Not in the least sadly.
A black critical-facilities engineer at Facebook claims his boss repeatedly called him a "lazy n*****" and described other African-Americans at the tech giant "monkeys and chimpanzees." But the fact Robert Louis Gary wasn't promoted by that same manager despite glowing work reviews, or that someone he trained was promoted …
Shocked? Not in the least sadly.
I actually am.
Now, I call everyone a f***ing monkey when they mess up. Its a reasonable alternative to cowboy. However, there is simply no excuse for calling anyone a lazy n******.
I don't do PC nonsense and decline to engage with the diversity agenda because it's just BS. However, terms like the one above are out and out racism and I simply can't believe that someone would use them in a professional setting and that colleagues would simply allow it to happen. I wouldn't, and I would expect from my collagues that they wouldn't either.
This hinges on documentation. If it backs up the claims, Failbook will be paying a pretty penny. There is no place for the abusive behavior alleged by anyone in the workplace, especially someone in management. But Suckerberg does not understand he most obey the law or sooner or later get hammered.
Don't shoot the messenger here (me), but since he has been caught lying this last time, well, there is plenty of places on the internet that are now using the word "jew"* to describe him... before it was just the usual we say like shithead, spoiled brat, etc...
I do know he's not a good person, Zuckerberg called his own "clients" fucking morons or whatever. While not deserving of a racial slur, he does qualify for many. Racists inside, racists growing outside... I don't think he will be remembered well in history.
If it backs up the claims, Failbook will be paying a pretty penny
I'd like to believe that, but given their resources, this is almost certain to settle out of court for an undisclosed amount and with NDAs attached. While the settlement amount may be significant to Gary, it will be negligible to Facebook.
At the moment they're fighting this purely for perception reasons - they're hoping the court dismisses the suit or finds for the defense, so they can claim Gary, Luckie, etc are misrepresenting conditions and there is no widespread racism at Facebook. When that no longer looks likely, they'll settle and hush the whole thing up.
It might result in a bit of housecleaning, getting rid of egregiously, visibly racist staff like Hawkins, but that would be purely to reduce the PR liability. It's clear that Facebook HR are not interested in solving the underlying problem.
"this is almost certain to settle out of court for an undisclosed amount and with NDAs attached."
Are those NDAs even legal? As those settlements are admittances of guilt, they should be public and it might be worth another court case to have those NDAs declared null and void. It made the news here in the Netherlands a couple of months ago that several NDAs (involving hospitals and medical malpractice) were deemed illegal and contrary to public interest.
"Or Hillary or McCain or Obama or...."
Nope. Trump stands alone here - a cretinous glob of festering protoplasm sitting proudly atop a putrid (and increasingly shaky) pile of mindless morons, pathological liars, career criminals, nauseating sycophants and racist homophobes.
Putin really has done an outstanding job of setting Western democracy ablaze.
Reminds me of the Blues Brothers.
I ran outta gas.
I had a flat tyre.
I didn't have enough money for cab fare.
My tux didn't come back from the cleaners.
An old friend came in from outta town.
Someone stole my car.
There was an earthquake, a terrible flood, locusts.
It wasn't my fault!!
I swear to God!!
Not necessarily - defense lawyers in these cases are almost always paid on an hourly basis, whereas plaintiff lawyers get a percentage of any award. Thus, in general, the very best lawyers are plaintiff lawyers, and can be billionaires. However, that is much more likely if this has the potential to turn into a class action, where the awards can be huge. Otherwise, the top plaintiff lawyers are unlikely to be interested.
<quote>Is why you have to be very careful about who you hire in the first place.</quote>
Perhaps some of the downvoters might consider this:
"You would not want a convicted embezzler as your company's accountant, now would you???"
or some one who is a drug addict. (For the same reason - easy access to your bank accounts.)
Really not sure what you're trying to say here. I'd like to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you mean you shouldn't employ racists. The alternative meaning I can see sickens me.
Hmm... looked through your posting history. Either you're not particularly nice, or you do a fine job pf pretending so.
Mr Fredrick , aka cableguy , ( or Bill Gates as portrayed by "Deadringers") respectfully of course , if you are a cockpuppet like Mr Zuckerberg then employing evolved competent individuals is just going to make you look like , well , you know .......by comparison , not all that wonderful, so yes be very careful who you hire , but in the first (rightful) place , dont be a complete Cnut by employing a racist or a psychopath who offends other employees and lands you with a class action , rgds.
