[HN Gopher] Facebook settles federal lawsuit over allegations it...
___________________________________________________________________
Facebook settles federal lawsuit over allegations it favored
foreign applicants
Author : koolba
Score : 115 points
Date : 2021-10-20 12:38 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| I actually dont think its the corporation doing this, its just
| their ranks are filled with mostly H1Bs, who want to hire other
| H1Bs from their home countries. This practice is absolutely
| rampant in tech companies. Orgs and departments commonly organize
| along racial and country of origin lines. I see this at some of
| the most well known tech companies. Yet I never hear a word
| spoken of it
| R0b0t1 wrote:
| This happens at Sprint/T-Mobile. It's gotten to the point I've
| seen people talking about how hard it is to get hired as a US
| citizen.
| triceratops wrote:
| You're essentially saying the practice of using referrals in
| hiring should be ended.
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| thats not what I'm saying at all
| stadium wrote:
| Paid referrals do get people in the door quickly, but at a
| cost of low diversity and homogenized skills and backgrounds.
| lostmsu wrote:
| I would challenge the use of word "cost" here, unless you
| have corroborating data.
| stadium wrote:
| First google result for "organizational cost of low
| diversity":
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/acce
| ntu...
| lostmsu wrote:
| I am not sure why you equate diversity with inclusion.
| It's hard to see why members of a team 100% consisting of
| folks from Laos would feel less "included" in the
| work/company life than a team of 80% folks from Laos and
| 20% from Peru.
| stadium wrote:
| It's generally accepted now that more diversity has
| multiple business benefits, from IC level up to board of
| directors. And paid referrals tend to attract similar
| demographics and backgrounds. I only have anecdotal data.
|
| I honestly didn't read the article, Google can give you
| more info/data than I can. I vaguely recall HBR has had
| some good articles on it the last couple of years.
| lostmsu wrote:
| I'll take it as no data then.
| twofornone wrote:
| That link is blatant propaganda.
|
| >number of inclusion topics, including the ability to
| fail without fear, the ability to report harassment, and
| the flexibility to work from home.
|
| Deliberately conflating "diversity and inclusion" with
| problems that have nothing to actually do with with
| gender/race.
|
| >Analysts found that companies where many employees felt
| engaged were more likely to demonstrate higher profit
| growth. Closing the gap by 50%, or making employees feel
| more included, pointed to a 33% increase in global profit
| growth for businesses.
|
| And then pulling numbers out of their asses based on a
| correlation between "employee engagement" and profit
| growth.
|
| This is what happens when politics suppress open
| discussion; research becomes one-sided and our policies
| myopically tread down a narrow path to dysfunction.
|
| The idea that skin color, gender, and/or sexuality have
| any bearing on the performance of a team is, ironically
| blatantly racist/sexist. I don't understand how people
| don't collapse under the weight of such a cognitive
| dissonance.
| twofornone wrote:
| It's the ugly side of diversity. When everyone's so busy being
| "antiracist" they turn a blind eye to racism from the
| "underprivileged". There's this mass delusion that only one
| ethnic group is capable of racism, and when they are on the
| receiving end it's deserved.
| lhorie wrote:
| So if I'm reading this right, this seems to be about PERM
| applications.
|
| For context, PERM certification is a required step in the green
| card application, where a company sponsoring a green card
| applicant must demonstrate that they posted a job ad for the
| candidate's position somewhere conspicuous for a sufficient
| amount of time and that they were not able to find a qualified
| American applicant.
|
| Where this gets iffy is that because this is part of a green card
| sponsorship, this is always an advertisement for a position that
| is already filled by the H1-B holder, who typically has already
| been at working in that capacity for at least a year, and who
| literally is only engaging in this process because they intend to
| immigrate and become a US permanent resident.
|
| There's literally zero incentive for any company to boot an
| already productive H1-B holder in favor of some random new hire
| just because of their nationality. Typically, the way this is
| justified is that the hypothetical new hire must demonstrate the
| ability to be as productive as the H1-B holder, including having
| context on the project. Otherwise, it would just cost the company
| time and money to fire the employed person and hire/onboard the
| new one for no benefit to the company whatsoever. It would indeed
| be doubly bad from a reputation perspective since then foreign
| talent would definitely avoid applying to a company that just
| boots people and leaves them out in the cold with an invalid
| residency status forcing them to move back to their home country
| in a month's window. The justification that companies can't find
| the talent in the country boils down to that: where were these so
| called qualified american candidates a year prior to the PERM
| application? IF they existed then, the company would certainly
| have preferred to hire them because H1-B/PERM/green card
| sponsorship actually costs quite a bit of money to the company.
