Yahoo sued over employee rankings, anti-male discrimination

Gregory Anderson says his supervisors consistently preferred to hire women.

Read the whole story

 

[isparavanje]

ip_what[/url]":nltut7ez]

isparavanje[/url]":nltut7ez]

skicow[/url]":nltut7ez]

isparavanje[/url]":nltut7ez]

JustQuestions[/url]":nltut7ez]

blither[/url]":nltut7ez]

Or those of us that are male and sensible people have known this for some time. We just may not have the authority to influence the appropriate change that is needed.

If this situation turns out to be true it is not appropriate. If it isn't true then we should move on.

Regardless, both men and women need to be paid the same for the same work. But it should not disparage one class just because the other class had been disparaged and are still being treated as such in many cases. Or in other words, two wrongs do not make a right.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I would argue that trying to artificially "even things out" like universities and employers do is also sexist and racist.

For example, it is commonly known that African Americans have their SAT scores adjusted upward by virtue of being African American.

So you have a situation where we aren't really allowing people to stand on their own two feet. They're getting artificial boosts. That's incredibly racist/sexist.

How would you feel knowing you got a job because of your gender? Or race? Probably pretty shitty. You should get a job because you were the best candidate. Period.

It's bound to result in you being treated differently, as well.

"Oh, we just brought you in because you're a woman and it makes us look a little better..."

The worst part is affirmative action promotes racism in the society. For example, people might prefer Asian doctors over African American because Asian doctors were subject to more rigor in various selection processes throughout their career. Trying to fix the symptoms without fixing the root cause of social mobility for minority races is just stupid.

I believe affirmative action is trying to fix the root cause -- giving those who are at a disadvantage a better chance a getting a good education, and therefore the ability to lift themselves out of those disadvantages on their own rather than having to look to the government, or others, to help them survive.

Improving elementary school and middle school education rates and quality among minorities and lower socioeconomic classes would help in fixing the root cause. Doing it in college or the workplace is just admitting less qualified individuals to make it look like progress is happening.

And when we try to improve elementary and middle school education, then we get to hear complaints about how - no, of course you can't use my suburbs property taxes to find city schools. No, of course you can't bus kids from the city to my suburban school. Hell no, Blake will not be taking the bus to a school in the city.

http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-arc ... -live-with

Every time someone says, don't try to solve racial injustice using this tool, that other took over there is better, it's just begging to let someone else fight against social policies. It's a circle jerk.

Intuitively you'd want to start from the bottom, that's how social mobility is built. The entire school district system sucks, it's pretty much designed to help the upper middle class keep their white picket fence and their bungalows, everyone poorer be damned.

 

[JustQuestions]

Horkthane[/url]":2gbcoayy]

skicow[/url]":2gbcoayy]

isparavanje[/url]":2gbcoayy]

JustQuestions[/url]":2gbcoayy]

blither[/url]":2gbcoayy]

oldfortraner[/url]":2gbcoayy]Now the males see what it's like.

Or those of us that are male and sensible people have known this for some time. We just may not have the authority to influence the appropriate change that is needed.

If this situation turns out to be true it is not appropriate. If it isn't true then we should move on.

Regardless, both men and women need to be paid the same for the same work. But it should not disparage one class just because the other class had been disparaged and are still being treated as such in many cases. Or in other words, two wrongs do not make a right.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I would argue that trying to artificially "even things out" like universities and employers do is also sexist and racist.

For example, it is commonly known that African Americans have their SAT scores adjusted upward by virtue of being African American.

So you have a situation where we aren't really allowing people to stand on their own two feet. They're getting artificial boosts. That's incredibly racist/sexist.

How would you feel knowing you got a job because of your gender? Or race? Probably pretty shitty. You should get a job because you were the best candidate. Period.

It's bound to result in you being treated differently, as well.

"Oh, we just brought you in because you're a woman and it makes us look a little better..."

The worst part is affirmative action promotes racism in the society. For example, people might prefer Asian doctors over African American because Asian doctors were subject to more rigor in various selection processes throughout their career. Trying to fix the symptoms without fixing the root cause of social mobility for minority races is just stupid.

I believe affirmative action is trying to fix the root cause -- giving those who are at a disadvantage a better chance a getting a good education, and therefore the ability to lift themselves out of those disadvantages on their own rather than having to look to the government, or others, to help them survive.

Once upon a time, affirmative action was explained to me. The gist of it, is that sure, it might be unfair, and it might be pushing unqualified people beyond their competence level. But the goal was to lift african americans into another income bracket, so that their children would have all the benefits of safer neighborhoods and better schools which that entails. And then the next generation wouldn't need affirmative action.

As to the effectiveness of this policy, I have no idea.