<and pointed out that Gary was subsequently promoted and paid the same as his white co-workers.</i>
Amongs other curious people, I wonder whether this was before or after he had complained? Not to mention that if the evidence of discrimination is good (I can't tell) then holding people back is still a pernicious form of implementing racist policies.
Note the location of the office:
North Carolina, in the heart of Dixie, aka the South; loser of the War of the Confederacy (also known as the Civil War), and a place where ownership of blacks was legal.
Although it was more than a century and a half since the South lost, that attitude (of racism) is still alive and well. It is demonstrated by bumper stickers or license plate that feature a Confederate soldier and the stars and bars, and bear the phrase: "Forget, Hell"
So the allegations made do not surprise me one bit.
Actually, the US Army referred to it as "The War of the Rebellion" in its official histories. And the true deep-dyed Confederate nostalgists speak of "The War Between the States".
But yes, I have read of Ford Madox Ford being in Nashville in the 1930s and taking a while to figure out that the Civil War people kept talking about was the American Civil War, not the Spanish.
And of course you have not met any racists above the Mason-Dixon line
Indeed. For any neuro-normal person growing up in the US, of whatever background, it's probably impossible to avoid internalizing some racist reactions. They're systemic in the culture. Many, perhaps most, people make a good-faith effort to recognize and compensate for those reactions. Many others do not, and some positively revel in them.
People of the latter sort are distributed across the country. It's not hard to find proudly-racist assholes in Alaska and Hawaii, or any of the other parts of the modern US, regardless of their participation or lack thereof in the US Civil War. The South does not have a monopoly on racism.
For that matter, the Old South doesn't even seem to be outpacing the Northeast for racism and other forms of antisocial sentiment. I know the Southern Policy Law Center is controversial in some circles, but I think most people would agree that minimizing the presence of "hate groups" in the South is not part of their core mission. But if you consult their new Hate Map, you'll note that they show at least one hate group in most states (exceptions are Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming, and New Mexico1), and they're pretty consistently distributed across the Old South, the Northeast, and the Rust Belt, particularly when you account for population density.
That said, sociologists, cultural anthropologists, and political scientists have marked some interesting differences in the predominant forms of racism in different regions in the US; but this post is too long already to get into that.
1New Mexico is a bit surprising. While the dominant "Three Cultures" ethnic mix in NM has a very long history, in US terms (Española is the second-oldest surviving European settlement in the US), and is now relatively stable, you'd think someone would still have managed to scrape together enough malcontents to form a hate group.
yeah, proving racism, or any OTHER kind of discrimination, is difficult. At best you can show "being treated unfairly" which is difficult to show as racism unless there are many others treated like that.
Maybe the bosses just didn't like THAT guy. Assuming he wasn't an irritating activist that went around with the proverbial chip on shoulder, and an attitude of "you're discriminating" at every opportunity (there ARE people like that, "quota hires" they're often jokingly referred to as), then it's unfortunate that reasonable doubt works against you.
On the other hand, I've been discriminated against also, for different reasons (and in one specific case, it was resolved when I went through proper channels). All it takes is "that one person" who wields power and does NOT like you. Or maybe it's just some jerk in the office that's easily irritated (by you) who CONSTANTLY complains to the boss, about YOU. And if that jerk happens to schmooze with the bosses all of the time... that's the kind of interoffice politics that makes me NOT want to work for large companies at any rate.
There are SO many ways to discriminate, some of them "soft". Age. Sex. Politics. Race. Lifestyle. Whatever. The good looking or even the ugly one. Someone who's perceived as fat, or skinny, or sweats too much, or eats too many onions. And there's the really smart guy who keeps saying 'no' all the time, instead of going with the flow and jumping when the boss says jump, and letting bad things happen with a shoulder shrug and "not my fault" attitude (the 'no' guy usually gets enemies, the 'shrug' guy keeps his job...). And so on.
Discrimination takes many forms, but if there's a racist/sexist/bigot/whatever in the building, there will be more than one observer, and not just at the work place. It'll be hard to prove, but still possible. Bigotry is kind of like a lifestyle. It'll show up in LOTS of places.
All I want to happen out of this is for the truth to be known.
While I find it hard to believe that you have ever rubbed anyone up the wrong way at work bob, I think you ought to draw a clearer distinction between discrimination based on protected characteristics, which is illegal, discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics which is unfair (and may be illegal if it correlates too closely with a protected characteristic) and discrimination based on relevant characteristics which is the purpose of a hiring and promotion policy in the first place.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019