|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 02 2018 10:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 10:18 mozoku wrote:YouTube Hiring for Some Positions Excluded White and Asian Males, Lawsuit Says
YouTube last year stopped hiring white and Asian males for technical positions because they didn’t help the world’s largest video site achieve its goals for improving diversity, according to a civil lawsuit filed by a former employee.
The lawsuit, filed by Arne Wilberg, a white male who worked at Google for nine years, including four years as a recruiter at YouTube, alleges the division of Alphabet Inc.’s GOOGL -2.94% Google set quotas for hiring minorities. Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories, the lawsuit claims.
A Google spokeswoman said the company will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit. “We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,” she said in a statement. “At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.”
People familiar with YouTube’s and Google’s hiring practices in interviews corroborated some of the lawsuit’s allegations, including the hiring freeze of white and Asian technical employees, and YouTube’s use of quotas.
Mr. Wilberg’s lawsuit, filed in January in California’s San Mateo County Superior Court, alleges that Google discriminated against him for his sex and race, retaliated by firing him when he complained, and in the process violated antidiscrimination laws. Mr. Wilberg declined to comment through his attorney.
The lawsuit highlights the tension facing the technology industry as it tries to boost minority hiring, a stated goal of many large companies, including Google. It also threatens to ignite simmering controversy about Silicon Valley’s politics and whether its predominantly liberal ideology is affecting how companies operate.
Google in particular has found itself in the middle of the gender debate following dueling lawsuits in January, one that alleged the company discriminated against women, the other claiming discrimination against conservative white men. The latter suit was filed by plaintiff James Damore, an engineer who was fired from the company last year for distributing a memo that suggested men were better suited to certain tech jobs than women. Google has said it disagrees with the allegations in those suits.
Mr. Wilberg, 40, alleges he complained to multiple managers at YouTube about its hiring practices over the past two years, and elevated those complaints to Google managers before he was ultimately fired last November.
Employers are allowed to undertake initiatives to promote diversity hiring, employment lawyers say. But under Title VII, the federal antidiscrimination law, employers aren’t allowed to make hiring decisions based on race and gender among other protected classes. That means they can’t employ practices like hiring quotas based on race or only hiring one type of minority candidate, attorneys say. Such practices would also run afoul of California laws.
—Yoree Koh contributed to this article.
Source Pour some out for James Damore.... As a personal anecdote, I applied to YouTube during that time period as a white male for a technical position that is historically by white and Asian men and was not interviewed. During the same round of applications, I interviewed at Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix and ended up accepting an offer from one of them. Pretty funny in retrospect. From what my friends say, I hope it was Facebook. God damn it sounds amazing to work there. In contrast, Amazon seems to be far and away the worst of the big names. So few awesome perks compared to Facebook doubling your salary as a bonus and shit like that..Christ.
I have a buddy who works at Amazon and he loves it. The fact that he started out making almost double than my base at a FinTech company might be part of the reason though
|
Man complains for two years to management about hiring practices, claims that those complaint should hurt this performance reviews and lead to his firing. He did this to several managers and higher management. Shit I would do if I wanted to get fired. Two god man years.
Yeah, I’m sure it was the diversity and not him wandering well beyond his pay grade for 2 years. And I’m sure he was totally silent about it in the office too. Never voiced these concerns to other employees or implied coworkers were charity hires.
Two years. We are going to find out this guy was a low level engineer not involved in the hiring practices at all.
|
Interestingly, PwC (big accounting/ professional services firm) is being sued for ageism by two middle aged guys who insist that on-campus recruiting ruined their chances of getting jobs there.
+ Show Spoiler [ because WSJ paywall] +
Hundreds of large employers travel to college campuses each year to recruit entry-level workers, a tradition two rejected PricewaterhouseCoopers applicants argued this week hurts the chances for men and women over 40 to land those same jobs.
Attorneys for the unsuccessful candidates—men who applied to PwC dozens of times in their late 40s and early 50s—aimed to convince San Francisco District Judge Jon Tigar on Tuesday that 14,000 older workers were similarly disadvantaged by the accounting firm’s system of finding applicants at university career fairs and school-affiliated job websites, over a four-year period.
PwC disproportionately hires younger workers for its tax and assurance business units, steers more seasoned applicants into part-time and seasonal roles, and “fosters an age-conscious workplace in which youth is highly valued,” the litigants alleged.
In court, PwC argued its hiring practices are merit-based, and that campus recruiting is an efficient and effective approach used by many large employers. Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorney Emily Nicklin said the firm hires less than 5% of the 300,000 applicants who seek its U.S. positions annually.
The company’s hiring decisions have “nothing to do with age,” Ms. Nicklin said. Claims that older applicants are steered away from full-time roles are false, she added.
Professional-services firms such as PwC, Accenture PLC and McKinsey & Co. are among the largest employers of college finance and accounting majors and graduates of master’s in business administration programs.
London-based PwC is a top recruiter for M.B.A.s from elite schools such as University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. The firm ranked among the top 25 most attractive employers for M.B.A.s in part because of its culture and advancement opportunities for new hires, according to a 2017 survey by employer-branding consultancy Universum.
The case highlights a demographic clash in the job market, coinciding with technology-driven changes that affect the way Americans work—factors that will continue to pressure employers in the future, say management researchers and economists. The case could also affect the way large companies recruit top talent from business schools if the courts decide a hiring practice discriminates, even unintentionally, against older applicants.
Millennials, who were born between 1981 and 1997, recently overwhelmed the number of 35- to 50-year-olds in the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the bureau’s economists project that the number of workers over 65 will grow faster than any other age group in the coming years, as Americans delay retirement longer.
That shift has stoked subtle stereotypes about older workers’ performance and willingness to learn, which can have tangible effects on their careers, said Michael North, assistant professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
A February 2017 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that younger job applicants were more likely to receive callbacks from employers than older ones, in an experiment using fake résumés.
Federal complaints of age discrimination filed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lawsuits by workers who say they were pushed out have become more common in recent years. But cases like the one against PwC, which applies the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act to job applicants, have little legal precedent.
An engineer who was rejected by Alphabet Inc.’s Google sued the tech firm for age discrimination, which the company denies. That case is continuing, but a federal judge in January said in a related case that it is unclear whether the federal age-discrimination law applies to the hiring process.
Court documents filed ahead of Tuesday’s hearing offer a rare glimpse into the well-oiled machine of recruiting by privately held consulting and accounting firms such as PwC.
In dozens of pages of corporate policies, interviews, and emails between recruiters, the litigants paint a portrait of a company where older and younger applicants seeking jobs as associates, experienced associates and senior associates often have different fates. The firm hired about 18% of the applicants who were under 40 to its tax and assurance business, compared with 3% of candidates over that age, according to a statistical analysis of more than 100,000 candidates submitted by the plaintiffs, using PwC data.
Ms. Nicklin called the statistical analysis “fundamentally flawed.”