|
| Now, I may be biased, since I'm a green card holder myself, but
| the thing with PERM is that the H1-B engagement is a mutual
| investment which started at least a year prior to PERM coming
| into the picture in the first place (it's an investment by the
| company, in terms of finding and onboarding a new person and
| getting them to be productive, as well as by the employee, who
| works to build context and become necessary to the company). Is
| it "fair" that one person ought to have the right to just come in
| after the fact and enjoy the fruits of other people's investments
| just because of their nationality, especially considering that
| this entails a losing party who for all intents and purposes was
| already a productive member of American society working towards
| acquiring permanent residency status?
| 1cvmask wrote:
| From the article:
|
| The government said Facebook intentionally created a hiring
| system in which it denied qualified U.S. workers a fair
| opportunity to learn about and apply for jobs that it instead
| sought to channel to temporary visa holders.
|
| -
|
| At the scale Facebook operates at and the number of employees
| they hire it makes a huge material advantage for them to hire
| cheaper foreigners for the same task. It is rational behavior.
| Foreigners are always cheaper for the same task at hand.
|
| The fine they paid is a fraction of their cost savings over the
| years. Many companies in Silicon Valley deliberately target
| cheaper foreigners than Americans.
|
| It is pure economics and FB has that built into their hiring
| model at scale.
|
| The only way to eliminate foreigners undercutting American
| salaries is to eliminate the foreign labor supply competition.
|
| That of course will not happen as all the big corporations
| promote all the alphabet soup of visas ranging from F1 to H1 to
| others.
|
| STEM jobs are the ones foreigners can compete in and depress the
| salaries of Americans in SV. The jobs that are not at as much
| risk are the ones that require command of the culture and
| language and the lay of the land like enterprise sales and
| marketing functions.
| laurencerowe wrote:
| > At the scale Facebook operates at and the number of employees
| they hire it makes a huge material advantage for them to hire
| cheaper foreigners for the same task. It is rational behavior.
| Foreigners are always cheaper for the same task at hand.
|
| In this case though the foreign workers are getting green cards
| that make it much easier for them to work somewhere else.
|
| > The only way to eliminate foreigners undercutting American
| salaries is to eliminate the foreign labor supply competition.
|
| Isn't this the 'lump of labor' fallacy? Immigration also
| creates demand in the countries immigrants move to. The
| evidence seems to be fairly clear that it doesn't depress wages
| on average: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-immigration-
| doesnt-red...
|
| > STEM jobs are the ones foreigners can compete in and depress
| the salaries of Americans in SV. The jobs that are not at as
| much risk are the ones that require command of the culture and
| language and the lay of the land like enterprise sales and
| marketing functions.
|
| Yet it's these same SV engineering jobs that have seen enormous
| wage increases over the past decade.
|
| I do think there is potential for restrictive immigration
| schemes to depress wages by making it hard for people on those
| schemes to change jobs. That was certainly my experience on a
| cap-exempt academic H1B where I was ineligible to transfer to a
| commercial employer as cap-subject H1B employees are allowed to
| do.
|
| The solution to that is to make sure such immigrants get green
| cards relatively quickly so they can't be exploited by
| employers.
| firstfewshells wrote:
| I think you're living in a bubble if you still believe
| foreigners working at FAANG are underpaid compared to the
| native population. You are paid as per your level.
| mataug wrote:
| > The only way to eliminate foreigners undercutting American
| salaries is to eliminate the foreign labor supply competition.
|
| The problem isn't foreign labor supply, its that the foreign
| nationals are forced to stick around at bad employers due to
| the way US immigration is tied to employment instead of
| credentials and skills.
|
| Comparing US and Canada, A foreign national in Canada who
| graduates from a STEM degree, and obtains a job, gets to apply
| for Permanent residency which is not tied to an employer.
|
| On the otherhand in the US the visa (H1B, L1, O1) are all tied
| to the employer, which means leaving a bad job is difficult to
| impossible without jeopardizing their legal status in the
| country.
|
| So FB has all incentives for hiring foreign nationals who have
| no choice but to stick around at a company that treats them
| poorly / underpays them.