Completely 100% ineffective.

Without other actions being taken, it just guarantees that there will continue to exist poor, crime ridden areas of primarily African Americans with poor educational attainment.

Sure, if some of them do well, get into a good university, get a good job, etc, they will then do well in life.

However, only a small percentage of the people from poor, crime-ridden communities will have this level of attainment. Furthermore, educational attainment is inversely correlated with the number of children they have.

So, they will get out-bred by their former peers in the crime-ridden community, and the children of the ones who didn't have high educational attainment will continue to have poor prospects.

If anything, the problem is likely to continue to get worse rather than better.

Fixing the root cause means improving secondary education and creating more supportive communities....Not to mention better access to health care, drug rehabilitation, well paying blue-collar jobs, and cops that aren't trying to kill them.

 

[Zlotnick]

JustQuestions[/url]":12ql2pcv]

One of those preferences is race, and Africans will get a positive adjustment.

This is a fact, plain and simple.

"Africans" have it on easy mode?

National Institutes of Health[/url]":12ql2pcv]
Our results show that black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

That's reality.

 

[LostAlone]

lewax00[/url]":1vy58te0]Well this feels weird and backwards from the complaints you usually hear, especially in tech.

Not really.

Tech companies are being placed under pressure by feminists to get more women into the industry regardless of their abilities or even of their competence. And that is, pretty much on the face of it, discrimination. This is just chickens coming home to roost.

Things is, while the tech industry has typically been male dominated I don't think anyone without a feminist agenda has seriously suggested women couldn't get hired; there simply weren't as many women looking to get hired.

Frankly, when the whole sector is closer to 80% male, having a company become 80% female out of nowhere seems hard to argue as just free and fair hiring.

 

[ip_what]

isparavanje[/url]":3bq12hde]

ip_what[/url]":3bq12hde]

isparavanje[/url]":3bq12hde]

skicow[/url]":3bq12hde]

isparavanje[/url]":3bq12hde]

JustQuestions[/url]":3bq12hde]

And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

I would argue that trying to artificially "even things out" like universities and employers do is also sexist and racist.

For example, it is commonly known that African Americans have their SAT scores adjusted upward by virtue of being African American.

So you have a situation where we aren't really allowing people to stand on their own two feet. They're getting artificial boosts. That's incredibly racist/sexist.

How would you feel knowing you got a job because of your gender? Or race? Probably pretty shitty. You should get a job because you were the best candidate. Period.

It's bound to result in you being treated differently, as well.

"Oh, we just brought you in because you're a woman and it makes us look a little better..."

The worst part is affirmative action promotes racism in the society. For example, people might prefer Asian doctors over African American because Asian doctors were subject to more rigor in various selection processes throughout their career. Trying to fix the symptoms without fixing the root cause of social mobility for minority races is just stupid.

I believe affirmative action is trying to fix the root cause -- giving those who are at a disadvantage a better chance a getting a good education, and therefore the ability to lift themselves out of those disadvantages on their own rather than having to look to the government, or others, to help them survive.

Improving elementary school and middle school education rates and quality among minorities and lower socioeconomic classes would help in fixing the root cause. Doing it in college or the workplace is just admitting less qualified individuals to make it look like progress is happening.

And when we try to improve elementary and middle school education, then we get to hear complaints about how - no, of course you can't use my suburbs property taxes to find city schools. No, of course you can't bus kids from the city to my suburban school. Hell no, Blake will not be taking the bus to a school in the city.

http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-arc ... -live-with

Every time someone says, don't try to solve racial injustice using this tool, that other took over there is better, it's just begging to let someone else fight against social policies. It's a circle jerk.

Intuitively you'd want to start from the bottom, that's how social mobility is built. The entire school district system sucks, it's pretty much designed to help the upper middle class keep their white picket fence and their bungalows, everyone poorer be damned.

When you've given yourself infinite social engineering power, you can start anywhere you like. (I'd probably start with the massive wealth disparity rather than eduction...)

When you're dealing with the real world, you use every tool available to you, and you push back against every complaint that oh, no, don't start here, start over in that fifedom where that other guy is adimant against change.

 

[isparavanje]

Zlotnick[/url]":1plrcuno]

JustQuestions[/url]":1plrcuno]

One of those preferences is race, and Africans will get a positive adjustment.

This is a fact, plain and simple.

"Africans" have it on easy mode?

National Institutes of Health[/url]":1plrcuno]
Our results show that black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

That's reality.

One might argue that is a result of medical school affirmative action. The statistics for affirmative action are pretty crazy, it's not a small boost in acceptance rates.