A PwC spokeswoman said half of the company’s full-time hires in 2018 will come from campus-recruiting efforts, and candidates with relevant work experience will make up the other half.
The judge is expected to decide whether to add the roughly 14,000 other older workers who didn’t get job offers from PwC to the case in the coming weeks.
A ruling on whether a bias for young recruits prevented those applicants from getting jobs at PwC could be years away.
My anecdotal experience is that recruitment is just a circus. PwC didn't offer me an interview when I was doing on-campus recruiting, even though I got interviews with a lot of similar if not more prestigious firms. Recruiters are people, and they're just as derpy as anyone else.
|
On March 02 2018 10:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Interestingly, PwC (big accounting/ professional services firm) is being sued for ageism by two middle aged guys who insist that on-campus recruiting ruined their chances of getting jobs there. + Show Spoiler [ because WSJ paywall] +
Hundreds of large employers travel to college campuses each year to recruit entry-level workers, a tradition two rejected PricewaterhouseCoopers applicants argued this week hurts the chances for men and women over 40 to land those same jobs.
Attorneys for the unsuccessful candidates—men who applied to PwC dozens of times in their late 40s and early 50s—aimed to convince San Francisco District Judge Jon Tigar on Tuesday that 14,000 older workers were similarly disadvantaged by the accounting firm’s system of finding applicants at university career fairs and school-affiliated job websites, over a four-year period.
PwC disproportionately hires younger workers for its tax and assurance business units, steers more seasoned applicants into part-time and seasonal roles, and “fosters an age-conscious workplace in which youth is highly valued,” the litigants alleged.
In court, PwC argued its hiring practices are merit-based, and that campus recruiting is an efficient and effective approach used by many large employers. Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorney Emily Nicklin said the firm hires less than 5% of the 300,000 applicants who seek its U.S. positions annually.
The company’s hiring decisions have “nothing to do with age,” Ms. Nicklin said. Claims that older applicants are steered away from full-time roles are false, she added.
Professional-services firms such as PwC, Accenture PLC and McKinsey & Co. are among the largest employers of college finance and accounting majors and graduates of master’s in business administration programs.
London-based PwC is a top recruiter for M.B.A.s from elite schools such as University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. The firm ranked among the top 25 most attractive employers for M.B.A.s in part because of its culture and advancement opportunities for new hires, according to a 2017 survey by employer-branding consultancy Universum.
The case highlights a demographic clash in the job market, coinciding with technology-driven changes that affect the way Americans work—factors that will continue to pressure employers in the future, say management researchers and economists. The case could also affect the way large companies recruit top talent from business schools if the courts decide a hiring practice discriminates, even unintentionally, against older applicants.
Millennials, who were born between 1981 and 1997, recently overwhelmed the number of 35- to 50-year-olds in the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the bureau’s economists project that the number of workers over 65 will grow faster than any other age group in the coming years, as Americans delay retirement longer.
That shift has stoked subtle stereotypes about older workers’ performance and willingness to learn, which can have tangible effects on their careers, said Michael North, assistant professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
A February 2017 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that younger job applicants were more likely to receive callbacks from employers than older ones, in an experiment using fake résumés.
Federal complaints of age discrimination filed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lawsuits by workers who say they were pushed out have become more common in recent years. But cases like the one against PwC, which applies the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act to job applicants, have little legal precedent.
An engineer who was rejected by Alphabet Inc.’s Google sued the tech firm for age discrimination, which the company denies. That case is continuing, but a federal judge in January said in a related case that it is unclear whether the federal age-discrimination law applies to the hiring process.
Court documents filed ahead of Tuesday’s hearing offer a rare glimpse into the well-oiled machine of recruiting by privately held consulting and accounting firms such as PwC.
In dozens of pages of corporate policies, interviews, and emails between recruiters, the litigants paint a portrait of a company where older and younger applicants seeking jobs as associates, experienced associates and senior associates often have different fates. The firm hired about 18% of the applicants who were under 40 to its tax and assurance business, compared with 3% of candidates over that age, according to a statistical analysis of more than 100,000 candidates submitted by the plaintiffs, using PwC data.
Ms. Nicklin called the statistical analysis “fundamentally flawed.”
A PwC spokeswoman said half of the company’s full-time hires in 2018 will come from campus-recruiting efforts, and candidates with relevant work experience will make up the other half.
The judge is expected to decide whether to add the roughly 14,000 other older workers who didn’t get job offers from PwC to the case in the coming weeks.
A ruling on whether a bias for young recruits prevented those applicants from getting jobs at PwC could be years away.
My anecdotal experience is that recruitment is just a circus. PwC didn't offer me an interview when I was doing on-campus recruiting, even though I got interviews with a lot of similar if not more prestigious firms. Recruiters are people, and they're just as derpy as anyone else.
I also get it. If you are hiring entry level, why would you hire someone who is 40+? Wouldn't you want someone who can grow at your company? Not someone capped off by age
|
United States24683 Posts
On March 02 2018 11:07 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 10:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Interestingly, PwC (big accounting/ professional services firm) is being sued for ageism by two middle aged guys who insist that on-campus recruiting ruined their chances of getting jobs there. + Show Spoiler [ because WSJ paywall] +
Hundreds of large employers travel to college campuses each year to recruit entry-level workers, a tradition two rejected PricewaterhouseCoopers applicants argued this week hurts the chances for men and women over 40 to land those same jobs.
Attorneys for the unsuccessful candidates—men who applied to PwC dozens of times in their late 40s and early 50s—aimed to convince San Francisco District Judge Jon Tigar on Tuesday that 14,000 older workers were similarly disadvantaged by the accounting firm’s system of finding applicants at university career fairs and school-affiliated job websites, over a four-year period.
PwC disproportionately hires younger workers for its tax and assurance business units, steers more seasoned applicants into part-time and seasonal roles, and “fosters an age-conscious workplace in which youth is highly valued,” the litigants alleged.
In court, PwC argued its hiring practices are merit-based, and that campus recruiting is an efficient and effective approach used by many large employers. Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorney Emily Nicklin said the firm hires less than 5% of the 300,000 applicants who seek its U.S. positions annually.
The company’s hiring decisions have “nothing to do with age,” Ms. Nicklin said. Claims that older applicants are steered away from full-time roles are false, she added.
Professional-services firms such as PwC, Accenture PLC and McKinsey & Co. are among the largest employers of college finance and accounting majors and graduates of master’s in business administration programs.
London-based PwC is a top recruiter for M.B.A.s from elite schools such as University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. The firm ranked among the top 25 most attractive employers for M.B.A.s in part because of its culture and advancement opportunities for new hires, according to a 2017 survey by employer-branding consultancy Universum.
The case highlights a demographic clash in the job market, coinciding with technology-driven changes that affect the way Americans work—factors that will continue to pressure employers in the future, say management researchers and economists. The case could also affect the way large companies recruit top talent from business schools if the courts decide a hiring practice discriminates, even unintentionally, against older applicants.
