Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate • Hacker News Board

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#91

Post by yummyfajitas » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 4:45 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #89

nknighthb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the company is based in northern Alaska? What if work hours are 2000-0400? It's hard to make out a disparate impact claim to begin with. Doing so on the basis that you don't like the living arrangements would seem impossible. What limiting principle would the courts apply that wouldn't result in legal liability for every company that doesn't allow employees to telecommute?

It's funny you bring that up: employers need to be careful about asking where employees live, out of concern of giving the impression that a candidate's selection depends on where they live or are willing to live. You can ask "can you arrive at the job site reliably every day at 8:45AM", but you cannot safely ask "do you live in the Chicago metro area". In practice, people do casually ask where candidates live (usual…

Requiring employees to work at a particular job site is uncontroversial; in fact, it's overwhelmingly the norm for all employment.

I don't understand - what does the "norm" have to do with anything? Are you asserting that some underlying legal principle demands that all employers stay within spitting distance of the average?

If not, I don't see how this policy would even fall within some sort of disparate impact theory. As far as I know, disparate impact lawsuits apply to selection processes. I.e. if the employer hires fewer members of a protected class, a process is bad. But if fewer members of a protected class accept job offers, that doesn't fit into disparate impact.

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#92

Post by mseebach » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 9:35 AM UTC

rytis wrote: post #30

huhtenberg wrote: post #9

This is seriously f#cked up. I can understand 3-4 people who are equals between themselves pulling this off, but with 24 people there's no way everyone likes the arrangement, so having everyone to be in it 24/7 is wrong.

Also, what happens if I really like the product, and I am eager to work on it, but not 24x7? I suppose I'm not welcome then? This is just sick, IMO.

What happens if I really like the product, and I am eager to work on it, but not for the salary I'm being offered?

.. but not in the city the company is located?

.. but not working in an open plan office?

.. but not respecting the company policy on (x)?

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#93

Post by tptacek » Fri, Mar 21, 2014, 2:01 PM UTC

nknighthb wrote: post #90

tptacek wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny you bring that up: employers need to be careful about asking where employees live, out of concern of giving the impression that a candidate's selection depends on where they live or are willing to live. You can ask "can you arrive at the job site reliably every day at 8:45AM", but you cannot safely ask "do you live in the Chicago metro area". In practice, people do casually ask where candidates live (usual…

I notice you didn't answer my question, or provide any practical reason why my hypotheticals are better than Meta's actual practice. Disparate impact claims must demonstrate actual harm to a protected class as distinct from the rest of the population, they don't consist of pseudolegalistic "well, as long as you didn't say it..." arguments.

Huh? I just pointed out that candidates can make claims simply because prospective employers ask them where they live. I have a hard time believing that yours is a good-faith response.

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#94

Post by nknighthb » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 4:20 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #93

nknighthb wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I notice you didn't answer my question, or provide any practical reason why my hypotheticals are better than Meta's actual practice. Disparate impact claims must demonstrate actual harm to a protected class as distinct from the rest of the population, they don't consist of pseudolegalistic "well, as long as you didn't say it..." arguments.

Huh? I just pointed out that candidates can make claims simply because prospective employers ask them where they live. I have a hard time believing that yours is a good-faith response.

If your assertion is accurate, it's presumably an overreaction to concerns about being sued for redlining. But that's irrelevant here, to the point of being utterly off-topic. Meta's policy poses no risk that knowledge of your present address would be used to discriminate against a protected class. Instead, it is part of your duties as an employee: Live in this house.

You would first have to establish that that duty has a statistically significant harmful effect on persons over 40 that it does not have on other groups. This will not be easy, people under 40 have families, too!

It will be further complicated by the fact that the same effect occurs simply by virtue of a workplace being in a remote, hostile environment, or having work hours incompatible with a typical family life, requiring a limiting principle, which you have not provided.

If you pass that hurdle, Meta would have the opportunity to establish that the policy is based on a reasonable factor other than age. The court would have to find that Meta's policy and/or its purposes are unreasonable. That seems unlikely.

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#95

Post by tptacek » Sat, Mar 22, 2014, 6:41 PM UTC

nknighthb wrote: post #94

tptacek wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? I just pointed out that candidates can make claims simply because prospective employers ask them where they live. I have a hard time believing that yours is a good-faith response.

If your assertion is accurate, it's presumably an overreaction to concerns about being sued for redlining. But that's irrelevant here, to the point of being utterly off-topic. Meta's policy poses no risk that knowledge of your present address would be used to discriminate against a protected class. Instead, it is part of your duties as an employee: Live in this house. You would first have to establish that that duty…

Redlining is the process of not giving people mortgages depending on whether they're from minority neighborhoods. I don't understand how it maps into this discussion, so I don't know how to reply.

Re: Meta’s entire 24-person team works and lives together in the same estate

#96

Post by nknighthb » Sun, Mar 23, 2014, 3:59 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #95

nknighthb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your assertion is accurate, it's presumably an overreaction to concerns about being sued for redlining. But that's irrelevant here, to the point of being utterly off-topic. Meta's policy poses no risk that knowledge of your present address would be used to discriminate against a protected class. Instead, it is part of your duties as an employee: Live in this house. You would first have to establish that that duty…

Redlining is the process of not giving people mortgages depending on whether they're from minority neighborhoods. I don't understand how it maps into this discussion, so I don't know how to reply.

Redlining has a more general meaning of discriminating against people based on where they live (e.g. in minority neighborhoods).

If you are not speaking of discriminating based on where people live, then I have no idea why you are bringing up employers supposedly avoiding asking where people live. It makes no contextual sense, and has no relevance to this discussion. Asking people where they live is not, in itself, discriminatory or unlawful.

It would be great if you would detail exactly why you think Meta's policy may be unlawful, and do so by reference to actual law, not apparently-random HR policies that you don't seem to want to explain the supposed basis of.