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applica ... lea24.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmati ... and_whites

Edit: in fact, that was my original point a few pages back, that affirmative action at any stage of someone's life would result in increases racial discrimination later on. Statistically speaking, of course, can't account for every individual.

 

[Wonder Chemist]

georgeh2k[/url]":ijkp0t99]
After I reported all of this woman's bad behavior, incompetence, and actual lying about work she said she had done, our female manager took action. She PROMOTED her!

I once worked for a major defense contractor. I have this theory that promotions were one way they used to get people with marginal technical skills, but had not committed an action they could fire them for, off the production floor.

 

[Zlotnick]

isparavanje[/url]":3neyncqi]

Zlotnick[/url]":3neyncqi]

JustQuestions[/url]":3neyncqi]

One of those preferences is race, and Africans will get a positive adjustment.

This is a fact, plain and simple.

"Africans" have it on easy mode?

National Institutes of Health[/url]":3neyncqi]
Our results show that black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

That's reality.

One might argue that is a result of medical school affirmative action. The statistics for affirmative action are pretty crazy, it's not a small boost in acceptance rates.

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applica ... lea24.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmati ... and_whites

Edit: in fact, that was my original point a few pages back, that affirmative action at any stage of someone's life would result in increases racial discrimination later on. Statistically speaking, of course, can't account for every individual.

I don't know what medical school has to do with anything. If you read the abstract from the paper:

we conducted a field experiment in the low-wage labor market of New York City, recruiting white, black, and Latino job applicants who were matched on demographic characteristics and interpersonal skills. These applicants were given equivalent résumés and sent to apply in tandem for hundreds of entry-level jobs.

 

[LostAlone]

isparavanje[/url]":1wytwb5v]

Intuitively you'd want to start from the bottom, that's how social mobility is built. The entire school district system sucks, it's pretty much designed to help the upper middle class keep their white picket fence and their bungalows, everyone poorer be damned.

It's not the personal duty of the middle class to lift up the lower class regardless of race. You seem so disgusted at the idea that middle class people might want to help their kids stay middle class when that is literally the one single thing that every parent wants; for their kids to have a good life.

On a political level I agree that America needs people to take their heads out their asses and vote for better social policies even if that means high taxes. It's barbaric that things have gotten so bad. But on a personal level all that the middle classes are doing is enlightened self interest. They have the ability to have better services as a result of their hard work. Why should we expect them to also look out for other people who have (in a socio-economic sense) not earned it?

 

[isparavanje]

Zlotnick[/url]":3cuvhm3j]

isparavanje[/url]":3cuvhm3j]

Zlotnick[/url]":3cuvhm3j]

JustQuestions[/url]":3cuvhm3j]

One of those preferences is race, and Africans will get a positive adjustment.

This is a fact, plain and simple.

"Africans" have it on easy mode?

National Institutes of Health[/url]":3cuvhm3j]
Our results show that black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

That's reality.

One might argue that is a result of medical school affirmative action. The statistics for affirmative action are pretty crazy, it's not a small boost in acceptance rates.

https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/applica ... lea24.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmati ... and_whites

Edit: in fact, that was my original point a few pages back, that affirmative action at any stage of someone's life would result in increases racial discrimination later on. Statistically speaking, of course, can't account for every individual.

I don't know what medical school has to do with anything. If you read the abstract from the paper:

we conducted a field experiment in the low-wage labor market of New York City, recruiting white, black, and Latino job applicants who were matched on demographic characteristics and interpersonal skills. These applicants were given equivalent résumés and sent to apply in tandem for hundreds of entry-level jobs.

You didn't link the paper, and the Wikipedia link includes acceptance rates college wide.

 

[Zlotnick]

isparavanje[/url]":3jppml45]
You didn't link the paper, and the Wikipedia link includes acceptance rates college wide.

Here's the link (again):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/

For those not following the conversation, the link above opened my eyes about employment discrimination. I used to sincerely believe in the value of meritocracy and the fact that all my success came from it. If the data and the anecdotes in the study above don't convince you that meritocracy is a myth, then you are simply rationalizing your success or lack thereof -- like I was.

 

[fmalloy]

I'm nervous about this because my company is showing signs of age discrimination. My VP has been publicly stating in meetings that we need to hire younger people, that he wants only people under 35 to accompany him on college recruitment trips, and has been de-emphasizing publicity for service awards.

 

[Fatesrider]

vudaful[/url]":26f5m9e4]

In his complaint, Anderson says that between 2012 and 2015, Yahoo reduced its work force by more than 30 percent to fewer than 11,000 employees. That constitutes a mass-layoff, which requires 60-day notice under state and federal law, he says.

30% was cut over 3 years, but at what point is does Yahoo have to give notice to their employees? Like is there a threshold of 10% a year that they must start notifying employees?