Millennials, who were born between 1981 and 1997, recently overwhelmed the number of 35- to 50-year-olds in the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the bureau’s economists project that the number of workers over 65 will grow faster than any other age group in the coming years, as Americans delay retirement longer.
That shift has stoked subtle stereotypes about older workers’ performance and willingness to learn, which can have tangible effects on their careers, said Michael North, assistant professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
A February 2017 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that younger job applicants were more likely to receive callbacks from employers than older ones, in an experiment using fake résumés.
Federal complaints of age discrimination filed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lawsuits by workers who say they were pushed out have become more common in recent years. But cases like the one against PwC, which applies the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act to job applicants, have little legal precedent.
An engineer who was rejected by Alphabet Inc.’s Google sued the tech firm for age discrimination, which the company denies. That case is continuing, but a federal judge in January said in a related case that it is unclear whether the federal age-discrimination law applies to the hiring process.
Court documents filed ahead of Tuesday’s hearing offer a rare glimpse into the well-oiled machine of recruiting by privately held consulting and accounting firms such as PwC.
In dozens of pages of corporate policies, interviews, and emails between recruiters, the litigants paint a portrait of a company where older and younger applicants seeking jobs as associates, experienced associates and senior associates often have different fates. The firm hired about 18% of the applicants who were under 40 to its tax and assurance business, compared with 3% of candidates over that age, according to a statistical analysis of more than 100,000 candidates submitted by the plaintiffs, using PwC data.
Ms. Nicklin called the statistical analysis “fundamentally flawed.”
A PwC spokeswoman said half of the company’s full-time hires in 2018 will come from campus-recruiting efforts, and candidates with relevant work experience will make up the other half.
The judge is expected to decide whether to add the roughly 14,000 other older workers who didn’t get job offers from PwC to the case in the coming weeks.
A ruling on whether a bias for young recruits prevented those applicants from getting jobs at PwC could be years away.
My anecdotal experience is that recruitment is just a circus. PwC didn't offer me an interview when I was doing on-campus recruiting, even though I got interviews with a lot of similar if not more prestigious firms. Recruiters are people, and they're just as derpy as anyone else. I also get it. If you are hiring entry level, why would you hire someone who is 40+? Wouldn't you want someone who can grow at your company? Not someone capped off by age
How is a 40+ year old capped off by age? Many 40 year olds don't want an entry-level position, but if one wants it why shouldn't they get a fair chance at it?
|
On March 02 2018 10:18 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +YouTube Hiring for Some Positions Excluded White and Asian Males, Lawsuit Says
YouTube last year stopped hiring white and Asian males for technical positions because they didn’t help the world’s largest video site achieve its goals for improving diversity, according to a civil lawsuit filed by a former employee.
The lawsuit, filed by Arne Wilberg, a white male who worked at Google for nine years, including four years as a recruiter at YouTube, alleges the division of Alphabet Inc.’s GOOGL -2.94% Google set quotas for hiring minorities. Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories, the lawsuit claims.
A Google spokeswoman said the company will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit. “We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,” she said in a statement. “At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.”
People familiar with YouTube’s and Google’s hiring practices in interviews corroborated some of the lawsuit’s allegations, including the hiring freeze of white and Asian technical employees, and YouTube’s use of quotas.
Mr. Wilberg’s lawsuit, filed in January in California’s San Mateo County Superior Court, alleges that Google discriminated against him for his sex and race, retaliated by firing him when he complained, and in the process violated antidiscrimination laws. Mr. Wilberg declined to comment through his attorney.
The lawsuit highlights the tension facing the technology industry as it tries to boost minority hiring, a stated goal of many large companies, including Google. It also threatens to ignite simmering controversy about Silicon Valley’s politics and whether its predominantly liberal ideology is affecting how companies operate.
Google in particular has found itself in the middle of the gender debate following dueling lawsuits in January, one that alleged the company discriminated against women, the other claiming discrimination against conservative white men. The latter suit was filed by plaintiff James Damore, an engineer who was fired from the company last year for distributing a memo that suggested men were better suited to certain tech jobs than women. Google has said it disagrees with the allegations in those suits.
Mr. Wilberg, 40, alleges he complained to multiple managers at YouTube about its hiring practices over the past two years, and elevated those complaints to Google managers before he was ultimately fired last November.
Employers are allowed to undertake initiatives to promote diversity hiring, employment lawyers say. But under Title VII, the federal antidiscrimination law, employers aren’t allowed to make hiring decisions based on race and gender among other protected classes. That means they can’t employ practices like hiring quotas based on race or only hiring one type of minority candidate, attorneys say. Such practices would also run afoul of California laws.
—Yoree Koh contributed to this article.
Source Pour some out for James Damore.... As a personal anecdote, I applied to YouTube during that time period as a white male for a technical position that is historically by white and Asian men and was not interviewed. During the same round of applications, I interviewed at Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix and ended up accepting an offer from one of them. Pretty funny in retrospect.
odds are as more data comes out this'll turn out to be like that other case.
at any rate; I see little reason to give any credence to this guy's allegations; lotsa people make allegations, and we have a passable system for checking them out. if the courts rule he's right, then i'm fine with believing it.
|
On March 02 2018 11:08 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 11:07 IyMoon wrote:On March 02 2018 10:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Interestingly, PwC (big accounting/ professional services firm) is being sued for ageism by two middle aged guys who insist that on-campus recruiting ruined their chances of getting jobs there. + Show Spoiler [ because WSJ paywall] +
Hundreds of large employers travel to college campuses each year to recruit entry-level workers, a tradition two rejected PricewaterhouseCoopers applicants argued this week hurts the chances for men and women over 40 to land those same jobs.
Attorneys for the unsuccessful candidates—men who applied to PwC dozens of times in their late 40s and early 50s—aimed to convince San Francisco District Judge Jon Tigar on Tuesday that 14,000 older workers were similarly disadvantaged by the accounting firm’s system of finding applicants at university career fairs and school-affiliated job websites, over a four-year period.
PwC disproportionately hires younger workers for its tax and assurance business units, steers more seasoned applicants into part-time and seasonal roles, and “fosters an age-conscious workplace in which youth is highly valued,” the litigants alleged.
In court, PwC argued its hiring practices are merit-based, and that campus recruiting is an efficient and effective approach used by many large employers. Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorney Emily Nicklin said the firm hires less than 5% of the 300,000 applicants who seek its U.S. positions annually.
The company’s hiring decisions have “nothing to do with age,” Ms. Nicklin said. Claims that older applicants are steered away from full-time roles are false, she added.
Professional-services firms such as PwC, Accenture PLC and McKinsey & Co. are among the largest employers of college finance and accounting majors and graduates of master’s in business administration programs.