|
| TL;DR the problem isn't the foreign national or the visas, its
| that the US immigration system ties visas to a single employer.
| hash872 wrote:
| >the US immigration system ties visas to a single employer
|
| While this is true for the L1 and one other (I believe J1), I
| don't understand why people believes this to be true for
| H1Bs. It's simply false- H1Bs can transfer employers, it just
| takes a couple of weeks and some paperwork, and thousands do
| it every year. I know a number of folks professionally who've
| done it without hassle, and I know a couple people in my
| personal life who've also transferred.
|
| There is a period when an employer has sponsored you for a
| Green Card that you probably can't switch, but after the EAD
| is issued you're free to transfer employers again. Basically,
| 'H1Bs are tied a single employer' is a widespread urban
| legend
|
| https://www.immi-usa.com/h1b-visa/h1b-visa-transfer/
| https://thevisaproject.com/experience/us/h1b-transfer-
| premiu...
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| H-1B visas _are_ tied to a specific employer. The fact that
| you can move between different employers who will
| individually agree to sponsor a H-1B position doesn 't
| change that fact.
|
| This is fine when you're talking about moving between large
| companies with the apparatus to do that, but it does mean
| that H-1B holders have fewer opportunities with smaller
| employers or those who simply aren't willing to go through
| the paperwork.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| > H1Bs can transfer employers, it just takes a couple of
| weeks and some paperwork
|
| My understanding is that yes, this is technically true.
| However it's not a H1B holder _telling_ the government
| "I'm taking this new job, FYI", as much as requesting that
| your transfer be approved. The risk that the transfer will
| not be, and you're stuck in limbo of returning to the
| position you just quit, does exist.
|
| For people on these statuses, any required interaction with
| USCIS can be anxiety inducing.
|
| While it may not _technically_ be tied to a single
| employer, it 's not fair to say that holders have the same
| flexibility to switch jobs as permanent residents/citizens.
| 988747 wrote:
| Yes, US immigration system is a mess. I considered
| emigrating there once, but I would never agree to the
| kind of slavery that comes with H-1B visa or similar.
| Last few years, I've been submitting my application for
| Green Card lottery, because winning it is pretty much the
| only way of emigrating that doesn't suck, despite small
| chances of being selected.
| PrinceRichard wrote:
| Why is this a problem? Why are we trying to manipulate Facebook's
| hiring practices? We may not like it, but they should be free to
| hire whomever they please.
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| I'd recommend looking into H1B laws. By law you can only give
| out H1B visas if you cannot find an American worker to do the
| job.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| This may also be a nit-picking response, but the sponsoring
| company is not the one "giving out" H1B visas. They can
| sponsor it, and request it, but visas are only issued by the
| US government.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Actually, recommend _you_ read into it at a little as you 're
| completely wrong on that point.
|
| An H-1B only requires a Labor Condition Application (LCA)
| which is basically an agreement to pay the prevailing wage
| and an assertion that there's not an ongoing labor dispute
| (strike, lockout) ongoing at the proposed location of hire.
| gimmeThaBeet wrote:
| From what I've seen is there is a clause that says some
| employers have to try to recruit U.S. workers when seeking
| H-1B employees.
|
| However, from what I understood, it only applies employers
| who have been designated H-1B dependent (something like 15%
| of their workforce is H-1B) or something like that, or were
| identified abusers of the program. And even then, there is
| a salary limit, i.e. if you are paying over $X (which I am
| assuming facebook is), even if you're workforce is a high
| enough proportion H-1B you would be dependent, you are
| still exempt.
| silexia wrote:
| How would one go about collecting money from being denied
| employment at Facebook in favor of an H1B applicant?
| sriram_sun wrote:
| The larger question is how would you collect money from any
| settlement? The same rules apply.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I'd guess you'd have to start by figuring out if the role you
| applied for went to a H1B applicant, and then hire a lawyer to
| see if a lawsuit would be viable.
| VRay wrote:
| I wonder if you could make a business out of helping
| qualified US residents apply to these fake job postings and
| suing the companies when they get turned down..
| therealbilly wrote:
| Honestly, the IT market is seriously broken. It's every person
| for themselves now. Nobody is looking out for you. Get your
| equipment, build your lab and do remote work.