I'm here in TX and the general consensus of "at will" is that you can be let go at any time, without a good reason. My old company cut about 500-600 people over the course of 2 years and there was no warning (of a 2200 employee company nationwide).

In California, state law mandates 60 days notice of a mass layoff (which is explicitly defined) or the greater of a days pay for each day that was not provided adequate notice.

A 30% cutback over 3 years works out to an average of 10% per year - which does meet the metric the state uses for defining mass layoffs for a company the size of Yahoo.

In this case, it's a lack of due and legal notice prior to termination over which he's alleging impropriety. The best he can hope for there is 60 days worth of pay. I believe the company also faces state fines for doing that.

As for the discrimination, the reversal of gender numbers tells me that it was obviously discriminatory hiring practices. As to his being fired, I can't say that was discrimination based on gender unless whoever replaced him was also female, or if most of those in his department who were laid off were men by ratios they had before (laying off 80% of the men and 20% of the women just to hire back 80% women and 20% men, for example, or simply firing no one but men until they had 80% women and 20% men). How that falls out isn't clear in the article, but would likely come out at trial.

 

[SaaSaFRaaS]

Maybe the reason he didn't move up the ranks in Media Org is because he couldn't get past OT level 2.

Hold it, that's a different Org.

 

[Zlotnick]

SaaSaFRaaS[/url]":2832vomv]Maybe the reason he didn't move up the ranks in Media Org is because he couldn't get past OT level 2.

Hold it, that's a different Org.

Lawsuit settled and he's hired back. Immediately transferred to SeaOrg.

 

[isparavanje]

Zlotnick[/url]":2n1seodc]

isparavanje[/url]":2n1seodc]
You didn't link the paper, and the Wikipedia link includes acceptance rates college wide.

Here's the link (again):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2915472/

For those not following the conversation, the link above opened my eyes about employment discrimination. I used to sincerely believe in the value of meritocracy and the fact that all my success came from it. If the data and the anecdotes in the study above don't convince you that meritocracy is a myth, then you are simply rationalizing your success or lack thereof -- like I was.

I don't think racism is any reason to stop believing in meritocracy. It just means you have to solve the problem at the systemic level, ie. the terrible lack of social mobility in the US, so that all kinds of people have the opportunity to work themselves into the middle class. I never said racism no longer exists, I merely believe affirmative action is counterproductive in trying to solve systemic racism.

Also, way to be condescending after forgetting to link the paper.

 

[mrstudz]

About time this article popped up. Women and minorities have had equal rights and opportunities for decades now. The current political climate is unrealistic, unfair, and about entitlement...I don't hear women whining that there aren't enough male nurses or female workers down at the landfill. Furthermore, you don't have to work at a place feels discriminates against you. Start your own company, be the CEO and hire pure feminists if you want.

Thank you ARS for being the only publication brave enough to report an unbiased, truthful article about the situation. Also interesting how Yahoo has performed with female management, and female hiring prioritization. We are seeing the effects of gender discrimination first hand, what happens when the best PERSON (male/female) doesn't get the job... the whole company suffers.

 

[SaaSaFRaaS]

Zlotnick[/url]":1bj8o6i8]

SaaSaFRaaS[/url]":1bj8o6i8]Maybe the reason he didn't move up the ranks in Media Org is because he couldn't get past OT level 2.

Hold it, that's a different Org.

Lawsuit settled and he's hired back. Immediately transferred to SeaOrg.

At least he's got job security now. A billion years!

 

[ip_what]

mrstudz[/url]":1c4l0v1w]About time this article popped up.

Rolls eyes.

Women and minorities have had equal rights and opportunities for decades now.

Weird then how women with equivalent experience still get paid less then men for doing the same work. And how minorities (or even people with minority sounding names) are less likely to get call back interviews, or offered the same starting salaries as equivalently placed white men.

wThe current political climate is unrealistic, unfair, and about entitlement...I don't hear women whining that there aren't enough male nurses or female workers down at the landfill.

Then you haven't been listening.

Furthermore, you don't have to work at a place feels discriminates against you. Start your own company, be the CEO and hire pure feminists if you want.

Wait, aren't you complaining about Yahoo! doing doing a much milder version of this?

Thank you ARS for being the only publication brave enough to report an unbiased, truthful article about the situation.

Rolls eyes, types yahoo into google news, sees 327 articles on this topic

Also interesting how Yahoo has performed with female management, and female hiring prioritization. We are seeing the effects of gender discrimination first hand, what happens when the best PERSON (male/female) doesn't get the job... the whole company suffers.

Oh yeah, Yahoo!'s biggest problem is the women. If only a man the most qualified person were in charge, this whole thing would be turned around in no time. (Googles Ross Levinsoln, Scott Thompson, Tim Morse, Jerry Yang, and Terry Semel.)