London-based PwC is a top recruiter for M.B.A.s from elite schools such as University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. The firm ranked among the top 25 most attractive employers for M.B.A.s in part because of its culture and advancement opportunities for new hires, according to a 2017 survey by employer-branding consultancy Universum.
The case highlights a demographic clash in the job market, coinciding with technology-driven changes that affect the way Americans work—factors that will continue to pressure employers in the future, say management researchers and economists. The case could also affect the way large companies recruit top talent from business schools if the courts decide a hiring practice discriminates, even unintentionally, against older applicants.
Millennials, who were born between 1981 and 1997, recently overwhelmed the number of 35- to 50-year-olds in the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the bureau’s economists project that the number of workers over 65 will grow faster than any other age group in the coming years, as Americans delay retirement longer.
That shift has stoked subtle stereotypes about older workers’ performance and willingness to learn, which can have tangible effects on their careers, said Michael North, assistant professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
A February 2017 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that younger job applicants were more likely to receive callbacks from employers than older ones, in an experiment using fake résumés.
Federal complaints of age discrimination filed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lawsuits by workers who say they were pushed out have become more common in recent years. But cases like the one against PwC, which applies the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act to job applicants, have little legal precedent.
An engineer who was rejected by Alphabet Inc.’s Google sued the tech firm for age discrimination, which the company denies. That case is continuing, but a federal judge in January said in a related case that it is unclear whether the federal age-discrimination law applies to the hiring process.
Court documents filed ahead of Tuesday’s hearing offer a rare glimpse into the well-oiled machine of recruiting by privately held consulting and accounting firms such as PwC.
In dozens of pages of corporate policies, interviews, and emails between recruiters, the litigants paint a portrait of a company where older and younger applicants seeking jobs as associates, experienced associates and senior associates often have different fates. The firm hired about 18% of the applicants who were under 40 to its tax and assurance business, compared with 3% of candidates over that age, according to a statistical analysis of more than 100,000 candidates submitted by the plaintiffs, using PwC data.
Ms. Nicklin called the statistical analysis “fundamentally flawed.”
A PwC spokeswoman said half of the company’s full-time hires in 2018 will come from campus-recruiting efforts, and candidates with relevant work experience will make up the other half.
The judge is expected to decide whether to add the roughly 14,000 other older workers who didn’t get job offers from PwC to the case in the coming weeks.
A ruling on whether a bias for young recruits prevented those applicants from getting jobs at PwC could be years away.
My anecdotal experience is that recruitment is just a circus. PwC didn't offer me an interview when I was doing on-campus recruiting, even though I got interviews with a lot of similar if not more prestigious firms. Recruiters are people, and they're just as derpy as anyone else. I also get it. If you are hiring entry level, why would you hire someone who is 40+? Wouldn't you want someone who can grow at your company? Not someone capped off by age How is a 40+ year old capped off by age? Many 40 year olds don't want an entry-level position, but if one wants it why shouldn't they get a fair chance at it?
All I can say is from my experience my company hired a bunch of entry-level people together (About 10 of us) and grouped us together and it might have been odd if someone 40+ was just in that group instead of the range being 22-30 so I can see how a company doing that might want to avoid it in order to form a tight group (Most of us still hang out/ talk out side of work a lot)
This could also be me not having a problem with age discrimination because it doesn't hurt my 29 year old self
|
United States24683 Posts
On March 02 2018 11:11 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 11:08 micronesia wrote:On March 02 2018 11:07 IyMoon wrote:On March 02 2018 10:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Interestingly, PwC (big accounting/ professional services firm) is being sued for ageism by two middle aged guys who insist that on-campus recruiting ruined their chances of getting jobs there. + Show Spoiler [ because WSJ paywall] +
Hundreds of large employers travel to college campuses each year to recruit entry-level workers, a tradition two rejected PricewaterhouseCoopers applicants argued this week hurts the chances for men and women over 40 to land those same jobs.
Attorneys for the unsuccessful candidates—men who applied to PwC dozens of times in their late 40s and early 50s—aimed to convince San Francisco District Judge Jon Tigar on Tuesday that 14,000 older workers were similarly disadvantaged by the accounting firm’s system of finding applicants at university career fairs and school-affiliated job websites, over a four-year period.
PwC disproportionately hires younger workers for its tax and assurance business units, steers more seasoned applicants into part-time and seasonal roles, and “fosters an age-conscious workplace in which youth is highly valued,” the litigants alleged.
In court, PwC argued its hiring practices are merit-based, and that campus recruiting is an efficient and effective approach used by many large employers. Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorney Emily Nicklin said the firm hires less than 5% of the 300,000 applicants who seek its U.S. positions annually.
The company’s hiring decisions have “nothing to do with age,” Ms. Nicklin said. Claims that older applicants are steered away from full-time roles are false, she added.
Professional-services firms such as PwC, Accenture PLC and McKinsey & Co. are among the largest employers of college finance and accounting majors and graduates of master’s in business administration programs.
London-based PwC is a top recruiter for M.B.A.s from elite schools such as University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. The firm ranked among the top 25 most attractive employers for M.B.A.s in part because of its culture and advancement opportunities for new hires, according to a 2017 survey by employer-branding consultancy Universum.
The case highlights a demographic clash in the job market, coinciding with technology-driven changes that affect the way Americans work—factors that will continue to pressure employers in the future, say management researchers and economists. The case could also affect the way large companies recruit top talent from business schools if the courts decide a hiring practice discriminates, even unintentionally, against older applicants.
Millennials, who were born between 1981 and 1997, recently overwhelmed the number of 35- to 50-year-olds in the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the bureau’s economists project that the number of workers over 65 will grow faster than any other age group in the coming years, as Americans delay retirement longer.
That shift has stoked subtle stereotypes about older workers’ performance and willingness to learn, which can have tangible effects on their careers, said Michael North, assistant professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
A February 2017 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that younger job applicants were more likely to receive callbacks from employers than older ones, in an experiment using fake résumés.
Federal complaints of age discrimination filed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lawsuits by workers who say they were pushed out have become more common in recent years. But cases like the one against PwC, which applies the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act to job applicants, have little legal precedent.
An engineer who was rejected by Alphabet Inc.’s Google sued the tech firm for age discrimination, which the company denies. That case is continuing, but a federal judge in January said in a related case that it is unclear whether the federal age-discrimination law applies to the hiring process.
Court documents filed ahead of Tuesday’s hearing offer a rare glimpse into the well-oiled machine of recruiting by privately held consulting and accounting firms such as PwC.
In dozens of pages of corporate policies, interviews, and emails between recruiters, the litigants paint a portrait of a company where older and younger applicants seeking jobs as associates, experienced associates and senior associates often have different fates. The firm hired about 18% of the applicants who were under 40 to its tax and assurance business, compared with 3% of candidates over that age, according to a statistical analysis of more than 100,000 candidates submitted by the plaintiffs, using PwC data.
Ms. Nicklin called the statistical analysis “fundamentally flawed.”
