Re:Fierce Nerds
by pseudalopex on Tuesday May 18, 2021 @05:26PM
(#27201400)
Did his literary persona harass Heidi Moore?[1]
You don't actually "need evidence of bias". You can let someone go if they are not an asset to the company. This guy certainly wasn't once the amount of annoyance and upset his words had caused others in the company was pointed out to management.
It's always lovely to see people who, I'm sure, are staunch defenders of "workers rights" turn around and say "yeah just fire anyone who isn't currently an asset to the company by whatever criterion".
The difference between "can" and "should" is the entire moral universe.
I think if you write something which says 'I am biased', the burden of proof is now on you to show hiring managers that it was all a bit, rather than on them to demonstrate that it wasn't.
Well you're wrong. The burden of proof is to show examples of bias.
Re:Fierce Nerds
by westernmostcoy on Tuesday May 18, 2021 @01:41PM
(#27198272)
This feels like an unreasonable expectation for the people who would be reporting to him.
If someone in your future/present management chain wrote a "I think people like slibhb are bad at this job" missive somewhere, would you then feel the need to wait for examples of bias?
It's a huge leap to go from "you wrote x passage" to "you may be biased against women". If you want to fire someone for bias, you need evidence of bias, not a theory that someone might be biased.