Second Life job ad

[ChinRey]

On 4/9/2020 at 7:00 AM, animats said:

• Keep bad people out of our stuff

You forgot:

• Keep bad stuff out of our stuff
• Stuff our stuff with more good stuff

[belindacarson]

17 hours ago, clivesteel said:

Except very concerning that there is no mention of diversity or equity. 

May I ask LL: how many people of color or the LGBTQ+ community do you currently employ...?

 

don't ruin a bit of much needed humour with some silly politically-correct thread, eh? I'm sure the Lab meet any quotas

[Tolya Ugajin]

9 hours ago, Drayke Newall said:

This has got me curious. Does America have an anti discrimination law that states that an employer can not discriminate from these kind of things? Just find it interesting that over in Australia we don't need such clauses in Job adverts as we just hire the best suited. Though I am sure there are a few that do discriminate over here, the laws in place allow the potential candidate to then claim discrimination and have the business fined etc.

As is usual in the US, our laws overlap, sometimes conflict, and are better suited to making trial lawyers wealthy than to legislating good behavior.  At a federal level, employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, union participation, age, military history, pregnancy, or disability.  Many states have similar laws that broaden protection to other groups (most, for instance, protect LGBTQ status).  Even a few cities get in on the act.

The diversity clauses originally were mandated for government contractors to comply with affirmative action requirements, which are imposed on companies that want to do business with the government.  In some markets and some industries, companies have begun using them to signal that they are modern and progressive, particularly in terms of LGBTQ (which is not covered under affirmative action).

You have similar laws in Australia, although I'm not versed on enforcement there.

[Drayke Newall]

4 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

As is usual in the US, our laws overlap, sometimes conflict, and are better suited to making trial lawyers wealthy than to legislating good behavior.  At a federal level, employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, union participation, age, military history, pregnancy, or disability.  Many states have similar laws that broaden protection to other groups (most, for instance, protect LGBTQ status).  Even a few cities get in on the act.

The diversity clauses originally were mandated for government contractors to comply with affirmative action requirements, which are imposed on companies that want to do business with the government.  In some markets and some industries, companies have begun using them to signal that they are modern and progressive, particularly in terms of LGBTQ (which is not covered under affirmative action).

You have similar laws in Australia, although I'm not versed on enforcement there.

Ah I see. Little different in Australia. All of our laws involving such issues are given at the federal level such as the anti-discrimination law (covers all groups and individuals) and state governments cant override those or attach other addendums to those laws. We also have an independent body that is mandated and supported by the federal government that fights for the worker called 'Fairwork' of which they also are responsible for increasing our minimum wage and in cases representing workers rights etc and representing them in court. This body is separate from the unions and covers those that aren't in a union though you can also be part of a union. This body is the enforcement along with the courts.

We also don't have such things called affirmative actions. Perhaps this is why we don't see those clauses at the end of job adverts and just hire based on skill as in general whilst people still need to prove discrimination fair work helps them do that freely and the fines and penalties are not low if they are proven to have infringed on the law.

[Tolya Ugajin]

3 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Ah I see. Little different in Australia. All of our laws involving such issues are given at the federal level such as the anti-discrimination law (covers all groups and individuals) and state governments cant override those or attach other addendums to those laws. We also have an independent body that is mandated and supported by the federal government that fights for the worker called 'Fairwork' of which they also are responsible for increasing our minimum wage and in cases representing workers rights etc and representing them in court. This body is separate from the unions and covers those that aren't in a union though you can also be part of a union. This body is the enforcement along with the courts.

We also don't have such things called affirmative actions. Perhaps this is why we don't see those clauses at the end of job adverts and just hire based on skill as in general whilst people still need to prove discrimination fair work helps them do that freely and the fines and penalties are not low if they are proven to have infringed on the law.

Affirmative action is somewhat misunderstood.  There are not really "quotas" - you can be in compliance and substantially under-represented in minorities and women.  You just have to be taking "good faith actions" to try and increase representation.  It's really just a circle jerk that makes politicians feel good, keeps bureaucrats employed, and creates a multi-billion dollar industry of compliance software, consulting, and training. 

I've generally found other countries take a better approach to employment law than the US.  For instance, I'd give up a testicle if we'd prohibit states and cities from making their own employment laws, the way the Aussies have, and even when other countries have rules Americans employers would normally find troublesome, at least they are straightforward and easy to comply with or predict.

[LittleMe Jewell]

36 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

It's really just a circle jerk that makes politicians feel good, keeps bureaucrats employed, and creates a multi-billion dollar industry of compliance software, consulting, and training. 

The story of US politics & laws in general, for the most part anyway.

[Drayke Newall]

55 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Affirmative action is somewhat misunderstood.  There are not really "quotas" - you can be in compliance and substantially under-represented in minorities and women.  You just have to be taking "good faith actions" to try and increase representation.  It's really just a circle jerk that makes politicians feel good, keeps bureaucrats employed, and creates a multi-billion dollar industry of compliance software, consulting, and training. 