| whoevercares wrote:
| Oh no the package of FB SDE offer will shrink... previously they
| are giving huge package because shortage from the fact they can't
| do PERM. Too bad we didn't catch the train
| aaomidi wrote:
| H1B program needs a 2-3 year pathway to permanent residency.
|
| Your continued life in a country shouldn't depend on a private
| company.
| chinchilla2020 wrote:
| It already is about 2-3 years
| nsenifty wrote:
| Except if you are from China, or India.
| aaomidi wrote:
| And they're the majority of H1B too.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Disregarding slowdowns due to both Trump's slashing of funding
| and COVID, for the majority of H-1B holders, it is a 2-3 year
| pathway.
|
| People think otherwise because they have a special (very
| lengthy) backlog for Indians, and to some extent Chinese. Until
| about 2018, if you were from another country, 3 years was
| longer than the average to convert H-1B to a Green Card. Lots
| of people would get it in less than 2 years.
| toast0 wrote:
| Are you sure the majority of H-1B holders aren't in that
| lengthy backlog? If this random page [1] is close to correct,
| people from India were granted half the H-1Bs, and China
| another nearly 10%, so it already started witrh a majority
| being backlogged from issuance, then as others clear the
| backlog in say 3 years and these take much longer, the holder
| demographic becomes even more of a majority of people waiting
| for the giant backlog.
|
| I'm still not really sure why there's such a strict limit on
| green cards per country of origin, when countries have such a
| wide variety of population or even area. What if India
| decided they wanted to make things easier for expatriates as
| well as increase their influence wherever number of countries
| count and break into the 28 states and 8 union territories.
|
| Suddenly, they could get a 35 more votes at the UN and a ton
| more green cards. They could all be individual countries,
| under the banner of the Indian Union which sets fiscal policy
| and manages the currency and provide for common defense.
| There's plenty of space in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 namespace
| for 36 new entities, and there's lots of good reasons to do
| it!
|
| [1] https://www.h1b.io/blog/gets-visas-many-countries/
| kfprt wrote:
| The risk there is that some states might start deciding
| that they want to do something different than what everyone
| else wants, and they'd be a country afterall.
| cplanas wrote:
| If I remember correctly, the majority of H-1B holders (around
| 2 thirds) are Indians. Adding Chinese, it gets up to 80%.
|
| PD: I just checked the numbers. I found this: https://www.usc
| is.gov/sites/default/files/document/data/h-1b.... Indians and
| Chinese make up to 90% of H-1B petitioners.
| BeetleB wrote:
| My first thought was "Wow!". But some analysis:
|
| The Indian numbers are "inflated" as their backlog is high
| (i.e. they have to petition to renew their H-1B multiple
| times) - so for example if it takes 12 years for an Indian
| to get the GC, they petitioned 4-5 times and the
| "equivalent" percentage is really about a quarter of the
| figure shown. Whereas a South Korean likely will get the GC
| without petitioning a second time, so their numbers remain
| small.
|
| Put another way, if the wait times for Indians was under 3
| years, then about 75% or more of the people listed in the
| Indian count would have gotten their GC a while ago, and
| would not be counted.
|
| When you adjust for this inflation, it's not obvious that
| India + China is > 50%. Nevertheless, I agree it is a
| significant percentage.
| fay59 wrote:
| For context, a worker on an H1-B can be in the US for a total 6
| years. Within that time frame, their employer can sponsor them
| for a green card, which allows them to stay indefinitely and keep
| the job. However, through the lens of the government, what
| actually happens in this transition is that the H1-B worker's job
| disappears and a new job appears. The H1-B employee must apply to
| this job and compete fairly with Americans for it. If they come
| out winning, they can get a green card. Otherwise, the American
| gets the job and the foreigner goes home, probably. These job
| offers have to be posted in a variety of ways endorsed by the
| government.
|
| From my read looking at other articles on the matter
| (https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/facebook-face-
| claim...), Facebook is accused of not circulating enough these
| job postings to and making it too easy for the non-American they
| already hired to keep their job. They're not creating jobs that
| entire populations except the US can see.
| huy-nguyen wrote:
| You're right. What Facebook is accused of is not putting enough
| effort into recruiting US workers to show that there's no
| qualified US worker for the Green Card "positions" that H1B
| workers have to "apply" to.
| tediousdemise wrote:
| Work visas are used as a method of coercion by US companies, and
| Facebook knows how effective employees can be when they are
| coerced.
