|
Main Paineframe posted:Why are information jobs less sensible to unionize? A big reason why it wouldn't work so well is the low levels of capital needed to start a competitive company, and the short lifetime of the average tech company. If you can watch a company rise and fall within 5-10 years, promises of a 30 year tenure and retirement package don't really mean much. Also, since it's so dependent on talent, you can have massive betrayals like that recent controversy on Secret.ly: A woman was part of 5 co-founders, and Google paid her cofounders ~$5mm each to break up the company and come work for Google. She didn't get an offer as she was a designer, and only received 10k and no Google employment. Even if there is some tentative agreement for seniority-based pay, talented people can jump ship to higher pay and screw over the rest of their colleagues.
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
I wouldn't count on a union that protects a minority in the industry. I would expect that since most of the people voting on industry issues as a union will be men, the discourse and voting will be focused on men and will gladly ignore women's issues.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
When an industry/company becomes prestigious and high-paying though, women and minorities tend to get pushed out though. So if you have a company that pays higher, you will attract more highly qualified applicants, but statistically most of the best and most qualified applicants will be from groups you aren't trying to help (due to better access to education and previous opportunities in the past). As an example of this, you have tech companies, which pay very well, but aren't exactly fair to women or minorities.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 08:51
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I'm pretty sure that if a company starts raising its salaries for men and not for women, and all this data is public, it's not going to go well. I certainly don't think that something like this is going to eliminate pay discrimination--only the destruction of systems of oppression in general will do that--but I don't think that it would somehow help white men and leave everyone else behind. No, what I am saying is that a company could have equal pay, but not a very diverse workforce. You wouldn't hire many women if taking a year off to raise a baby put you behind the top 50 applicants.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:Do you contend that rising wages in an industry will necessarily cause more discrimination to occur, thereby pushing women and minorities out of it? I thought this was a pretty well-known thing? Once women join a profession en masse, prestige and pay tend to drop, and the reverse is true for when men start filling up a profession. Computer programmers used to be mostly women until it turned out there was lots of money in it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Interestingly in the past companies used a lot more psychometric testing when it came to hiring people: From the same article: quote:The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which exposed companies to legal liability for discriminatory hiring practices, has made HR departments wary of any broadly applied and clearly scored test that might later be shown to be systematically biased. Instead, companies came to favor the more informal qualitative hiring practices that are still largely in place today. If you come up with a good hiring method that gives you politically incorrect results, expect a lawsuit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Except per Griggs (though obviously in light of Ricci, who the gently caress even knows where the law is on this issue now, thanks Roberts Court), you can still implement a test if the test actually pertains to the ability to do the job in question. You just can't implement a test with disparate results for the fun of it. You can't use a general aptitude test, which would seem like a pretty good test for a lot of white-collar jobs. The law is really broken when you can't legally say "I want to hire the smartest workers with no criminal record" because both of those conditions create a disparate impact on minorities according to federal court rulings. on the left fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Apr 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's interesting how minority hiring impacts the workplace. The way the US is going, these sorts of racial patronage systems will probably become much more common than they already are. Already in many cities you will experience pushback on your business license if you are the wrong race, or if you are a larger company, don't agree to hire a certain number/percentage of locals.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If a general aptitude test is consistently having racially disparate results, then either some races just consistently have higher aptitude at everything than others (and if you honestly believe that's true, get the gently caress out) or there's a problem with the test. This probably is true though, and doesn't rely on any genetic argument that any race is inferior to others. You can't simply complain that a test is wrong if it creates results that reflect societal divides.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I notice that in your usual quest to defend white supremacy you ignored this point by The Warszawa. A 20+ year old aptitude test doesn't really say much about the idea of aptitude testing in general. Companies use lots of measures that are proxies for aptitude testing (going to a selective college, grades, major), but if you explicitly use aptitude tests, you enter a legal minefield for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You're question-begging to a ridiculous degree. You were given an explicit counterexample and you just wave it away and assume without any proof at all that aptitude tests "in general" do a good job of showing how inferior black people are. You don't have to be racist to acknowledge that any test that relies on having a decent education is going to disfavor groups that don't have equal access to education. Doubly so for a test that benefits from extracurricular classes or study.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But that's precisely one of the problems with "aptitude" testing. To the extent that the test measures general knowledge or even just test-taking ability that doesn't correlate with job performance, then it is unfairly boosting the prospects of a privileged applicant and holding back the oppressed candidate even if they would in reality be equally effective at the job. This is a dumb criticism though because it applies to practically every metric used in the hiring process. VitalSigns posted:Naming something "aptitude test" doesn't mean it's actually measuring one's aptitude for a job. Just incuriously assuming that because black people don't do as well on your test that it must mean black people just aren't prepared to do the job instead of investigating whether your test is biased is actually pretty racist. Especially in the face of examples of that very thing happening. If discriminating on aptitude tests is bad, is it ok with you to recruit from colleges that discriminate against people with bad aptitude tests? ToxicSlurpee posted:Carla de Salva-Ruiz, who has a master's degree but didn't learn English until she was 22 and still isn't that great at it, could be an amazing, productive worker with every skill you could want but if somebody stacks the test against her she isn't getting the job. I was told by liberal arts graduates that communication skills and ability to write coherently in english is important, so maybe it's a good thing?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 06:39
|
|