A PwC spokeswoman said half of the company’s full-time hires in 2018 will come from campus-recruiting efforts, and candidates with relevant work experience will make up the other half.
The judge is expected to decide whether to add the roughly 14,000 other older workers who didn’t get job offers from PwC to the case in the coming weeks.
A ruling on whether a bias for young recruits prevented those applicants from getting jobs at PwC could be years away.
My anecdotal experience is that recruitment is just a circus. PwC didn't offer me an interview when I was doing on-campus recruiting, even though I got interviews with a lot of similar if not more prestigious firms. Recruiters are people, and they're just as derpy as anyone else. I also get it. If you are hiring entry level, why would you hire someone who is 40+? Wouldn't you want someone who can grow at your company? Not someone capped off by age How is a 40+ year old capped off by age? Many 40 year olds don't want an entry-level position, but if one wants it why shouldn't they get a fair chance at it? All I can say is from my experience my company hired a bunch of entry-level people together (About 10 of us) and grouped us together and it might have been odd if someone 40+ was just in that group instead of the range being 22-30 so I can see how a company doing that might want to avoid it in order to form a tight group (Most of us still hang out/ talk out side of work a lot) This could also be me not having a problem with age discrimination because it doesn't hurt my 29 year old self
How about they hire people who can work well together instead of hire people who are the same age and then hope that they will work well together because of their age? What you are describing actually doesn't sound that bad to me in the localized sense... if you are putting together a team for a project considerations like what you are describing make sense. But it's really not fair to older people to push them away in the more general case even though they could do just as good a job, if not better.
edit: I should clarify I'm not saying college recruiting is unilaterally bad or anything
|
On March 02 2018 11:08 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 11:07 IyMoon wrote:On March 02 2018 10:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Interestingly, PwC (big accounting/ professional services firm) is being sued for ageism by two middle aged guys who insist that on-campus recruiting ruined their chances of getting jobs there. + Show Spoiler [ because WSJ paywall] +
Hundreds of large employers travel to college campuses each year to recruit entry-level workers, a tradition two rejected PricewaterhouseCoopers applicants argued this week hurts the chances for men and women over 40 to land those same jobs.
Attorneys for the unsuccessful candidates—men who applied to PwC dozens of times in their late 40s and early 50s—aimed to convince San Francisco District Judge Jon Tigar on Tuesday that 14,000 older workers were similarly disadvantaged by the accounting firm’s system of finding applicants at university career fairs and school-affiliated job websites, over a four-year period.
PwC disproportionately hires younger workers for its tax and assurance business units, steers more seasoned applicants into part-time and seasonal roles, and “fosters an age-conscious workplace in which youth is highly valued,” the litigants alleged.
In court, PwC argued its hiring practices are merit-based, and that campus recruiting is an efficient and effective approach used by many large employers. Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorney Emily Nicklin said the firm hires less than 5% of the 300,000 applicants who seek its U.S. positions annually.
The company’s hiring decisions have “nothing to do with age,” Ms. Nicklin said. Claims that older applicants are steered away from full-time roles are false, she added.
Professional-services firms such as PwC, Accenture PLC and McKinsey & Co. are among the largest employers of college finance and accounting majors and graduates of master’s in business administration programs.
London-based PwC is a top recruiter for M.B.A.s from elite schools such as University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. The firm ranked among the top 25 most attractive employers for M.B.A.s in part because of its culture and advancement opportunities for new hires, according to a 2017 survey by employer-branding consultancy Universum.
The case highlights a demographic clash in the job market, coinciding with technology-driven changes that affect the way Americans work—factors that will continue to pressure employers in the future, say management researchers and economists. The case could also affect the way large companies recruit top talent from business schools if the courts decide a hiring practice discriminates, even unintentionally, against older applicants.
Millennials, who were born between 1981 and 1997, recently overwhelmed the number of 35- to 50-year-olds in the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the bureau’s economists project that the number of workers over 65 will grow faster than any other age group in the coming years, as Americans delay retirement longer.
That shift has stoked subtle stereotypes about older workers’ performance and willingness to learn, which can have tangible effects on their careers, said Michael North, assistant professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
A February 2017 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that younger job applicants were more likely to receive callbacks from employers than older ones, in an experiment using fake résumés.
Federal complaints of age discrimination filed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lawsuits by workers who say they were pushed out have become more common in recent years. But cases like the one against PwC, which applies the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act to job applicants, have little legal precedent.
An engineer who was rejected by Alphabet Inc.’s Google sued the tech firm for age discrimination, which the company denies. That case is continuing, but a federal judge in January said in a related case that it is unclear whether the federal age-discrimination law applies to the hiring process.
Court documents filed ahead of Tuesday’s hearing offer a rare glimpse into the well-oiled machine of recruiting by privately held consulting and accounting firms such as PwC.
In dozens of pages of corporate policies, interviews, and emails between recruiters, the litigants paint a portrait of a company where older and younger applicants seeking jobs as associates, experienced associates and senior associates often have different fates. The firm hired about 18% of the applicants who were under 40 to its tax and assurance business, compared with 3% of candidates over that age, according to a statistical analysis of more than 100,000 candidates submitted by the plaintiffs, using PwC data.
Ms. Nicklin called the statistical analysis “fundamentally flawed.”
A PwC spokeswoman said half of the company’s full-time hires in 2018 will come from campus-recruiting efforts, and candidates with relevant work experience will make up the other half.
The judge is expected to decide whether to add the roughly 14,000 other older workers who didn’t get job offers from PwC to the case in the coming weeks.
A ruling on whether a bias for young recruits prevented those applicants from getting jobs at PwC could be years away.
My anecdotal experience is that recruitment is just a circus. PwC didn't offer me an interview when I was doing on-campus recruiting, even though I got interviews with a lot of similar if not more prestigious firms. Recruiters are people, and they're just as derpy as anyone else. I also get it. If you are hiring entry level, why would you hire someone who is 40+? Wouldn't you want someone who can grow at your company? Not someone capped off by age How is a 40+ year old capped off by age? Many 40 year olds don't want an entry-level position, but if one wants it why shouldn't they get a fair chance at it?
It might be driven by self selection. If you're 40 and looking for a entry level position, the natural question is why (and does it have something to do with their capabilities)? Most people at that age have gotten a little further into their careers. There are probably exceptions to why a very capable 40-something individual would want an entry-level job, but recruiters with thousands of apps to review/ cut down to x interviews and y slots are going to use shortcuts to reduce the pile which results in them overlooking otherwise qualified candidates.
|
On March 02 2018 10:18 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +YouTube Hiring for Some Positions Excluded White and Asian Males, Lawsuit Says
YouTube last year stopped hiring white and Asian males for technical positions because they didn’t help the world’s largest video site achieve its goals for improving diversity, according to a civil lawsuit filed by a former employee.
