Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomuchtodo | Hacker News Reader

I suppose we'll just need more government regulation (mandatory reporting of candidate interviews, hiring criteria, hiring decision justifications, etc).

View on HN

I can't tell if you're being serious, but will the costs to the taxpayer and possible unintended consequences and invariable corruption be worth it to add more layers of government to our slowly eroding free interactions? Since there are plenty of job markets outside of Silicon Valley, maybe it's good people are looking elsewhere. These markets could use the boost.

There would be no additional costs as the EEOC already exists. I guess I should have asked for clarification about the seriousness of the statement that you are responding to as I assumed the individual was being somewhat sarcastic. That aside, the fact remains such a governmental body already exists. I favor self-determination and self-regulation over governmental oversight.

Additionally, it is important to remember that while looking in distant job markets/industries is a good and viable alternative to being jobless in SV, not every aging tech applicant has the ability to relocate. Some people cannot relocate because they have aging parents they must care for or they may be divorced and unable to relocate because they have a shared parenting agreement that requires court approval to relocate. Some people are in the SV job market without any other options other than to leave the field.

I'm entirely serious.

Companies use secrecy and information asymmetry in order to take advantage of employees. I continue to find ways to rectify that.

Self-determination is a strawman.

Have an applicant file a discrimination claim based on any number of factors in hiring or an employee file a claim of discrimination based on promotions and or down-sizing and you will suddenly have the privilege of providing every metric imaginable on the applicant pool. This will include interview selection process, distribution by any number of factors, hiring justification etc. All these can and do happen currently, no addition government regulations required.

For a company that is committed to fairness and compliance w non-discrimination policies, self-determination sets the standards by which compliance w company guidelines is measured. Frequently a quality assurance process verifies compliance of their specified metrics before an offer or promotion is extended. No cause for concern when as a company you are committed to fairness and ensure such through self-assessments.

The problem, I think, is that they are hiring younger for what are economic decisions, rather than decisions based around protected status. That is, they're more likely hiring young because they can get a better deal out of it (they assume), not because of age in and of itself.

I don't want to see older tech workers out of work, but I also don't think it's a group that deserves anything more than any other group.

Please understand what I am saying, I do not think older workers want nor deserve special treatment. They simply want a chance to be considered. If an older applicant is willing to work the hours and for the offered pay, it appears they are not even being considered along with the younger applicants. At least that has been my takeaway from the many news reports on this issue.

To make a job offer based on a protected status (in short to hire a mature applicant simply because of their age) is as discriminatory as it is to exclude someone because they are an older applicant.

I spent too many years working for the government and I can assure you that is exactly what we do not need. Anyway, we already have that if someone wants to make a discrimination claim and they are called the EEOC.

I choose to think intelligent, creative individuals can find a solution to an issue such as this rather than beat each other up. Maybe I just need to take off my rose colored glasses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com