News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Facebook removed post by ex-manager who said site 'failed... by AnthonyMouse on Thursday December 06, 2018 @12:09PM (#18619836)
> I quickly got a reply back from a high-up HR lawyer, who was entirely defensive.

This is a conflict between separate attempts to solve the problem.

On the one hand there is yours -- if we report this when it happens then having the information will aid in solving the problem.

On the other hand, there are laws creating liability for companies that discriminate against employees. Someone could use records like this against the company in court, so you are creating undesirable liability for the company by reporting it.

This is a common problem. If you allow plaintiffs to use a company's records against them, they either stop keeping them or the record keeping becomes a compliance issue driven by lawyers concerned with corporate liability, which then takes precedence over other concerns like using the information to meticulously measure and resolve issues.

Nobody likes to admit that trade offs like this exist, but it takes admitting that they do to get to the point of being able to evaluate which method is more effective and choosing between them.

Re:Facebook removed post by ex-manager who said site 'failed... by sangnoir on Thursday December 06, 2018 @12:53PM (#18620348)
> Someone could use records like this against the company in court, so you are creating undesirable liability for the company by reporting it.

Fortunately there is a win-win solution to this - unconscious bias training! Minority employee and manager's lives get a little easier, company shows that it cares and made corrective/CYA action, any employee who discriminates on race will clearly be doing it against company policy. Pretending like it didn't happen is the worst policy, IMO, because it gives an impression of condoning such behaviour, which creates more liability.

Re:Facebook removed post by ex-manager who said site 'failed... by pathseeker on Thursday December 06, 2018 @02:00PM (#18620962)
>Fortunately there is a win-win solution to this - unconscious bias training!

It's not a win if unconscious bias training doesn't actually work. I have yet to see it change the behavior of racist people. Do you have any papers that show that it works?

So far it just seems like a way for a company to cover their ass via a PR stunt that disrupts a bunch of employees' days.

Re:Facebook removed post by ex-manager who said site 'failed... by sangnoir on Thursday December 06, 2018 @04:06PM (#18622238)
It's a win because the company will have an actual policy in place, compared to burying heads in sand and discouraging people from reporting "unpleasantness".

> So far it just seems like a way for a company to cover their ass via a PR stunt that disrupts a bunch of employees' days.

Quick question - do you feel the same about sexual harassment training? I think it's good for every employee to be clear on the common baseline on what behavior the company deems unacceptable and the consequences thereof.

Let's detach this from racism for a moment, and hypothesize on ethics. A number of companies have/had issues with staff members virtually stalking users. Would you rather colleagues not report such incidents for fear of creating legal liability? Should the companies not have a policy against this and offer training on ethical handling of user data? No amount of company training will cure an engineer's creepiness, but drawing lines in the sand is important - it might prevent creepy behavior while they are on the clock - even if it may look like its CYA.

Re:Facebook removed post by ex-manager who said site 'failed... by AnthonyMouse on Thursday December 06, 2018 @01:10PM (#18620510)
Doing that in response to reporting doesn't do anything for the company's incentive to discourage reporting -- now it's even less desirable because they have to pay for something.

Things that come from a CYA perspective are compromised. The motivation is to check a box at the lowest available cost, which is not the recipe for competence. It's not hard to screw something like that up and end up training people to consciously consider race when making decisions.

There is legitimately a trade off between honestly convincing people to care about something and passing laws requiring them to appear to care about it under penalty of financial liability.

Re:Facebook removed post by ex-manager who said site 'failed... by wpietri on Thursday December 06, 2018 @01:26PM (#18620653)
Avoiding lawsuits by hiding the facts is in no way an attempt to solve the problem.

Oh, wait. Maybe we're talking about different problems. My problem is my intern having a bad experience due to unconscious racial bias. What problem are you trying to solve?

Re:Facebook removed post by ex-manager who said site 'failed... by pathseeker on Thursday December 06, 2018 @01:56PM (#18620930)
Way to miss the point.

Lawyers exist to mitigate legal risks, not to solve racism. The parent was just pointing out that anything documented that admits racism occurred creates legal liability. The triggered the lawyers defense mechanisms where they need to clearly document that there was no discrimination in the legal sense.

So the point is that there needs to be a way to report unconscious bias events for data points that don't put the company at legal risk just by having them on record.

Re:Facebook removed post by ex-manager who said site 'failed... by wpietri on Thursday December 06, 2018 @06:04PM (#18623369)
I didn't "miss" the point. I'm challenging it. I don't believe that sweeping the actual problem -- racial bias -- under the rug is in any way "attempts to solve the problem".

This is equivalent to "solving" software defects by refusing to record the bug because somebody is scared of a quality lawsuit. It not only doesn't help, it is very likely to make the problem worse.

Re:Facebook removed post by ex-manager who said site 'failed... by AnthonyMouse on Thursday December 06, 2018 @01:37PM (#18620751)
> Avoiding lawsuits by hiding the facts is in no way an attempt to solve the problem.

That's why it's a conflict. The map is not the territory. If you give them an incentive to reduce reports of discrimination, they will have an incentive to reduce reports of discrimination. Which interferes with other methods that require meticulous reporting.