Re:Australians fight for the right to work from home permane...
by majormajor on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @03:41PM
(#36976114)
> Employers would immediately start to consider the commute times of candidates before hiring them.
This already happens, and AFAIK it's not a protected class. "Hmm, they'd be driving an hour each direction, are they likely to stick around?"
Re:Australians fight for the right to work from home permane...
by willcipriano on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @03:26PM
(#36975864)
> that would correlate to employers discriminating against candidates of lower socioeconomic standing...
Now do college degrees.
Re:Australians fight for the right to work from home permane...
by someNameIG on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @05:08PM
(#36977482)
> Employers would immediately start to consider the commute times of candidates before hiring them.
That's already a thing in Australia.
> Longer commute times is a feature of cheaper housing, so that would correlate to employers discriminating against candidates of lower socioeconomic standing.
The current system already does that also. Poorer people are traveling more for work, but they aren't getting compensated for the commute time.
This is would have a bunch of perverse outcomes you probably haven’t considered. Employers would immediately start to consider the commute times of candidates before hiring them. Longer commute times is a feature of cheaper housing, so that would correlate to employers discriminating against candidates of lower socioeconomic standing. Which would in turn correlate to discrimination against the ethnic groups that are over represented in those lower socioeconomic groups.
It’s basically only a good idea if you’re trying to intentionally constrain social mobility.