|
| I knew of a professor with a work visa who spoke out against a
| University policy of oversizing certain classes. They revoked or
| did not renew his visa (or however the termination of an
| employer-sponsored visa works), and mid-semester he had a nervous
| breakdown, was forced to short sell his house, and was forced to
| go back to his home country.
| literallyaduck wrote:
| When can we sign up for a class action on wage depression?
| kache_ wrote:
| Of course. More exploitable
| jaywalk wrote:
| Up to $14.25 million in fines and restitution for defrauding the
| H-1B program and screwing over US citizens. Facebook won't even
| blink an eye at that amount. How about barring them from the H-1B
| program for 5 years? I think that would be a great start.
| [deleted]
| justapassenger wrote:
| FAANGs are always hiring. Any US citizen, who's qualified, can
| get a job there at any point in time.
| tapatio wrote:
| "who's qualified"
|
| I suspect the qualifications are different depending on your
| citizenship.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Why would this be? Citizens and residents get the same pay
| and benefits. If anything, employing a noncitizen is more
| work because you have to manage the whole immigration
| process.
|
| What's in it for the company?
| mint2 wrote:
| Not really, if they aren't attracting domestic talent
| when they post a job at $xyz but would have if they would
| pay $qrs, but instead of increasing their offers they go
| find an H1b that will take $xyz then it's suppressing
| wages and cheaper for the company in the long run
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| It would also be illegal.
| justapassenger wrote:
| I've been recruited by different FAANGs, and was also
| actively recruiting people at them. Your suspicions are
| wrong.
|
| Bar is the same (of course, there will some bias from
| specific people, but those are one-offs). Even more -
| hiring H1Bs is harder than hiring a citizen and it's more
| costly to the company (immigration sucks). If they could,
| they wouldn't hire H1Bs.
|
| Equation is different at sweatshops, where you don't hire
| specific people, that meet specific bars you have. They
| have no bars - they just need code/ops/qa monkeys. They
| apply for as many visas as you can, and get whoever they
| can get as a result. As long as they got enough people,
| they're happy.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| You are over simplifying a bit. Yes it may cost more to
| hire a H1B due to legal costs but only a small amount
| more at companies of this size. They have teams of people
| who handle that.
|
| H1B workers are often paid less that citizens. In the
| long run it is probably cheaper to hire H1B workers even
| after the legal costs.
| justapassenger wrote:
| > H1B workers are often paid less that citizens
|
| At sweatshops. Not at FAANGs.
| mc32 wrote:
| They should revoke the right of any employer who egregiously
| violates the program like this. Then have them build programs
| to get under served communities (urban and rural) to get up to
| speed; grade them on effectiveness and fine them if
| ineffective.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| Well, you're assuming that they actually want the law
| enforced in this case and aren't just lightly slapping wrists
| for appearance's sake.
| newfonewhodis wrote:
| That would be more punitive to prospective employees and
| students than to Facebook itself.
| SteveGerencser wrote:
| Agreed. If the NCAA catches you buying dinner for a college
| athlete you can lose a number of scholarships for several
| years. Why wouldn't these violation of H1Bs come along with a
| fine and a loss of H1B access for x number of years? That would
| go a long way toward solving the problem.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| Say what you will about the NCAA but they do a good job
| ensuring a level playing field for all college athletes
| (despite being Nazis while doing it).
|
| It's no fun hearing about poor athletes struggling to eat at
| college but, at the very least, the Manziels and the Gurleys
| of the US are held to an identical standard and that counts
| for something.
| short12 wrote:
| The scandals say otherwise. They are absolutely terrible at
| it.
|
| The only efficiency they excel at is screwing over the
| players
| 8note wrote:
| That sounds like the player, who _should_ be paid millions
| for plying gets punished for receiving the dinner, rather
| than the school.
|
| The equivalent would be banning the H1b holder from the US.
| The NCAA is the model to follow if you want to make something
| more exploitative, not less
| murbard2 wrote:
| If they actually had a case against Facebook and Facebook had
| caused actual harm the amount would be much higher.
| jaywalk wrote:
| It's already the largest amount ever recovered in a case of
| this nature. The fact is simply that, just like in so many
| other cases, the penalties are so low that it's just a cost
| of doing business for these large corporations.
| nsenifty wrote:
| Facebook probably only settled it instead of choosing to
| fight because it is barred from filling green cards while the
| case is still in progress, hurting its employees and its
| ability to hire.
