Corporations are trying to hide job openings from US citizens

Post by Terr_ » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 9:50 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #32

ajross wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, "racist" seems to fail the Occam test here. But at the same time that makes it clear that the now-suddenly-unpopular opinion is also wrong. Diversity takes work, and companies need to guard against this kind of decisionmaking. "DEI" protects the native-born too!

> ”racist" seems to fail the Occam test here The word has lost meaning due to semantic overinclusivity. By the Civil Rights era definitions, the process is racist. The people may not be. The process explicitly favours Indians. This isn’t some statistical mumbo-jumbo anti-racism construct, it’s the clear intent of the people involved and a clear effect of their actions. What we can’t conclude from this is if the peopl…

Post by jfengel » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 9:51 PM UTC

notmyjob wrote: post #85

crooked-v wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For whatever it's worth, that's been a consistent trend with other things Newsom has vetoed with statements that he considers the vetoed item to be already covered by other laws, including some purely technical legislative things. I think it's likely that he sees himself as trying to keep California bureaucracy from growing indefinitely, especially with his push for things like CEQA process reduction/simplification.

It’s capital, political and financial. Everything costs, got to pay for gerrymandering somehow.

Post by daft_pink » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

kjkjadksj wrote: post #28

daft_pink wrote: post #5

Essentially, they want to hire a specific person, while the law requires that they post the job and prefer American citizens, so they don’t want American citizens to apply not that they prefer foreign workers in general they just have a specific candidate in mind. I think Trump’s position of forcing companies to pay a substantial fee in exchange for a fast tracked green card is really the most sensible position inste…

If they had someone specific in mind the usual method is to have their resume next to you when you write up the job app. Make the requirements perfectly match their skills. Now you can say when you picked them that they were the best candidate all along.

Post by SilverElfin » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 9:55 PM UTC

silverquiet wrote: post #14

throwmeaway222 wrote: post #9

[flagged]

Most people (regardless of race) prefer to hire from within their network. It makes sense that Indians' networks would consist of other Indians.

Post by Terr_ » Fri, Sep 12, 2025, 9:57 PM UTC

BobbyJo wrote: post #44

ajross wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an editorial point, not a substantial one. Obviously requiring an application be submitted by an inconvenient and antiquated method that isn't used by the demographic in question is going to create friction and reduce the number of applications. That this is expressed in a whimsical way (personally I liked the turn of phrase, but that's an issue of taste) might personally offend you but doesn't change the subs…

It also has the effect of making the job posting seem fake, or like a scam, because who in their right mind would believe META, who has their own, in-house operated, online job application portal, would require a job application to be mailed in.