 

[0bliv!on]

Horkthane[/url]":26a041ug]I have to admit, I'm more curious in seeing the role reversal here than I am the actual outcome of the case. I want to see how the various factions of the media cover it, I can't wait to see what the arguments in court will be.

And please, please let Yahoo's argument be "Yes, we fired him because he's a male. But we didn't discriminate against him, because white males cannot be discriminated against, since discrimination is power plus privilege."

God I want to see that rationale/definition get smacked down so hard. And then the resultant crying from the people who use it.

EDIT: Just as an aside re the current conversation about affirmative action - like so many other well meaning social activism concepts, it seeks to help one group while dismissing the individuals in the other group which it'll invariably screw over.

When you preference an African-American for that college spot over another more qualified applicant, that other applicant is usually not a richer white male applicant from the upper class (that person has a guaranteed place already), that applicant that gets rejected is another poor disadvantaged person but white. Or, more realistically, poor disadvantaged and Asian.

 

[ktappe]

skicow[/url]":kf2stcb8] especially when they have past performance reviews showing that you were in the bottom 5% of employees.

It was not specifically stated in the article, but that whole bit about him applying for and being selected for the Journalism Fellowship at U of M implies he was a valued, productive employee. Otherwise they'd not have sent him there. Thus the claim that he's in the bottom 5% doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

[ars diavoli]

Stack Ranking is a red flag for bad management and a toxic work environment. Run, don't walk, away from any company that implements the practice.

 

[Kristofff]

This is happening all over.

It is the natural effect of today's corrosive 3rd wave Feminism/SJW mentality, addiction to virtue signaling, epidemic political correctness, and the very real threat of termination for having a contrary opinion to things like discriminatory hiring based on sex/skin color.

The idea that an openly discriminatory person who waged a hiring/firing campaign to shift female employment in that area of the company from 20% to 80% did so purely based on merit is laughable.

 

[nicosaurus]

Coriolanus[/url]":30z3janx]
Arguing "commonly known" is an appeal to popular belief, which means it's a bullshit argument.

Just because someone says something is "commonly known" doesn't mean it's automatically bullshit.

If I say, "I have a pet bird, and it's commonly known that most birds can fly," it doesn't mean that my pet bird can't fly...

Edit: A statement against something is not a statement for something else.

 

[JustQuestions]

Zlotnick[/url]":mo2gmiw7]

JustQuestions[/url]":mo2gmiw7]

One of those preferences is race, and Africans will get a positive adjustment.

This is a fact, plain and simple.

"Africans" have it on easy mode?

National Institutes of Health[/url]":mo2gmiw7]
Our results show that black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

That's reality.

I don't know where you got the idea that I think anybody has it "easy mode" in this shit-tastic economy.

I just don't think the solution is to grant jobs, titles, or positions to people by virtue of their race or sex. Ever.

All it does is perpetuate racism/sexism and a culture of resentment.

 

[JerryLove]

I've certainly seen gender descrimination with a preference towards women in tech.

One of my first jobs back in IT is a good example. 13 employees. The director was a woman, all 10 people who reported to her were women, the only two people who reported to people who reported to her were men.. and one of those positions kept getting laid off (they cycled through several at three-month intervals while no other positions cycled).

Circumstantial of course: but for an IT group to be 84% women, and for the only two men to be at the literal bottom of the ladder.

Worked in another IT group with about 26 employees. Mostly men. 5 women.

There was one director (woman), there were three managers (all women), and all the men (and one woman) were non-managers. Again: could be circumstantial; but knowing the people involved I doubt it.

Heck: at not-HAL I had 5 managers and only one was a man. Again: could be coincidence (and there I really don't know the hiring people involved so am reasonably willing to accept that).

It is insanity to imagine that companies or people can discriminate against women but not against me.

 

[JustQuestions]

nicosaurus[/url]":20h1xf8n]

Coriolanus[/url]":20h1xf8n]
Arguing "commonly known" is an appeal to popular belief, which means it's a bullshit argument.

Just because someone says something is "commonly known" doesn't mean it's automatically bullshit.

If I say, "I have a pet bird, and it's commonly known that most birds can fly," it doesn't mean that my pet bird can't fly...

You had better cite your source that most birds can fly.

This is an appeal to popular belief!

It's funny how pedantic people can get on Ars. If they don't like your message, they will nitpick the fuck out of it, even parts of it that are just semantics and basically irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[isparavanje]

0bliv!on[/url]":1w1plmjk]

Horkthane[/url]":1w1plmjk]I have to admit, I'm more curious in seeing the role reversal here than I am the actual outcome of the case. I want to see how the various factions of the media cover it, I can't wait to see what the arguments in court will be.