The lawsuit, filed by Arne Wilberg, a white male who worked at Google for nine years, including four years as a recruiter at YouTube, alleges the division of Alphabet Inc.’s GOOGL -2.94% Google set quotas for hiring minorities. Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories, the lawsuit claims.
A Google spokeswoman said the company will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit. “We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,” she said in a statement. “At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.”
People familiar with YouTube’s and Google’s hiring practices in interviews corroborated some of the lawsuit’s allegations, including the hiring freeze of white and Asian technical employees, and YouTube’s use of quotas.
Mr. Wilberg’s lawsuit, filed in January in California’s San Mateo County Superior Court, alleges that Google discriminated against him for his sex and race, retaliated by firing him when he complained, and in the process violated antidiscrimination laws. Mr. Wilberg declined to comment through his attorney.
The lawsuit highlights the tension facing the technology industry as it tries to boost minority hiring, a stated goal of many large companies, including Google. It also threatens to ignite simmering controversy about Silicon Valley’s politics and whether its predominantly liberal ideology is affecting how companies operate.
Google in particular has found itself in the middle of the gender debate following dueling lawsuits in January, one that alleged the company discriminated against women, the other claiming discrimination against conservative white men. The latter suit was filed by plaintiff James Damore, an engineer who was fired from the company last year for distributing a memo that suggested men were better suited to certain tech jobs than women. Google has said it disagrees with the allegations in those suits.
Mr. Wilberg, 40, alleges he complained to multiple managers at YouTube about its hiring practices over the past two years, and elevated those complaints to Google managers before he was ultimately fired last November.
Employers are allowed to undertake initiatives to promote diversity hiring, employment lawyers say. But under Title VII, the federal antidiscrimination law, employers aren’t allowed to make hiring decisions based on race and gender among other protected classes. That means they can’t employ practices like hiring quotas based on race or only hiring one type of minority candidate, attorneys say. Such practices would also run afoul of California laws.
—Yoree Koh contributed to this article.
Source Pour some out for James Damore.... As a personal anecdote, I applied to YouTube during that time period as a white male for a technical position that is historically by white and Asian men and was not interviewed. During the same round of applications, I interviewed at Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix and ended up accepting an offer from one of them. Pretty funny in retrospect.
A toast to Damore! And a shot chaser for diversity at big tech!
|
United States24683 Posts
On March 02 2018 11:20 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 11:08 micronesia wrote:On March 02 2018 11:07 IyMoon wrote:On March 02 2018 10:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Interestingly, PwC (big accounting/ professional services firm) is being sued for ageism by two middle aged guys who insist that on-campus recruiting ruined their chances of getting jobs there. + Show Spoiler [ because WSJ paywall] +
Hundreds of large employers travel to college campuses each year to recruit entry-level workers, a tradition two rejected PricewaterhouseCoopers applicants argued this week hurts the chances for men and women over 40 to land those same jobs.
Attorneys for the unsuccessful candidates—men who applied to PwC dozens of times in their late 40s and early 50s—aimed to convince San Francisco District Judge Jon Tigar on Tuesday that 14,000 older workers were similarly disadvantaged by the accounting firm’s system of finding applicants at university career fairs and school-affiliated job websites, over a four-year period.
PwC disproportionately hires younger workers for its tax and assurance business units, steers more seasoned applicants into part-time and seasonal roles, and “fosters an age-conscious workplace in which youth is highly valued,” the litigants alleged.
In court, PwC argued its hiring practices are merit-based, and that campus recruiting is an efficient and effective approach used by many large employers. Kirkland & Ellis LLP attorney Emily Nicklin said the firm hires less than 5% of the 300,000 applicants who seek its U.S. positions annually.
The company’s hiring decisions have “nothing to do with age,” Ms. Nicklin said. Claims that older applicants are steered away from full-time roles are false, she added.
Professional-services firms such as PwC, Accenture PLC and McKinsey & Co. are among the largest employers of college finance and accounting majors and graduates of master’s in business administration programs.
London-based PwC is a top recruiter for M.B.A.s from elite schools such as University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business. The firm ranked among the top 25 most attractive employers for M.B.A.s in part because of its culture and advancement opportunities for new hires, according to a 2017 survey by employer-branding consultancy Universum.
The case highlights a demographic clash in the job market, coinciding with technology-driven changes that affect the way Americans work—factors that will continue to pressure employers in the future, say management researchers and economists. The case could also affect the way large companies recruit top talent from business schools if the courts decide a hiring practice discriminates, even unintentionally, against older applicants.
Millennials, who were born between 1981 and 1997, recently overwhelmed the number of 35- to 50-year-olds in the workforce, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, the bureau’s economists project that the number of workers over 65 will grow faster than any other age group in the coming years, as Americans delay retirement longer.
That shift has stoked subtle stereotypes about older workers’ performance and willingness to learn, which can have tangible effects on their careers, said Michael North, assistant professor of management and organizations at New York University’s Stern School of Business.
A February 2017 report by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco found that younger job applicants were more likely to receive callbacks from employers than older ones, in an experiment using fake résumés.
Federal complaints of age discrimination filed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lawsuits by workers who say they were pushed out have become more common in recent years. But cases like the one against PwC, which applies the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act to job applicants, have little legal precedent.
An engineer who was rejected by Alphabet Inc.’s Google sued the tech firm for age discrimination, which the company denies. That case is continuing, but a federal judge in January said in a related case that it is unclear whether the federal age-discrimination law applies to the hiring process.
Court documents filed ahead of Tuesday’s hearing offer a rare glimpse into the well-oiled machine of recruiting by privately held consulting and accounting firms such as PwC.
In dozens of pages of corporate policies, interviews, and emails between recruiters, the litigants paint a portrait of a company where older and younger applicants seeking jobs as associates, experienced associates and senior associates often have different fates. The firm hired about 18% of the applicants who were under 40 to its tax and assurance business, compared with 3% of candidates over that age, according to a statistical analysis of more than 100,000 candidates submitted by the plaintiffs, using PwC data.
Ms. Nicklin called the statistical analysis “fundamentally flawed.”
A PwC spokeswoman said half of the company’s full-time hires in 2018 will come from campus-recruiting efforts, and candidates with relevant work experience will make up the other half.
The judge is expected to decide whether to add the roughly 14,000 other older workers who didn’t get job offers from PwC to the case in the coming weeks.
A ruling on whether a bias for young recruits prevented those applicants from getting jobs at PwC could be years away.
My anecdotal experience is that recruitment is just a circus. PwC didn't offer me an interview when I was doing on-campus recruiting, even though I got interviews with a lot of similar if not more prestigious firms. Recruiters are people, and they're just as derpy as anyone else. I also get it. If you are hiring entry level, why would you hire someone who is 40+? Wouldn't you want someone who can grow at your company? Not someone capped off by age How is a 40+ year old capped off by age? Many 40 year olds don't want an entry-level position, but if one wants it why shouldn't they get a fair chance at it? It might be driven by self selection. If you're 40 and looking for a entry level position, the natural question is why (and does it have something to do with their capabilities)? Most people at that age have gotten a little further into their careers. There are probably exceptions to why a very capable 40-something individual would want an entry-level job, but recruiters with thousands of apps to review/ cut down to x interviews and y slots are going to use shortcuts to reduce the pile.
