Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Really? (Score 1) 304

If a company never hires women it's pretty easy to catch them in a sting where you send two more or less identical CVs, one with a woman's name and one with a man's. If the women's is rejected and the man gets an interview it's lawsuit time.

It doesn't really work that way in the real world. You can certainly embarrass a company that way, and it makes for a good "report" to release to the media. But you're not going to be able to build a lawsuit on a "sting", since you have to show actual harm. You can't sue over a job you never intended to take. Well, you can sue over anything, but you won't win.

The only way to avoid being sued for discrimination is to stop discriminating, not to do more of it.

The system can't be perceived by managers as capricious. If hiring women exposes you to more legal risk than not hiring them, and you don't think you can mitigate that risk, you don't hire women. Or rather you hire only enough women that it's not obvious you're deliberately not hiring women.

Comment: Really? (Score 4, Insightful) 304

by tsotha (#49351123) Attached to: Win Or Lose, Discrimination Suit Is Having an Effect On Silicon Valley

People are second-guessing and questioning whether there are exclusionary practices [and] everyday subtle acts of exclusion that collectively limit women's ability to succeed or even to compete for the best opportunities. And that's an incredibly positive impact.

Are people really that stupid? Huge payouts in these sorts of lawsuits isn't going to demonstrate to companies they should spend all their time policing their "everyday subtle acts". It's going to convince them women are legally dangerous and shouldn't be hired at all. It's a hell of a lot harder to bring a suit against a company that never hires you than against one for which you're employed, and business owners know this.

Comment: Re:Only Republicans are stupid enough... (Score 1) 309

by tsotha (#49325379) Attached to: First Lawsuits Challenging FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Arrive
The debate goes beyond policy, though. The question of whether Congress gave or intended to give the bureaucracy these kinds of sweeping powers isn't an idle one. I haven't delved into the details enough to decide if I think the rules are good rules. But I have looked into it enough to know the FCC doesn't have the powers it's claiming to have. This kind of policy change needs to be enacted by the legislature.

Comment: Of course it isn't over (Score 1) 391

by tsotha (#49151627) Attached to: Verizon Posts Message In Morse Code To Mock FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling
The FCC has been shut down by the courts twice already over this kind bureaucratic overreach. Doesn't matter whether or not net neutrality is a good idea - the bureaucracy was never given the authority to impose it by Congress. This will never survive the court challenge.

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Working...