And please, please let Yahoo's argument be "Yes, we fired him because he's a male. But we didn't discriminate against him, because white males cannot be discriminated against, since discrimination is power plus privilege."

God I want to see that rationale/definition get smacked down so hard. And then the resultant crying from the people who use it.

EDIT: Just as an aside re the current conversation about affirmative action - like so many other well meaning social activism concepts, it seeks to help one group while dismissing the individuals in the other group which it'll invariably screw over.

When you preference an African-American for that college spot over another more qualified applicant, that other applicant is usually not a richer white male applicant from the upper class (that person has a guaranteed place already), that applicant that gets rejected is another poor disadvantaged person but white. Or, more realistically, poor disadvantaged and Asian.

Yeah, it's just that I can't make that argument cause I'm Asian, and people would just say I have a conflict of interest. What a wonderful world.

 

[DarthSidious]

ziegler[/url]":z4h92934]

markstewart[/url]":z4h92934]

skicow[/url]":z4h92934]

operagost[/url]":z4h92934]

skicow[/url]":z4h92934]

"Savitt has publicly expressed support for increasing the number of women in media and has intentionally hired and promoted women because of their gender, while terminating, demoting or laying off male employees because of their gender," writes Anderson's lawyer.

Good luck proving intent here -- unless you have "smoking gun" e-mails stating her goals it's all speculation on the lawyer's side.

And seriously, he believe the offer letter was stating that he not be terminated without "just reason"? What world does this guy live in? Does he not realize "at will" employment means that he can be terminated at anytime without warning.

The 20% female becoming 80% female statistic is enough evidence, considering cases like these have been decided (or settled) in favor of the plaintiff before when it's been that biased in favor of men.

Evidence of what? Because there's been a shift in gender levels it doesn't prove that she was firing males because of their gender. It's highly suspect, but not evidence. Trying to prove you were fired for something other than poor performance is not easy -- especially when they have past performance reviews showing that you were in the bottom 5% of employees.

The NY Times article has more detail and has a specific rebuttal to that:

Mr. Anderson said that in his case, he had received high ratings and a promotion before taking a leave of absence in the summer of 2014 to study at the University of Michigan on a Knight-Wallace Fellowship. Although the fellowship leave was approved by two top Yahoo executives, Kathy Savitt and Jackie Reses, who have since left the company, Mr. Anderson said that his boss’s boss, Megan Liberman, called him on Nov. 10 to inform him that he was in the bottom 5 percent of the company’s work force, all of whom were being fired.

I don't know how you can go from a high rating to a low one when absent on an approved fellowship leave...

I know how. Seen it happen. You go to a "team" or temporary project or some such, and it doesnt have metrics to measure you by, but you have to have a ranking, so it gets based on 0's for key metrics and whamo...you're in the bottom 5%. Usually this would be offset by manager discretion at review time, but stack ranking wise, you were at the bottom.
So, offsite, not producing, therefore bottom 5%..perfect setup to get rid of him.

This is why many companies are moving away from forced stack ranking. (Wish mine was one of them). As a supervisor, I had a few on the team that were under-performing, so putting them into the lower bucket was a no-brainer. Then they left the team due to a reorg. I picked up a few really high performers instead. Suddenly, my middle of the road performers were forced to be low performers; they were still hitting the marks they were always hitting, but the goalposts had moved for the new org. It really sucked to tell one of my guys: "hey, this past year you did a good job, but some people did better, so I am forced to put you further down." I refused to hide from him how these things were arrived at (which was against policy, but I didn't care, he deserved to know). I still got a decent review, but moved to an individual contributor role to get out of the political BS.

 

[JustQuestions]

isparavanje[/url]":3uiczlvf]

0bliv!on[/url]":3uiczlvf]

Horkthane[/url]":3uiczlvf]I have to admit, I'm more curious in seeing the role reversal here than I am the actual outcome of the case. I want to see how the various factions of the media cover it, I can't wait to see what the arguments in court will be.

And please, please let Yahoo's argument be "Yes, we fired him because he's a male. But we didn't discriminate against him, because white males cannot be discriminated against, since discrimination is power plus privilege."

God I want to see that rationale/definition get smacked down so hard. And then the resultant crying from the people who use it.

EDIT: Just as an aside re the current conversation about affirmative action - like so many other well meaning social activism concepts, it seeks to help one group while dismissing the individuals in the other group which it'll invariably screw over.

When you preference an African-American for that college spot over another more qualified applicant, that other applicant is usually not a richer white male applicant from the upper class (that person has a guaranteed place already), that applicant that gets rejected is another poor disadvantaged person but white. Or, more realistically, poor disadvantaged and Asian.