If the reason why a 40 year old wants to be hired along with you and your 20 something peers for an entry level position is because they spent the last 18 years of their life living in their parents' basement doing nothing but playing games, then they probably will get rejected (at least until they accomplish things otherwise...). If the reason why a 40 year old wants to be hired in that same position is because they are interested in a career change, and despite having some good experience in their former career they would be most appropriately placed into an entry-level position from a skills perspective, then it's not really fair to cut them from consideration, based on their age, just because there's a decent chance they are more like the first person than the second person.
Age by itself is just not a remotely fair way to evaluate candidates for a position except for in rare cases like where age is specifically relevant to the job (e.g., initial military assignment, airline pilot).
edit: and the same thing is true in the other direction... don't turn someone down from a senior position because they are too young... either they have the experience/skills or they don't. If they are too young, they likely won't have the experience or skills to qualify, which is okay.
|
A prominent Kremlin-linked Russian politician has methodically cultivated ties with leaders of the National Rifle Association, and documented efforts in real time over six years to leverage those connections and gain access deeper into American politics, NPR has learned.
Russian politician Alexander Torshin claimed his ties to the National Rifle Association provided him access to Donald Trump — and the opportunity to serve as a foreign election observer in the United States during the 2012 election.
Torshin is a prolific Twitter user, logging nearly 150,000 tweets, mostly in Russian, since his account was created in 2011. Previously obscured by language and by sheer volume of tweets, Torshin has written numerous times about his connections with the NRA, of which he's a known paid lifetime member. NPR has translated a selection of those posts that document Torshin's relationship to the group. On his verified Twitter account, Torshin talked about how he knew Donald Trump through the NRA, citing a connection at the 2015 convention. Responding to a tweet about comedian Larry David accusing Trump of being a racist, Torshin said he knew the businessman through the NRA, and defended him. Torshin has used his repeated trips to NRA conventions to cultivate relationships with top NRA officials. And his Twitter account documents that he has personally met with every person who has been president of the NRA since 2012.
On Twitter, Torshin portrayed these meetings as more than merely casual encounters. In 2017, he tweeted that he was bringing a gift to then-NRA President Allan Cors, and suggested he was familiar with Cors' hobbies. These relationships that he cultivated appeared to open another door. Torshin came to the United States in 2012 as an international election observer, and watched as ballots were cast during the Obama-Romney presidential contest in Tennessee. This was possible, he wrote, due to his NRA links.
www.npr.org
|
Trump advocates 'the ultimate penalty' for drug dealers during opioid summit
President Donald Trump seemed to advocate the death penalty for drug dealers on Thursday during brief comments at an opioid summit at the White House.
During his unannounced appearance in the White House East Room, the President commented on "some countries" that have much stricter punishments for drug dealers. This came after a riff on the "drug dealers and drug pushers" who Trump says are "really doing damage."
"Some countries have a very, very tough penalty. The ultimate penalty. And by the way, they have much less of a drug problem than we do. So we're going to have to be very strong on penalties," Trump said.
The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's follow-up questions about what exactly Trump meant.
The comments come after Axios reported earlier this week that the President has floated the idea to aides of enforcing a death penalty for drug dealers in the United States.
The President spent the majority of his remarks touting his administration's involvement in combating the opioid crisis, something that's been a focus of his since the campaign trail. He said Wednesday that the country needs to fight the drug epidemic with "strength and toughness." He also said that he had spoken with his embattled Attorney General Jeff Sessions about bringing lawsuits against "some of these opioid companies." https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/01/politics/donald-trump-drug-dealers-opioid/index.html?CNNPolitics=fb
|
On March 02 2018 10:18 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +YouTube Hiring for Some Positions Excluded White and Asian Males, Lawsuit Says
YouTube last year stopped hiring white and Asian males for technical positions because they didn’t help the world’s largest video site achieve its goals for improving diversity, according to a civil lawsuit filed by a former employee.
The lawsuit, filed by Arne Wilberg, a white male who worked at Google for nine years, including four years as a recruiter at YouTube, alleges the division of Alphabet Inc.’s GOOGL -2.94% Google set quotas for hiring minorities. Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories, the lawsuit claims.
A Google spokeswoman said the company will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit. “We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,” she said in a statement. “At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.”
People familiar with YouTube’s and Google’s hiring practices in interviews corroborated some of the lawsuit’s allegations, including the hiring freeze of white and Asian technical employees, and YouTube’s use of quotas.
Mr. Wilberg’s lawsuit, filed in January in California’s San Mateo County Superior Court, alleges that Google discriminated against him for his sex and race, retaliated by firing him when he complained, and in the process violated antidiscrimination laws. Mr. Wilberg declined to comment through his attorney.
The lawsuit highlights the tension facing the technology industry as it tries to boost minority hiring, a stated goal of many large companies, including Google. It also threatens to ignite simmering controversy about Silicon Valley’s politics and whether its predominantly liberal ideology is affecting how companies operate.
Google in particular has found itself in the middle of the gender debate following dueling lawsuits in January, one that alleged the company discriminated against women, the other claiming discrimination against conservative white men. The latter suit was filed by plaintiff James Damore, an engineer who was fired from the company last year for distributing a memo that suggested men were better suited to certain tech jobs than women. Google has said it disagrees with the allegations in those suits.
Mr. Wilberg, 40, alleges he complained to multiple managers at YouTube about its hiring practices over the past two years, and elevated those complaints to Google managers before he was ultimately fired last November.
Employers are allowed to undertake initiatives to promote diversity hiring, employment lawyers say. But under Title VII, the federal antidiscrimination law, employers aren’t allowed to make hiring decisions based on race and gender among other protected classes. That means they can’t employ practices like hiring quotas based on race or only hiring one type of minority candidate, attorneys say. Such practices would also run afoul of California laws.
—Yoree Koh contributed to this article.
Source Pour some out for James Damore.... As a personal anecdote, I applied to YouTube during that time period as a white male for a technical position that is historically by white and Asian men and was not interviewed. During the same round of applications, I interviewed at Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix and ended up accepting an offer from one of them. Pretty funny in retrospect.
No part of this post drips with entitlement.
|
On March 02 2018 11:41 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +A prominent Kremlin-linked Russian politician has methodically cultivated ties with leaders of the National Rifle Association, and documented efforts in real time over six years to leverage those connections and gain access deeper into American politics, NPR has learned.
Russian politician Alexander Torshin claimed his ties to the National Rifle Association provided him access to Donald Trump — and the opportunity to serve as a foreign election observer in the United States during the 2012 election.
