> Discussing an alternate universe in which America is a theocracy seems a bit off-topic for this particular thread.
> Are you suggesting that the submitted article, to which this discussion thread is attached, is a figment of our imagination? That Google actually is not facing a class-action lawsuit made possible through age-discrimination laws?
I will try to clear up your confusion -- you are taking everything very literally. There have been many private discrimination lawsuits, and in my opinion, all of the legitimate ones were tied in with something other than discrimination (especially harrassment). There is almost never any hard proof of discrimination of the nature that is the focus of the lawsuit, even the ones that win, and I think it's too arbitrary a thing to try to control. Feel free to list examples to the contrary, where the defendant stated "I did not hire Mr/Mrs. Smith because he/she is X." It also raises questions of freedom of association in the private space.
Serious question: do you believe that all/most defendants who are convicted of murder have confessed to murder, or committed the murder in full view of a judge? Are you unaware that many convictions, criminal and civil, are built on cases that do not require confessions nor motive?
Fortunately for plaintiffs, "hard proof" can come in a variety of ways other than the defendant writing out "Let's break the law"
I didn't see any proof in your linked article, but it succinctly describes what we already know:
"The law requires employers to base employment decisions upon each person’s strengths and talents instead of relying upon generalized assumptions calculated around an employee’s age"
Also, this is a case of dismissal, which is more often tied to something tangible like a pension, vesting shares, etc., and can therefore be addressed as a contractual breach of faith instead of needing a new legal class to describe. I have mostly been focused on hiring but it applies here, too.
Serious answer: the difference is that the crime is what the employer was thinking while making the employment decision, where the action is only a crime contingent on the 'thought crime.'
Do you not see the difference between prosecuting an action and a thought? Sure, there are modifications like "premeditation" and "involuntary" but the core crime is an action, not the thought itself. Even with "conspiracy to commit" laws, the conspiracy refers to an action which is unequivocally a crime.
In the case of discrimination, it is the goal of the trial to determine whether the action was a crime based on what the "perpetrator" was thinking. Do you not see how that is in its own league? It's almost Orwellian, if not for the good intentions.
> Do you not see the difference between prosecuting an action and a thought?...Even with "conspiracy to commit" laws, the conspiracy refers to an action which is unequivocally a crime.
Again, it is a crime to discriminate on the basis of age. If you ignore that premise, then this discussion becomes pretty abstract. You could make the case that companies would (and have, in the past) save a lot of money by employing child labor.
I agree that prosecuting based on what someone is "thinking" could lead down the slippery slope of Orwellian dystopia. Which is why these prosecutions are not based on thoughts, but on actions. If I were a restaurant owner, I have the right to use Confederate flags and Nazi memorabilia as decor. But as soon as I refuse to serve Jewish and black people -- even if I think such persons aren't a great return on investment because I perceive them to order/tip less than other customers -- I am in violation of federal law.
You have hit the nail right on the head -- this is indeed meant to be an abstract discussion. I am discussing what ought to be and why, not debating which laws exist, which would not be very interesting. Apologies if that was not clear.
But I'm glad we can agree on how dangerous these discrimination laws are. Although I'm not sure if you are applying the logic consistently:
> Which is why these prosecutions are not based on thoughts, but on actions.
These actions are not inherently illegal, not crimes, not aggressions. No one is entitled to your service. However, in our current legal system, unfortunately that is not always the case. Your action could all of a sudden become a crime if a jury suspects your thoughts went a certain way in carrying out the action. That's a thought crime.
Well, I did say early on that such hypothetical discussions would feel off-topic in response to an article about an actual class-action lawsuit based on current law. Not off-topic as in verboten, but in the sense that such un-scoped discussions would probably be meandering and pointless.
I don't think too many commenters would have a hard time agreeing that younger employees would help many companies bottom-line; it's not like child labor came to be because people hated children. What is there more to discuss? You act as if discussing within the "limited" scope of current law is somehow anti-intellectual. But isn't it a bit anti-intellectual and ignorant on your part to think that anti-discriminatory laws came out of thin air, or happy feelings? The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 [0] Admittedly, this law was enacted with a Democratic president and Congress, though a Republican-led Supreme Court affirmed the law and sided with employees in a major 2008 case [1]. At the nation/state-level, these laws impose constraints, but ostensibly they do it for the benefit to the overall national and state health.
Google and other companies operate within the U.S. and California jurisdiction. This means they have to follow federal and state law. But it's not all about just following the laws, companies enjoy the benefits and services that come from being within the U.S. and California, which implies in part that what benefits U.S and California also benefits Google, in the long run. If you want to posit a scenario in which Google did not have to be constrained by American law, then for that discussion to have any intellectual worth, that scenario should also include a Google that does not receive any of America/California's benefits or protections, i.e. what would Google be today if it decided to move to New Hampshire? Or China? Or Andorra?
All interesting hypotheticals, I'm sure. At the same time, not particularly relevant to the article at hand.
> Well, I did say early on that such hypothetical discussions would feel off-topic in response to an article about an actual class-action lawsuit based on current law. Not off-topic as in verboten, but in the sense that such un-scoped discussions would probably be meandering and pointless.
You are welcome to feel that way, but many disagree (I've had very many abstract discussions on HN less related than discrimination legal theory is to this article), so your opinion on irrelevance here is irrelevant. If you do not want to entertain any ideas which are not recapitulations of the content of the article and related sources / irrelevant facts about parties, dates, politics, etc., I cannot help.
That being said, child labor should be clearly irrelevant here, as adults are considered citizens with full rights who can legally consent to a contract. Especially when young in this context can be 30 years old.
I would gladly go into depth about alternative solutions to discrimination as a societal problem, which would be less in the category of thought crimes, if you are willing and able to entertain hypotheticals.
> That being said, child labor should be clearly irrelevant here, as adults are considered citizens with full rights who can legally consent to a contract.
Ah, my bad. I momentarily forgot that the people-are-adults-at-age-18 is not just some man-made standard that resulted from the imperfect legislative and political process, but is an immutable rule as universal and constant as π and enshrined in the word of God.
I am aware of a case where employee s performance was criticized in written form because "you are too old". I can't detail specifics because of confidential issues. But there are times that people put their bias in written form.
> Are you suggesting that the submitted article, to which this discussion thread is attached, is a figment of our imagination? That Google actually is not facing a class-action lawsuit made possible through age-discrimination laws?
I will try to clear up your confusion -- you are taking everything very literally. There have been many private discrimination lawsuits, and in my opinion, all of the legitimate ones were tied in with something other than discrimination (especially harrassment). There is almost never any hard proof of discrimination of the nature that is the focus of the lawsuit, even the ones that win, and I think it's too arbitrary a thing to try to control. Feel free to list examples to the contrary, where the defendant stated "I did not hire Mr/Mrs. Smith because he/she is X." It also raises questions of freedom of association in the private space.