Yeah, it's just that I can't make that argument cause I'm Asian, and people would just say I have a conflict of interest. What a wonderful world.

Nonono, the only disadvantaged people are females and minorities.

Whites and Asians, especially male ones, are inherently advantaged.

It's not like there aren't millions of impoverished White and Asian motherfuckers out there, in drug-addled communities with shitty secondary schools and crime everywhere....

Nope. Never happens.

Cough.

Must be nice to have all that white privilege -- helps get better hookups with meth.

 

[daxomni]

lewax00[/url]":1btq9djg]

Tazer79[/url]":1btq9djg]"At will" employment doesn't mean you can fire someone for being gay...

It actually does mean that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/3 ... 76492.html

Only in some states, and as of 2014. The point being, at will still has some legal restrictions.

I'm glad to hear that you're not going to let the truth derail your feel good story about impractical remedies that are largely irrelevant for all but the most obvious cases.

 

[Zlotnick]

isparavanje[/url]":3g4ajwpu]
I don't think racism is any reason to stop believing in meritocracy. It just means you have to solve the problem at the systemic level, ie. the terrible lack of social mobility in the US, so that all kinds of people have the opportunity to work themselves into the middle class. I never said racism no longer exists, I merely believe affirmative action is counterproductive in trying to solve systemic racism.

You know how to solve social mobility without affirmative action? We're all ears.

isparavanje[/url]":3g4ajwpu]Also, way to be condescending after forgetting to link the paper.

It's linked:

National Institutes of Health[/url]":3g4ajwpu]
Our results show that black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

The orange part that says "National Institutes of Health" is a link.

 

[isparavanje]

Zlotnick[/url]":1f9tapij]

isparavanje[/url]":1f9tapij]
I don't think racism is any reason to stop believing in meritocracy. It just means you have to solve the problem at the systemic level, ie. the terrible lack of social mobility in the US, so that all kinds of people have the opportunity to work themselves into the middle class. I never said racism no longer exists, I merely believe affirmative action is counterproductive in trying to solve systemic racism.

You know how to solve social mobility without affirmative action? We're all ears.

isparavanje[/url]":1f9tapij]Also, way to be condescending after forgetting to link the paper.

It's linked:

National Institutes of Health[/url]":1f9tapij]
Our results show that black applicants were half as likely as equally qualified whites to receive a callback or job offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

The orange part that says "National Institutes of Health" is a link.

Exactly how Europe and developed Asian countries do it: centrally funded pretertiary education.

 

[Frosty Grin]

isparavanje[/url]":324vrqo0]
Exactly how Europe and developed Asian countries do it: centrally funded pretertiary education.

Education starts at home.

 

[s73v3r]

daxomni[/url]":3qrlg41x]

Tazer79[/url]":3qrlg41x]"At will" employment doesn't mean you can fire someone for being gay...

It actually does mean that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/3 ... 76492.html

ETA: I'm not advocating discrimination against gays. I'm simply pointing out that it's still perfectly legal in regressive societies such as the US. On the plus side this is only true in a majority of US states.

I don't know why you were downvoted. It's absolutely appalling, but sexual orientation is not a protected class in all of the US.

 

[Vampyre]

vudaful[/url]":14n7o0t8]

In his complaint, Anderson says that between 2012 and 2015, Yahoo reduced its work force by more than 30 percent to fewer than 11,000 employees. That constitutes a mass-layoff, which requires 60-day notice under state and federal law, he says.

30% was cut over 3 years, but at what point is does Yahoo have to give notice to their employees? Like is there a threshold of 10% a year that they must start notifying employees?

I'm here in TX and the general consensus of "at will" is that you can be let go at any time, without a good reason. My old company cut about 500-600 people over the course of 2 years and there was no warning (of a 2200 employee company nationwide).

To qualify for that you generally have to give no reason. If you give one of 'poor performance', you better be able to prove it, because otherwise it bolsters a potential discrimination case.

That said, I think this will go no where. Yahoo is a sinking ship anyway. Not likely to survive long enough to give him a payout.

 

[s73v3r]

JustQuestions[/url]":3hiapn5r]

Coriolanus[/url]":3hiapn5r]

JustQuestions[/url]":3hiapn5r]I would argue that trying to artificially "even things out" like universities and employers do is also sexist and racist.

For example, it is commonly known that African Americans have their SAT scores adjusted upward by virtue of being African American.

I'm going to have to ask for a source on that.

Google is your friend.

https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/we ... 202004.pdf

There's plenty of other sources as well.