I've generally found other countries take a better approach to employment law than the US.  For instance, I'd give up a testicle if we'd prohibit states and cities from making their own employment laws, the way the Aussies have, and even when other countries have rules Americans employers would normally find troublesome, at least they are straightforward and easy to comply with or predict.

Just to clarify as I might not have been clear. Whilst anti-discrimination laws exist and are given federally of which these cant be altered or changed by states (i.e. conflicting laws) as I mentioned in my earlier post, we do have state 'anti-discriminative acts', however these are actually called (or are implied as such) equal opportunity laws. 99% of these acts just follow or reinforce the federal ones (overlap) though both still need to be adhered to if one adds something different on a state level (i.e. if the state operates a different institution or office they would be included in the state act due to them being different). The reason for this is so that there is an insurance that all aspects are covered (per before mentioned different institution names etc) and also due to each state having its own state commissions.

This also allows for multiple tiers of avenues a person can take just like courts. If you aren't happy with the state ruling you can take it the federal Commission or go straight there.

Like the USA, Australia is similar in that it is a commonwealth and whilst it is federated under the constitution (federal anti-discrimination laws come from this), each state still has its own courts, laws, jurisdictions etc. Just in discrimination, the laws always operate alongside, never conflict and never can be changed on a city level. This is why generally the state laws are the same as the federal and just overlap.

That said the anti-discrimination laws are separate and complimentary to the employment laws. Employment laws are covered by the federal government under fairwork for 95% of employees and states don't have their own employment laws other than specific fairwork acts for state government employees (the remaining 5%).

Hope that clarifies it a little.

[Tolya Ugajin]

22 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Just to clarify as I might not have been clear. Whilst anti-discrimination laws exist and are given federally of which these cant be altered or changed by states (i.e. conflicting laws) as I mentioned in my earlier post, we do have state 'anti-discriminative acts', however these are actually called (or are implied as such) equal opportunity laws. 99% of these acts just follow or reinforce the federal ones (overlap) though both still need to be adhered to if one adds something different on a state level (i.e. if the state operates a different institution or office they would be included in the state act due to them being different). The reason for this is so that there is an insurance that all aspects are covered (per before mentioned different institution names etc) and also due to each state having its own state commissions.

This also allows for multiple tiers of avenues a person can take just like courts. If you aren't happy with the state ruling you can take it the federal Commission or go straight there.

Like the USA, Australia is similar in that it is a commonwealth and whilst it is federated under the constitution (federal anti-discrimination laws come from this), each state still has its own courts, laws, jurisdictions etc. Just in discrimination, the laws always operate alongside, never conflict and never can be changed on a city level. This is why generally the state laws are the same as the federal and just overlap.

That said the anti-discrimination laws are separate and complimentary to the employment laws. Employment laws are covered by the federal government under fairwork for 95% of employees and states don't have their own employment laws other than specific fairwork acts for state government employees (the remaining 5%).

Hope that clarifies it a little.

Thanks - I love posts that are educational and informative.  Now if only I can manage to get our Australian operations back under my growing HR empire...

[Beth Macbain]

3 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

under my growing HR empire

OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... you're in HR!

That explains so much.

😋

[Tolya Ugajin]

13 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... you're in HR!

That explains so much.

😋

Actual footage of Tolya, hard at work in RL:

Funny thing is, I cannot get to dlibert.com due to my company laptop's firewall, yet I can go to Google and view the comics randomly all day long.  I can do the same with porn images as well.  Apparently I saved too much money when I hired a grossly underqualified IT Security Manager.

[LittleMe Jewell]

3 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Funny thing is, I cannot get to dlibert.com due to my company laptop's firewall, yet I can go to Google and view the comics randomly all day long.  I can do the same with porn images as well.  Apparently I saved too much money when I hired a grossly underqualified IT Security Manager.

From work, I cannot access my comcast email - because it is classified as type "email".  Yet I can get to gmail with no problems at all.

I often have to laugh at our IT security to keep from going insane at the craziness of it all.

[Tolya Ugajin]

3 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

From work, I cannot access my comcast email - because it is classified as type "email".  Yet I can get to gmail with no problems at all.

I often have to laugh at our IT security to keep from going insane at the craziness of it all.

IT = Idiots in Training.

[Drayke Newall]

3 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Funny thing is, I cannot get to dlibert.com due to my company laptop's firewall, yet I can go to Google and view the comics randomly all day long.  I can do the same with porn images as well.  Apparently I saved too much money when I hired a grossly underqualified IT Security Manager.

Hmm I think there is something wrong with my HR department I can access everything from my computer... Oh wait I'm the boss... phew.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Drayke Newall