This thread is permanently archived
Google hires his emploees based on their race
| it's called affirmative action is is practised in much of USA
| >american culture
school shootings and affirmative action
| https://i.imgur.com/X1xXuvQ.jpg
| >>170310 fuck you kevin robinson from school stop showing everyone my deviantart you peace of shit.
| As bad as it sounds, it is a private company. They decide the terms for hire no matter what. You do not like it? Do not go there.
Oh you want the govt/state to intervene? It is capitalism here baby.
| If the law don't prohibit it, it's Okay, either way, it's racist as fuck from Google
| A private company can't above state law and that law prohibits hiring discrimination based on race, sex or skin color.
| When a private company generates a big chunk of state income and the state uses its services and technology in ways that if it didnt it would seriously disable its efficiency, yes it can.
And you call it discrimination. Google can show you 100s of reasons, documents and logic how you it is selection based on what kind of needs it has. And then sue you for slander.
| I used to look toward the future. Now I cower from it in fear.
| >>170274
Well if you really believe reality is like that, then you're probably a really twisted right-winged shithead. I mean an anticapitalist with macbook having a job at google? Just Lol. Usually the first type of guy works at google, plus the most important/powerful of them know more about marketing and law (especcialy tax prevention and patenting stolen and public ideas) then about programming (Their preffered programming language is PowerPoint).
| >they are private company so they can be racist
You people are either stupid or hypocritical. If some company was prohibiting blacks or muslims, people would be much more upset.
| >>174025
It should be just the same though. In a private company the owners can hire whom they like for whatever reasons they can invent. Noone has the right to argue on selection criteria. Because private company. One might want all employees blonde. Or all chinese. Or all women. Or all not less than 1.75m tall. Or all green eyed. Or all with one arm.
All kinds of reasoning toward discrimination are fluff. If a bar only hires female waitress you "dont* have the right to ask why.
| >>174299
>Noone has the right to argue on selection criteria.
In my country there is a constitution which forbids discrimination on some ctiteria.
>you "dont* have the right to ask why.
The constitution is also about „freedom of speech“
I see it as a problem, when companys act as if they stand over the constitution. Because if they give a fuck about it, I could do it too and the result is the same: I would question or oppose their decisions that are often of common interest.
| >>174618 The constitution is a public document regulating interactions between members of a society. Selection criteria for a workplace in a private company is much simpler: I have a job offering in *my* private company and *I* get to chose the most appropriate one among competing candidates. For one, I want all my employes to be beautiful. I dont see why you have a problem with that.
Of course you have freedom of speech. It is the same as the freedom ignore questions as well.
| "Gee I sure am glad Google only hires white employees."
Imagine that was real, imagine the minority riots in the streets if that was real.
| >>174770
Yep. It is in moments like this when one becomes aware of the hypocrisy blended into common rationaly appearing beliefs.
| >>174760
So an employer and employee are no members of society that interact which each other?
>For one, I want all my employes to be beautiful. I dont see why you have a problem with that.
Because without regulation this criteria can be missused eg. for racist or homophobe policy which is against the constitution. I just don't understand why you don't get this. It's pretty simple: Constitution goes over company policy. No law-free room for the sake of free entrepreneurship!
| There's a subreddit called /r/degoogle that's good in case any of you are interested.
| >>176260
It is a private agreement. The employer and employee are not each trying to prove they are right to resort to a constitution like regulation as a mediator. They already have it and it is the contract. The employer has laied out the requirements which the employee accepts and fulfils, or does not.
Racist and homophobe. Well, you see, just like it can be abused, it can also be counter abused by crying foul for everything the 'abused' does not like. I have seen it.
1/2
| 2/2
Like I said I am playing devil advocate as I like to analyse things logicaly regardless of position.
Returning to discussion, it is not the constituition's bussiness to decide whom do you hire in your private company. Or why, it could also interfere with 'you should date or marry someone of different ethnicity, otherwise racism'. I understand that those who remain unemploied do not like it, noone does. Private institutions will always be in conflict with public interest.
| Reply to this if you wanna kill some nigs
| >>"Google hires his employees based on their race"
>>"In other news, water is wet"
| https://goo.gl/images/GndYQy
This thread is permanently archived
| >In April of 2017, Google’s Technology Staffing Management team was instructed by Alogna to immediately cancel all Level 3 (0-5 years experience) software engineering interviews with every single applicant who was not either female, Black, or Hispanic and to purge entirely any applications by non-diverse employees from the hiring pipeline.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/03/ex-google-recruiter-i-was-fired-because-i-resisted-illegal-diversity-efforts/