Torshin is a prolific Twitter user, logging nearly 150,000 tweets, mostly in Russian, since his account was created in 2011. Previously obscured by language and by sheer volume of tweets, Torshin has written numerous times about his connections with the NRA, of which he's a known paid lifetime member. NPR has translated a selection of those posts that document Torshin's relationship to the group. Show nested quote +On his verified Twitter account, Torshin talked about how he knew Donald Trump through the NRA, citing a connection at the 2015 convention. Responding to a tweet about comedian Larry David accusing Trump of being a racist, Torshin said he knew the businessman through the NRA, and defended him. Show nested quote +Torshin has used his repeated trips to NRA conventions to cultivate relationships with top NRA officials. And his Twitter account documents that he has personally met with every person who has been president of the NRA since 2012.
On Twitter, Torshin portrayed these meetings as more than merely casual encounters. In 2017, he tweeted that he was bringing a gift to then-NRA President Allan Cors, and suggested he was familiar with Cors' hobbies. Show nested quote +These relationships that he cultivated appeared to open another door. Torshin came to the United States in 2012 as an international election observer, and watched as ballots were cast during the Obama-Romney presidential contest in Tennessee. This was possible, he wrote, due to his NRA links. www.npr.org
This entire article is fascinating. I read the memoir of a KGB spyhandler and all the stories of the people he got information out of and worked with sounded like this.
|
On March 02 2018 11:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2018 10:18 mozoku wrote:YouTube Hiring for Some Positions Excluded White and Asian Males, Lawsuit Says
YouTube last year stopped hiring white and Asian males for technical positions because they didn’t help the world’s largest video site achieve its goals for improving diversity, according to a civil lawsuit filed by a former employee.
The lawsuit, filed by Arne Wilberg, a white male who worked at Google for nine years, including four years as a recruiter at YouTube, alleges the division of Alphabet Inc.’s GOOGL -2.94% Google set quotas for hiring minorities. Last spring, YouTube recruiters were allegedly instructed to cancel interviews with applicants who weren’t female, black or Hispanic, and to “purge entirely” the applications of people who didn’t fit those categories, the lawsuit claims.
A Google spokeswoman said the company will vigorously defend itself in the lawsuit. “We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,” she said in a statement. “At the same time, we unapologetically try to find a diverse pool of qualified candidates for open roles, as this helps us hire the best people, improve our culture, and build better products.”
People familiar with YouTube’s and Google’s hiring practices in interviews corroborated some of the lawsuit’s allegations, including the hiring freeze of white and Asian technical employees, and YouTube’s use of quotas.
Mr. Wilberg’s lawsuit, filed in January in California’s San Mateo County Superior Court, alleges that Google discriminated against him for his sex and race, retaliated by firing him when he complained, and in the process violated antidiscrimination laws. Mr. Wilberg declined to comment through his attorney.
The lawsuit highlights the tension facing the technology industry as it tries to boost minority hiring, a stated goal of many large companies, including Google. It also threatens to ignite simmering controversy about Silicon Valley’s politics and whether its predominantly liberal ideology is affecting how companies operate.
Google in particular has found itself in the middle of the gender debate following dueling lawsuits in January, one that alleged the company discriminated against women, the other claiming discrimination against conservative white men. The latter suit was filed by plaintiff James Damore, an engineer who was fired from the company last year for distributing a memo that suggested men were better suited to certain tech jobs than women. Google has said it disagrees with the allegations in those suits.
Mr. Wilberg, 40, alleges he complained to multiple managers at YouTube about its hiring practices over the past two years, and elevated those complaints to Google managers before he was ultimately fired last November.
Employers are allowed to undertake initiatives to promote diversity hiring, employment lawyers say. But under Title VII, the federal antidiscrimination law, employers aren’t allowed to make hiring decisions based on race and gender among other protected classes. That means they can’t employ practices like hiring quotas based on race or only hiring one type of minority candidate, attorneys say. Such practices would also run afoul of California laws.
—Yoree Koh contributed to this article.
Source Pour some out for James Damore.... As a personal anecdote, I applied to YouTube during that time period as a white male for a technical position that is historically by white and Asian men and was not interviewed. During the same round of applications, I interviewed at Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix and ended up accepting an offer from one of them. Pretty funny in retrospect. No part of this post drips with entitlement.
I left one of the companies in mr name droppers list in 2007 during a "rocket ship" arc in my career there because a full 360 life of this shit had me feeling permanently nauseous. Whenever I go back to visit my much richer colleagues from that time, I feel very happy about my decision. I like them and I'm happy I met them, but I would be super unhappy in their lives.
The best part was the utter bewilderment of everyone when I told them the reason was because the level of entitlement around me made me physically ill.
|
Did nobody read the article or does nobody care that there was literally a racial and gender-based hiring freeze corroborated by multiple sources from the WSJ at one of America's most prominent employers?
Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but nobody (other than Danglars) has condemned this yet as far as I can tell.
Would you any of you agree with this quote? Perhaps you've heard of it?
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
|
On March 02 2018 12:07 mozoku wrote:
Did nobody read the article or does nobody care that there was literally a racial and gender-based hiring freeze corroborated by multiple sources from the WSJ at one of America's most prominent employers?
Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but nobody (other than Danglars) has condemned this yet as far as I can tell.
To be honest, I just think people are burned out after the google guy bull shit. This could be worse or could be another one of those and people really just don't care anymore(that is my guess)
|
Read the entire article with a grain of salt. That man totally filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination based on his belief he was fired for objecting to diversity. For two years. After several negative preformance reviews. Where he claimed he was told his beliefs about the the hiring practices were a problem. For two years.
|
On March 02 2018 12:21 Plansix wrote:
Read the entire article either a grain of salt. That man totally filed a lawsuit for wrongful termination based on his belief he was fired for objecting to diversity. For two years. After several negative preformance reviews. Where he claimed he was told his beliefs about the the hiring practices were a problem. For two years.
The point isn't the guy himself Plansix. Read the last paragraph:
But under Title VII, the federal antidiscrimination law, employers aren’t allowed to make hiring decisions based on race and gender among other protected classes. That means they can’t employ practices like hiring quotas based on race or only hiring one type of minority candidate, attorneys say. Such practices would also run afoul of California laws.
Earlier in the article:
People familiar with YouTube’s and Google’s hiring practices in interviews corroborated some of the lawsuit’s allegations, including the hiring freeze of white and Asian technical employees, and YouTube’s use of quotas.
Damore also referenced hiring quotas and diversity queues, which Google publicly denied in response. There's nothing illegal about lying in your PR statements, but it still doesn't reflect well on the company.
Google's stock dropped 3% today as well, and I haven't heard any bad news on their business proper.
Or what about, well, that whole deal about the ethics of discrimination in hiring? Do white and Asian guys just not deserve the chance to be a data scientist or software engineer at YouTube?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
