• 24 Posts
  • 2.32K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: October 25th, 2022

help-circle









  • That’s incredibly disingenuous. There are 12 suit filers in total, among which are Elena Huizar, a self described Latina woman, and Modupe Adesemoye, a self-described African American woman. Further, Howington is the primary suit filer because she was a hiring manager with the company, she isn’t some white woman crying about not getting a job. She approached a lawyer because she was told to discard the applications of non-Taiwanese individuals and American born workers applying for unionized positions. Did you even bother reading the suit?

    A multi-billion dollar corporation could commission a hundred translators and have their entire operations translated in under a month if they wanted to. That wouldn’t even register as a rounding error in their budget and expenses. They’re pissy that a discriminatory scheme they cooked up to save costs and disrupt union activity is getting exposed.



  • You mean it’s easier to exploit Visa workers, because what are they going to do? Stand up to a corporation who sponsors them staying in the US?

    The workers are more “efficient” because they are working longer hours under threat that if they don’t perform, they’ll be shipped back to Taiwan. The suit explicitly states that the company is also focusing on unionized positions in order to disrupt union activity and weaken their bargaining power.

    That’s not “working harder”, that’s exploitation. If a farm forces a slave to work 14 hour days with minimal breaks and safety protections, they’ll be more “efficient” than an 8 hour paid worker. Doesn’t make the situation good in any way.


  • 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.