The main issue is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, which includes only hiring one race. Imagine the logic if a company said that they only want white employees because there would be less of a culture gap. I assume your reaction would not be positive. That’s a core reason why that law was passed.
The US isn’t making inefficient requests. Those are the laws that every company has to deal with. Unless the company’s lawyers were born yesterday, they are also very well aware of this.
No one changed the deal. This has been the law for almost 70 years. Basic research would have told you everything I’m saying. Stop making excuses for a capitalist corporation.
Could be fairly straightforward to have this situation without discriminating on the basis of race. E.g. by setting the expected qualifications and experience a certain way.
How many yanks will be proficient in mandarin, with experience in chip manufacturing, and a desire to live within commuting distance of the factory. And of those, how many stick it out for the long term?
The end result is the same but the Act of 1964 might be satisfied. I don’t know much about US law, tbh, but that’s how employers have got away with racism the other way round in my country.
I doubt it. There’s a reason why employers have American employees fill out the Department of Labour self-identification survey during the hiring process. If the government sees that nine Asian, six white, three black, and two Hispanic individuals apply for a position, and the company chooses to only hire eight of the Asian applicants, that would definitely raise red flags. Especially when the racial demographics of the company disproportionately represent Asian individuals. Its pretty easy to see what the company is doing in that case.
Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not discrimination to hire on the basis of race if it affects the persons performance with the job. For example that’s why movie studios aren’t hit with discrimination lawsuits for rejecting black individuals when casting for Abraham Lincoln. But there is no way that a court would accept that a technician or engineer position is in any way affected by a person’s race.
Further, there is no legal argument that an engineer knowing mandarin in any way effects their performance, when a company worth billions of dollars avoid English translations of documents for their US based plants, with the sole intention to creating a discriminatory barrier.
The company has no plausible deniability here, and any court would see right through it. White owned businesses tried many of the same tactics with black individuals, and precedents have been set because of that.
The main issue is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It’s illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, which includes only hiring one race. Imagine the logic if a company said that they only want white employees because there would be less of a culture gap. I assume your reaction would not be positive. That’s a core reason why that law was passed.
The US isn’t making inefficient requests. Those are the laws that every company has to deal with. Unless the company’s lawyers were born yesterday, they are also very well aware of this.
No one changed the deal. This has been the law for almost 70 years. Basic research would have told you everything I’m saying. Stop making excuses for a capitalist corporation.
Could be fairly straightforward to have this situation without discriminating on the basis of race. E.g. by setting the expected qualifications and experience a certain way.
How many yanks will be proficient in mandarin, with experience in chip manufacturing, and a desire to live within commuting distance of the factory. And of those, how many stick it out for the long term?
The end result is the same but the Act of 1964 might be satisfied. I don’t know much about US law, tbh, but that’s how employers have got away with racism the other way round in my country.
I doubt it. There’s a reason why employers have American employees fill out the Department of Labour self-identification survey during the hiring process. If the government sees that nine Asian, six white, three black, and two Hispanic individuals apply for a position, and the company chooses to only hire eight of the Asian applicants, that would definitely raise red flags. Especially when the racial demographics of the company disproportionately represent Asian individuals. Its pretty easy to see what the company is doing in that case.
Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not discrimination to hire on the basis of race if it affects the persons performance with the job. For example that’s why movie studios aren’t hit with discrimination lawsuits for rejecting black individuals when casting for Abraham Lincoln. But there is no way that a court would accept that a technician or engineer position is in any way affected by a person’s race.
Further, there is no legal argument that an engineer knowing mandarin in any way effects their performance, when a company worth billions of dollars avoid English translations of documents for their US based plants, with the sole intention to creating a discriminatory barrier.
The company has no plausible deniability here, and any court would see right through it. White owned businesses tried many of the same tactics with black individuals, and precedents have been set because of that.
Makes sense. I’ve also seen your reply about the actual suit, which seems to support this position, too.
Happy to help : )
It’s also nice that I can finally use my specialty of labour law here.