Seriously though, use search engines. The reason I put "IT IS COMMONLY KNOWN" was to implicitly give you the tip that you can very easily find this sort of information in seconds, from reputable sources.

That does not excuse you from the burden of proof of your extremely outrageous and quite racist claim.

And your link does NOT back you up. Try again.

 

[s73v3r]

JustQuestions[/url]":1u0khh6y]

Coriolanus[/url]":1u0khh6y]

JustQuestions[/url]":1u0khh6y]

Coriolanus[/url]":1u0khh6y]

JustQuestions[/url]":1u0khh6y]I would argue that trying to artificially "even things out" like universities and employers do is also sexist and racist.

For example, it is commonly known that African Americans have their SAT scores adjusted upward by virtue of being African American.

I'm going to have to ask for a source on that.

Google is your friend.

https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/we ... 202004.pdf

There's plenty of other sources as well.

Seriously though, use search engines. The reason I put "IT IS COMMONLY KNOWN" was to implicitly give you the tip that you can very easily find this sort of information in seconds, from reputable sources.

Giving additional weight in consideration based on race is not the same as "it is commonly known that African Americans have their SAT scores adjusted upward by virtue of being African American."

That's how they do it, though. They adjust the SAT scores, and sort by top score, that's one aspect of filtering through the admissions process.

Again, this is commonly known. There are fucktons of sources on this

They of course do more detailed work and look at each candidate, read letters, etc, but the fact that they numerically adjust the weight of candidates due to race is a known fact.

If there were "fucktons of sources" on this, you'd be able to provide a credible one. As is, your claim that someone is literally adding points to an SAT score based on skin color is not legitimate, and makes you look like an asshole.

 

[shelbystripes]

Oh lord, so much misinformation about discrimination law in one place here. Where to even begin. I guess the discussion of the Bollinger cases.

The most important thing is that there were two Bollinger cases, decided on the same day. It's important to look at them together, to understand what has been legal and illegal in terms of affirmative action since 2003.

The cases are both named Bollinger because they named Bollinger, as president of U of Michigan, as the defendant. Gratz v. Bollinger involved undergraduate admissions, which ranked applicants on a numerical scale, and literally gave extra points to members of underrepresented groups. Grutter v. Bollinger involved the law school, which didn't numerically rank applicants or assign any numerical weight to characteristics like race or gender. Instead, the law school had a policy of trying to balance the characteristics of the incoming class on many factors, without any hard quotas or numbers. If they felt a candidate would add to the diversity of the incoming class, they'd add the candidate.

On the same day in 2003, the Supreme Court said in Gratz that hard quotas or numerical boosts are outright unconstitutional, and then said in Grutter that if a school is using a holistic acceptance process, which doesn't assign a particular value to race or gender, then it's not unconstitutional to merely know and consider the race or gender of the applicant among a raft of different factors that also don't have numerical value.

So, numerical boosts have been out since 2003, period. Schools rapidly moved to revamp their admissions systems to eliminate quotas or hard numbers. But also, and perhaps more importantly, the Supreme Court also held that the allowance of a race-sensitive admissions policy in Grutter only applied to higher education. They cautioned that creating diversity in higher education admissions was a unique category where the benefits of doing so outweigh the risk of creating harmful discrimination. They also implied a 25-year time limit, based on the (somewhat naive) idea that improving diversity in higher education should eliminate the need for race-sensitive admissions within a generation or two.

But the important thing for this discussion is, Grutter says it's about the uniqueness of using higher education to combat the lingering effects of discrimination and create more equal hiring opportunities. It specifically doesn't justify affirmative action in employment. The idea was that if you create more chances for minorities to get in top institutions of higher education, they'll be able to compete equally for jobs. The Supreme Court has never said that affirmative action in hiring is legal.

It's never expressly said it's illegal, either. Whether it ever will probably depends on the makeup of the court when the issue finally gets there. In the meantime, it happens, but everyone assumes that hard, numbers-based AA is illegal in any context and avoids it like the plague.

 

[shelbystripes]

JustQuestions[/url]":17buujtz]

nicosaurus[/url]":17buujtz]

Coriolanus[/url]":17buujtz]
Arguing "commonly known" is an appeal to popular belief, which means it's a bullshit argument.

Just because someone says something is "commonly known" doesn't mean it's automatically bullshit.

If I say, "I have a pet bird, and it's commonly known that most birds can fly," it doesn't mean that my pet bird can't fly...

You had better cite your source that most birds can fly.

This is an appeal to popular belief!

It's funny how pedantic people can get on Ars. If they don't like your message, they will nitpick the fuck out of it, even parts of it that are just semantics and basically irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The easiest way to avoid "pedantic" arguments is to make statements that are actually true, and provide sources that actually back your statements. Just FYI.