|
| Any company that has successfully filed an employment green
| card (especially at that scale) is favoring immigrants over
| citizens by definition. The EB green card rules are highly
| outdated and a reform is long overdue.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Yeah I know at least a half dozen folks who didnt join
| facebook or seriously thought about passing on facebook
| this year due to the greencard processing issues.
| Recruiters told them, "Zuck says it will be figured out by
| the end of the year" and I guess he was right.
| throwfaangus wrote:
| Facebook "refused to recruit, consider, or hire qualified and
| available U.S. workers for over 2,600 positions."
| fsociety wrote:
| The lawsuit was really about FB converting H1B workers, of
| whom they already hired, into permanent US workers. They
| post a PERM position and then have to apply the H1B worker
| to it due to outdated immigration laws.
|
| They argued that a company should not be able to do that if
| they can hire a minimally qualified US candidate, AKA
| someone who checks the job requirements.
| 1234letshaveatw wrote:
| I love that suggestion, it would be impactful and resonate more
| with other employers than some arbitrary financial figure
| FpUser wrote:
| Should actual private person defraud on this scale it is jail
| time. But of course directors of big corporations are "more
| equal" than the rest. And the amount of fine is laughable.
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| No, this is not about H-1B visas. If you read the article
| carefully you'll see this is about employment-based immigrant
| visas - i.e. green cards.
| giobox wrote:
| A green card is _not_ an employment based immigrant visa or
| even a visa at all - the H-1B is. A green card holder has
| permanent residency and can apply for largely any job a US
| citizen can. Further they are not required to leave the
| country on becoming unemployed.
|
| The immigrant visa is usually a stepping stone to permanent
| residency via a green card though, and this lawsuit is
| absolutely related to that process - when applying for
| permanent residency (green card) on an H-1B, the employer
| must supposedly prove they couldn't hire an American to do
| same job. This is usually called the "PERM process".
|
| There has always been a gray area as to what that standard
| means, I've seen different companies interpret it very
| differently. When we talk about employment based immigrant
| visas and Facebook, it is overwhelmingly the H-1B (the data
| on visas issued is public).
| papito wrote:
| This is an insult to all the slaps on the wrist around the world.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| The fine is like 8 E7 salaries. Insane how little money that is
| for facebook. The much greater impact would have been delaying
| greencard processing for longer. They probably laughed when they
| found out that is all the fine would be.
| schnable wrote:
| I am supportive of visas for highly skilled workers and
| immigration in general. However I see many H1-Bs being hired that
| are frankly overqualified for the work they are end up doing
| (especially stuff like exploratory QA or entry level operations
| tasks). I'm not sure we need to import people to do this work.
|
| I think the tech industry in the US should be looking at American
| non-college graduates to do this kind of work, especially people
| from families without a history of college degrees. This would be
| easier than teaching people how to code and it would be a great
| foot in the door to the tech industry and a solid middle class
| career, even if they never become coders.
| pc86 wrote:
| I'm not sure it's a good idea to take someone's family history
| into account when determining whether or not they're qualified
| to do a certain job. Why should the fact that someone's
| grandfather went to college hurt them in getting one of these
| jobs for "people from families without a history of college
| degrees"?
|
| Even if you think this is good for purposes of equity or
| whatever, how far back do you go? My maternal grandfather was
| an attorney but neither of my parents went to college. Which
| group do I fit into?
| tediousdemise wrote:
| This is why most attempts to wrong historical injustices
| (umbrella term "reparations") are morally questionable.
|
| Frankly, I think they are very bad, since they cannot be
| applied fairly and end up leading to more resentment and
| tension among social groups.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| schnable wrote:
| I wasn't proposing making it a standard for qualification.
| More like changing job requirements to be attainable to a
| broader swath of workers and recruiting in areas that we
| wouldn't normally, like inner city high school grads.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > especially people from families without a history of college
| degrees.
|
| No adult should ever be judged by the "sins of their fathers"
| in any capacity. Family history should only be a consideration
| when it's medical history.
| romwell wrote:
| That's one way to twist "lifting people out of generational
| poverty", but OK.
|
| Fine. Let's just give preference to people who didn't have
| the privilege of having a college-educated adult as their
| legal guardian or personal responsible for their upbringing.
|
| Does it make it better for you?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-20 23:02 UTC)