undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthegrimmest3y ago0 comments

You're writing with the implicit assumption that private companies ought to be meritocratic above all. I don't think that's the case. I think private people and orgs ought to be free to choose whom they associate with, hire, and promote based on any criteria they can come up with. Nepotism? No problem. Height/weight/age/beauty/culture/hair colour discrimination? You bet. Then these orgs all compete and the most efficient ones win. This leads to a long conversation about the merits/efficiencies of monocultures.

Furthermore, we as a culture ought to be at least not hypocritical in our tolerance of clearly nepotistic/discriminatory hiring practices in minority-owned businesses (restaurants/trades/jewelry/etc.) but somehow intolerant of them in some sectors like tech and finance. These things are equally silly:

1. Expecting a Chinese restaurant not to exclusively hire more Chinese people

2. Expecting a tech-bro agency not to exclusively hire a more tech bros

3. Expecting a Kosher butcher not to exclusively hire more Jews

4. Expecting a WASPy finance org not to exclusively hire more WASPs

0 comments

shinjitsu3y ago

Most of these (Kosher Butcher for example) are going to be very small companies and these kinds of requirements don't usually kick in till you have a certain minimum level of employees since there is an assumption in most states that very small businesses will mostly hire (extended) family.

thegrimmestOP3y ago

So why can't small teams in large orgs also hire extended family? Given we've established a benign proclivity amongst people to do so.

skavi3y ago

I think it becomes more complex when you consider wealth concentration.

marcosdumay3y ago

Well, it's easy to not notice on the middle of all the noise. But policies that fight wealth concentration are much clearer and have many less side effects than the ones for diversity and inclusion.

They are probably more inclusive too, but that measurement is noisy.

abigail953y ago

Sure that's a nice libertarian framing of the issue. I would love to be able to hire whoever I want, with no say from anyone else, for my companies.

But that's not what the law says.

Title VII of the CRA 1964 says:

> It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1)to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2)to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

So I guess you want to repeal the law?

nullc3y ago

It isn't like the law is being enforced in any case-- as people are posting all over these threads the diversity policies are explicitly "fail(ing) or refuse(ing) to hire or to discharge any individual ... because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

So really, GP poster got their wish-- companies are just not using their ability to ignore the law the way the poster expected.

thegrimmestOP3y ago

Yes please - let people make their own decisions. Why this list but not height or hair colour or beauty or sexual orientation or any one of 1000 traits that people have little to no control over? Do you think the last 50 years of identity-driven public policy have served to unify or divide Americans?

Also "race" isn't really a "thing", so what does it mean in the context of this law?

muaytimbo3y ago

MSFT is not private, it's public. It's responsibility is to create value for the shareholders. Part of that deal is to hire the best talent.

thegrimmestOP3y ago

My reading of the original article tells me that these initiatives were interfering with this manager's ability to accomplish his team's objectives/provide value to shareholders. Indeed an assertion could be made that these initiatives run counter to fiduciary duty.

If you want to accomplish a goal, hire people you trust, given them clear objectives, and then get out of their way. Don't micromanage them with endless bureaucracy. Do you think that these policies will deter a real racist? Do you think an interview requirement or call asking "Did you consider candidate X?" accomplishes anything? Can you describe what?

Also MSFT is publicly traded not publicly owned. It's still a private company.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsthegrimmest3y ago0 comments

1. Expecting a Chinese restaurant not to exclusively hire more Chinese people

2. Expecting a tech-bro agency not to exclusively hire a more tech bros

3. Expecting a Kosher butcher not to exclusively hire more Jews

4. Expecting a WASPy finance org not to exclusively hire more WASPs

0 comments

shinjitsu3y ago

thegrimmestOP3y ago

So why can't small teams in large orgs also hire extended family? Given we've established a benign proclivity amongst people to do so.

skavi3y ago

I think it becomes more complex when you consider wealth concentration.

marcosdumay3y ago

Well, it's easy to not notice on the middle of all the noise. But policies that fight wealth concentration are much clearer and have many less side effects than the ones for diversity and inclusion.

They are probably more inclusive too, but that measurement is noisy.

abigail953y ago

Sure that's a nice libertarian framing of the issue. I would love to be able to hire whoever I want, with no say from anyone else, for my companies.

But that's not what the law says.

Title VII of the CRA 1964 says:

So I guess you want to repeal the law?

nullc3y ago

So really, GP poster got their wish-- companies are just not using their ability to ignore the law the way the poster expected.

thegrimmestOP3y ago

Also "race" isn't really a "thing", so what does it mean in the context of this law?

muaytimbo3y ago

MSFT is not private, it's public. It's responsibility is to create value for the shareholders. Part of that deal is to hire the best talent.

thegrimmestOP3y ago

Also MSFT is publicly traded not publicly owned. It's still a private company.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse