Silicon Valley: Perks for Some Workers, Struggles for Parents

Re:Silicon Valley: Perks for Some Workers, Struggles for Par... by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @06:38PM (#9337647)

> The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse.

The employer hasn't been identified, and so can't be vilified. Sure, people responding to the characterization are responding to a one-sided characterization, but they are mostly providing recommendations of how the person providing that characterization should deal with it, based on the assumption that the characterization is accurate.

I'm not sure what problem you suppose this is going to "make worse".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Silicon Valley: Perks for Some Workers, Struggles for Par... by bequanna on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @07:35PM (#9337886)

> I'm not sure what problem you suppose this is going to "make worse".

Discrimination.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Silicon Valley: Perks for Some Workers, Struggles for Par... by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @07:41PM (#9337905)

How, exactly, is what has gone on in this thread supposed to do that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Silicon Valley: Perks for Some Workers, Struggles for Par... by bequanna on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @07:55PM (#9337967)

If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place.

This doesn't help fix discrimination at all, it makes it worse.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Silicon Valley: Perks for Some Workers, Struggles for Par... by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 07, 2015 @08:02PM (#9337993)

> If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place.

If they are more likely to sue when they receive an adverse employment outcome (firing) why wouldn't they be more likely to sue when they receive an adverse employment outcome (not being hired), and, if the employer is actually discriminating, as you suggest, in hiring (but would be doing "nothing wrong" in firing), wouldn't the hiring discrimination pose a bigger risk than not discriminating, since they face the lawsuit risk with either adverse action, but a greater risk of losing the lawsuit in the situation where the facts will actually bear out that they are discriminating based on legally-prohibited criteria?

[ Parent | on HN ]