
CA Supreme Court to review Brian Reid's age-discrimination case against Google - dctoedt
http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_15147417?nclick_check=1
======
mccutchen
Link doesn't work for me with the querystring parameter. Try this instead:

<http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_15147417>

------
xenophanes
Meh, making people hire (or not fire) those they don't like is evil. If I
don't want to spend my money on this guy, I shouldn't have to. If the reason I
don't want to is that I'm ageist -- well, so what? Yeah that sucks for both of
us, but making ageists spend tons of money to hire old people they don't want
to be around, or making racists spend tons of money to hire black people, or
whatever, is no solution.

~~~
reader5000
Because society is better off if your irrationality is overridden.

~~~
xenophanes
Is it? This policy:

1) hurts ageists, racists, etc (that's quite a lot of people, counting mild
cases)

2) discourages ageists from starting businesses

3) discourages ageists from hiring anyone

4) makes old people feel entitled to work at ageist businesses, when perhaps
it'd be better if they didn't expect to be able to work anywhere and put more
effort into finding a better fit

5) harms productivity and therefore the economy (via making some people
uncomfortable at their own business)

6) makes it hard to fire old, black, gay, female, etc, persons for vague but
legitimate reasons, or reasons one doesn't want to tell them

On the other hand, if an ageist doesn't hire an old guy who was best for the
job then the harm done is roughly:

1) the old guy gets the second best job available to him

2) the company gets the second best employee available to them

That's only a small inefficiency.

~~~
nir
_1) hurts ageists, racists, etc (that's quite a lot of people, counting mild
cases)

2) discourages ageists from starting businesses

3) discourages ageists from hiring anyone _

Well, they can not apply their ageist, racist views in the workplace. It's not
a basic civil right to be an ageist or racist.

 _4) makes old people feel entitled to work at ageist businesses, when perhaps
it'd be better if they didn't expect to be able to work anywhere and put more
effort into finding a better fit_

Why? The case in question will be decided (I assume) on whether the employee
was fired due to his age or productivity.

 _5) harms productivity and therefore the economy (via making some people
uncomfortable at their own business)_

Productivity is harmed when people like the guy in this story can't get a job,
too. Seems to me if you don't exclude people from certain jobs based on
irrelevant parameters, economy usually benefits.

 _6) makes it hard to fire old, black, gay, female, etc, persons for vague but
legitimate reasons, or reasons one doesn't want to tell them_

I doubt old, black, gay, female employees are particularly hard to fire, at
least in the US.

 _1) the old guy gets the second best job available to him_

These issues usually rise when it's not the rare case but the common case. So,
the old guy will not get the second best job but perhaps the twentieth best
job, or none at all. Take a look around you (assuming you work in software)
and count how many people over 50 you see.

~~~
Dove
There is not a simple answer to the conundrum, but I agree with xenophanes in
my preference: I would rather working relationships remained totally
voluntary, however stupid people's reasoning may be.

You are right that when unfair discrimination (or any stupid opinion in
general) is widespread, the result is unjust--and can even cross the line from
annoyance to injury. Small affronts can add up to oppression; death by a
thousand cuts. I wish there were a form of redress beyond making papercuts
illegal (something I'd rather not do).

The main consolation I see is that making the action illegal may not help much
except in marginal cases. If the law says one thing and society widely
believes another, the latter is going to rule what actually happens--either
through legislative change or jury selection or selective reporting or
something. I believe the only real secure refuge from widespread
discrimination is victory in the court of public opinion. One must rely on the
natural justice of the cause and prove naysayers wrong.

It is not complete protection, but I think it more just than the alternative:
making a particular _motivation_ for hiring or firing illegal. It is important
to me that economic transactions be totally voluntary for both parties. And it
is very important to me that private people be able to hold and act upon
stupid beliefs. The invasion becomes particularly evident if I turn the
situation around: Would I want to defend my actions before a court? Would I
want a lawyer examining my motivation behind hiring this plumber, quitting
that job, or buying a third car, to ensure they are not tainted by some
vestige of racism? Heaven forbid!

I don't have a great answer for it. But I think, weighing the two harms, I
would rather suffer under misguided, widespread discrimination than permit the
courts to question the beliefs and motivations that go into a private
transaction. The former is an evil that I think I am willing to consciously
accept as the price of the latter freedom.

------
_delirium
some discussion from yesterday: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1373802>

