How is this currently enforced in companies?

Well if you discriminate say based on race or gender, you’re fired. As people know they therefore can’t do this, they need to keep their feelings to themselves and deal with it.

The GP said: > there is no question that a person who refuses to work with coworkers based on lower caste does not belong in any workplace with lower caste workers

Which I read as separate castes if they will discriminate. That’s like saying separate race or gender if someone will discriminate. That’s currently not how it works for other protected classes.

Re: Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

#439

Post by [deleted] »

ab_testing wrote: post #245

I think this is a reason why Leetcode style interviews are popular. They remove at least one type of bias of race - the ability to solve coding problems. If you can solve Online Assessment, Phone Assessment and Onsites, you keep moving on to the next round, regardless of your race or ethnicity. It is a way for companies to claim that there is no bias in hiring.

[deleted]

Re: Apple becomes first tech giant to explicitly ban caste discrimination

#440

Post by cortesoft »

anoonmoose wrote: post #419
cortesoft wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should only things you can't change be protected?

A tautology I suppose, but, because you can't change them. You didn't choose it and it's immutable. Not fair to discriminate against someone for something they can't control. This is, of course, personal opinion of mine.

I get why you shouldn't discriminate against things you can't change, but I am wondering why there shouldn't also be things you can't discriminate based on that you CAN change.

Religion is a good example of one... people can and do change religions, but we still shouldn't discriminate based on it. There are other examples as well of things that people can change that shouldn't be discriminated based on.

Post reply on HN