IBM orders US sales to locate near customers, RTO for cloud staff, DEI purge

Sounds like you can't provide any response to that. Hopefully you've heard about "at will" before and how that works in US. So far it sounds like you're making stuff up or are talking about some other country or region.

> You're mistaking plausibility with convincingness.

That's exactly what you're confusing. Some juries can be convinced but doesn't mean that it's a winnable strategy. How many people are laid off across the US and how feasible is for them to bring up lawsuits and how many would be won with the current laws?

The only exception to this perhaps are the ADA laws, where one can show that the workplace has not accommodated a worker properly. (The ramp is not there / the elevator doesn't have the buttons at the correct height etc). But here we're talking about DEI initiatives not ADA.

> They can and a jury can still think that was not the actual reason someone was fired.

Here you're again mistaking plausibility with convincingness. Just because it's plausible something could have happened, say a person was "managed out" because they were DEI hire, without some evidence convincing the majority of the jury won't work, based on a hunch. That's just not how it works. We can discuss some fantasy world where all the citizens are righteous activists and fight back against the system or the how it usually works out in the real world.

There are likely ways we can give more latitude, but home kitchens often cannot be cleaned to the same standard as commercial kitchens just due to how they have been built.

Unfortunately in terms of "overreaching" regulations, this is the worst example: food borne illneses are very real killers, and a major risk.

Also regarding a licensed electrician, while the regulatory requirements for one may seem high - I'm not 100% sure if they are or not - electrical fires are one of the major ways structures catch fire and kill people.

Really in terms of overbearing regulations, these two actually protect lives every single day. Remember the "Ghost Ship" fire? Caused by electrical fire. Norovirus on cruise ships? Cause hospitalization and evacuation.

I'm all for minimizing regulations, but many many of them are literally written in blood, and the notion that we can wholesale relax them with no ill consequence is just not true.

A company's right to terminate you is not the same thing as their plausible defense in a wrongful termination lawsuit. That you're bringing up other countries is even more confusing. Nothing I said is related to other countries as I do not live in other countries, I have not been employed in other countries, and I do not practice law in other countries.

>The only exception to this perhaps are the ADA laws, where one can show that the workplace has not accommodated a worker properly. (The ramp is not there / the elevator doesn't have the buttons at the correct height etc). But here we're talking about DEI initiatives not ADA.

I'm not talking about DEI. I never mentioned DEI. Are you confused?

>That's exactly what you're confusing. Some juries can be convinced but doesn't mean that it's a winnable strategy. How many people are laid off across the US and how feasible is for them to bring up lawsuits and how many would be won with the current laws?

What does any of that have to do with my point? I didn't say it was common. I didn't say it was an automatic win whenever anyone is fired. These are all strawman arguments. I was just rebutting the very simple point that was made about direct evidence for a state of mind, which is something that IS true about the US legal system, and certainly exists beyond the concept of employment law.

You have completely twisted this around to being about DEI, and trying to rebut the idea that these lawsuits are constantly won at a loss to these companies. None of that was said by me nor was it even suggested by me.

> home kitchens often cannot be cleaned to the same standard as commercial kitchens just due to how they have been built.

This has nothing to do with zoning rules. You're not allowed to operate a restaurant on that piece of land regardless of what kind of kitchen you have. Requiring specific materials or equipment is not the same thing as "doing this is banned here but allowed somewhere you can't afford".

> Also regarding a licensed electrician, while the regulatory requirements for one may seem high - I'm not 100% sure if they are or not - electrical fires are one of the major ways structures catch fire and kill people.

Your assumption is that the rules improve safety when it's quite the opposite. A license should be something you get by passing a licensing exam, and taking the licensing exam should be free. Anyone who knows the material gets the license, immediately, at no cost.

Instead we have apprenticeship requirements whose purpose is to constrain the supply of people who hold the license. That increases the cost of hiring a professional, which causes more work to be done by amateurs even if it's illegal, or to ignore problems because they can't afford to pay someone to fix them. Which is how you get electrical fires.

Don't confuse actual safety rules with regulatory capture protectionism that compromises safety to pad the coffers of the incumbents.

That is exactly the goal of this process. Otherwise why does someone with a 4.0 GPA have any better chance than someone with a 3.2 GPA? If all you cared about was "qualified" then there would be some minimum threshold and candidates above that threshold would be chosen at random.

> there's always going to be an imperfect system doing the picking.

"Perfection is impossible" doesn't mean that every imperfect alternative is equally bad.