News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Corporations are trying, and now failing, to hide job ope... by JumpCrisscross on Friday September 12, 2025 @01:12PM (#45224314)
Newsom vetoed the ban [1]. A pair of professors are having a bad time trying to got CSU’s ban on caste-based discrimination thrown out on the grounds of being religiously discriminatory [2].

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/09/us/california-caste-discrimin...

[2] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/23...

Re:Corporations are trying, and now failing, to hide job ope... by snozolli on Friday September 12, 2025 @01:17PM (#45224361)
Newsom vetoed the ban [1]

From that article:

In a statement explaining his veto decision, Newsom said the measure was “unnecessary” because discrimination based on caste is already prohibited in the state.

(Just adding context that I would have missed if not for another commenter pointing it out further down)

Re:Corporations are trying, and now failing, to hide job ope... by crooked-v on Friday September 12, 2025 @01:27PM (#45224470)
For whatever it's worth, that's been a consistent trend with other things Newsom has vetoed with statements that he considers the vetoed item to be already covered by other laws, including some purely technical legislative things. I think it's likely that he sees himself as trying to keep California bureaucracy from growing indefinitely, especially with his push for things like CEQA process reduction/simplification.
Re:Corporations are trying, and now failing, to hide job ope... by notmyjob on Friday September 12, 2025 @02:22PM (#45225018)
It’s capital, political and financial. Everything costs, got to pay for gerrymandering somehow.
Re:Corporations are trying, and now failing, to hide job ope... by jfengel on Friday September 12, 2025 @05:51PM (#45227177)
Vetoing costs. More than half the legislature voted for it.

It can win you a few friends but you lose more.