As I’ve already said, the law can say whatever it wants.
What the law says determines business risk.
Therefore, businesses will hire minorities or risk being sued/confiscated.
If two candidates walk in the door, a Black one and a White one, you can be sued for not hiring the Black one but almost never for not hiring the White one.
Laws have consequences.
sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 2 years ago
You're still arguing against reality.
Reality always wins these arguments.
mayonesa@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Laws are part of reality if they are enforced.
I am explaining why businesses act as they do.
sj_zero@lotide.fbxl.net 2 years ago
I'm explaining that the laws as enforced don't act the way you'd think. Nepotism exists, corruption exists, and it takes a tiny amount of "due diligence" to innoculate against most lawsuits. Reality is as I've said. I paid my way through college with a job that made half of minimum wage, where I wasn't properly paid for overtime, where health and safety guidelines weren't remotely followed. Later on I personally witnessed plenty of politicking, nepotism, corruption.
There's the law as written, the law as enforced, and the law as adjuticated. It's pretty rare to reach the last step for most businesses, because a little trickery can stop the law from being enforced.
It's widespread in tech -- You'll see lots of job ads, but that's because they have to be able to show they tried to find an american worker before hiring an H1B. Americans will apply for the job, but the company goes "oh, we tried but we couldn't find anyone qualified". The same thing when that large cap company hired me -- they posted the job, but the process was just for show and they hired me just as they planned to.
@masterofballs@wolfballs.com had a post recently about a job interview at a FAANG that talks about the prejudices he perceived in the hiring process.
masterofballs@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
Nepotism is huge in the tech world.
mayonesa@wolfballs.com 2 years ago
No, you're spreading wishful thinking as fact.
They have no legal liability for doing that, which is governed by a different set of laws and not a 14A/1980 case. Disparate impact means their company gets seized if they do not have enough minority faces; that is the reality of affirmative action.
Regulations without teeth, not based in civil rights law AT ALL, say that they must make a token effort to find American workers. Guess what is defined vaguely in the statute.