LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 71
0 members and 71 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 08:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-13-2018, 09:38 PM   #4606
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 18,180
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Two points on this article.

They claim it is not satire. At least not intentionally.

It is written by two leading lights of the "law and economics" school. One a Law Prof. at UChicago, the other a Prof. in Econ and Law at Yale and a Microsoft "thinker". We have been debating whether conservatives are all about low taxes or racism. Doesn't this article, by these supposedly Burkean intellectuals, kind of end that debate.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 09:23 AM   #4607
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 18,180
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
If the basic idea is to let small businesses have the same access to immigrant labor as larger, sophisticated businesses, and to let more people have access to immigrant labor of different sorts in the way that some affluent people have access to au pairs, sounds good. Obviously you'd want to make sure that immigrants don't get exploited by their employer, but legal immigration is much, much better that way than illegal immigration is.
The idea here is to let an individual have an "opportunity" to have a captive laborer, someone whose visa depends on their work relationship, who will owe costs if terminated by their employer, whose living space is controlled by the employer, and who is exempt from the most basic worker protection, minimum wage. This is all about creating an institutional framework for exploitation.

The au pair program is a one year sojourn. There is exploitation in the program - we used it for several years and saw some horrid things happne among some of our au pairs' friends (including one family who very strictly limited their au pair's food, for example, and more than one case where there was sexual harassment). The program needs reform, not expansion, but is also a very temporary status.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 09:42 AM   #4608
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 18,180
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
If the basic idea is to let small businesses have the same access to immigrant labor as larger, sophisticated businesses, and to let more people have access to immigrant labor of different sorts in the way that some affluent people have access to au pairs, sounds good. Obviously you'd want to make sure that immigrants don't get exploited by their employer, but legal immigration is much, much better that way than illegal immigration is.
The idea here is to let an individual have an "opportunity" to have a captive laborer, someone whose visa depends on their work relationship, who will owe costs if terminated by their employer, whose living space is controlled by the employer, and who is exempt from the most basic worker protection, minimum wage. This is all about creating an institutional framework for exploitation.

The au pair program is a one year sojourn. There is exploitation in the program - we used it for several years and saw some horrid things happne among some of our au pairs' friends (including one family who very strictly limited their au pair's food, for example, and more than one case where there was sexual harassment). The program needs reform, not expansion, but is also a very temporary status.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 09:50 AM   #4609
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 18,180
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
This is a consistent refrain from those who push back on diversity efforts. [And here is where I will insert that I am no longer addressing your approach or criticizing you.] When one is truly looking for talent and has solved one's implicit bias and confirmation bias issues which necessarily influence one's perception of who is the most qualified individual, then I suppose it's very easy to put together a diverse senior staff and board.

However, there are a number of problems with "Hire or promote the most qualified individual." First, when it comes to initial hiring to mid-level staffing to executive level promotions to lateral hiring, there are tons of biases that affect the determination of who is "most qualified." As an example, a practice group at the firm was seeking a senior-level associate in the lateral market last year. The firm called their usual headhunters and asked for candidates. One of the partners in the group sits on the diversity committee, and after receiving resumes for nothing but white candidates asked the headhunters to find some diverse candidates. Within a week, they presented her with six highly qualified diverse candidates, 2 or 3 of whom were considerably more qualified than the candidates in the group they were previously presented with. They hired someone diverse and asked their headhunter why they had to specifically request qualified diverse candidates. Response?: <<Shrug.>> "We didn't know you were looking for diverse candidates." No acknowledgment that initially they specifically requested the most qualified candidates, which should include fucking everyone. This is what we're facing.

Second, how do you determine what "most qualified" is? Is it someone who went to Choate, Harvard, Harvard and started their career at Wachtell? Or is it someone who went to a shitty public school, got a scholarship to a state school, moved on to a second tier law school, but placed high in their class, and started working at a smaller firm and had tons of responsibility from day 1? I sit on the hiring committee here and the ones who constantly push for the Harvard types (who aren't going to accept our offer anyway) didn't fucking go to Harvard. They don't even understand what makes them qualified. But they want a kid who cruised through Harvard and probably got in because they're a legacy over a kid from BU who absolutely killed themselves their whole lives and excelled at a lower ranked school.

Third, every single partner who we have to talk to about hiring diverse students, using diverse associates, or promoting diverse candidates, immediately respond with, "Why shouldn't I go with the most qualified person?" It's shorthand for "the diverse person isn't qualified somehow" even though that person has never even given that person a look.

So, congratulations on having a diverse senior team. (Seriously.) That's pretty cool. But I will tell you that this kind of mechanical, "most qualified" response when it comes to diversity initiatives is often one of the hurdles to be overcome when making progress.

TM
A couple points I'd add: it is easier to hire qualified and diverse candidates when management is qualified and diverse, and when hiring is centralized in one or two people with their head screwed on straight. Once you start hiring by committee, a broad set of biases start coming into play. Hiring committees are in my mind the biggest block to law firms diversifying.

Also, to illustrate your point on qualifications, I've had long debates over whether specific candidates who worked damn hard to get where they were from nothing should be hired over candidates who coasted through the best schools without so much as a work-study job taking full loads of half-assed courses. What a ridiculous argument. Really. And that argument is colorblind: the folks who prefer the Choate Hallers disdain the white kid from Iowa as well as the black kid from Boston.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 09:52 AM   #4610
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 18,180
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller View Post
Good afternoon.

I am an aging baby boomer, who also runs a 40 person enterprise, I have a total of four officers, including myself. The profile of these four people demonstrates that there are two men, and two women. One is African American, who just replaced a Mexican American. One is gay, and one is Asian American. One is a veteran.

There are four junior officers. Two men, two women.

So I think we ring most of the bells on diversity. I bring this up because the entity has always followed one and only one principle on hiring and promotions: Hire or promote the most qualified individual. Period.

Here is another corporate guy of my acquaintance, who take a more pro-active role, in a much larger company. I submit he is doing it right. I'd be interested if anyone disagrees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/15/b...rd-hudson.html
But also, congrats, and spread the word. I do think if we hire based on qualifications diversity will follow, to a very great degree, but having broken some of the barriers you may not realize how hard it is for many businesses to break them.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 10:11 AM   #4611
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 22,076
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
The idea here is to let an individual have an "opportunity" to have a captive laborer, someone whose visa depends on their work relationship, who will owe costs if terminated by their employer, whose living space is controlled by the employer, and who is exempt from the most basic worker protection, minimum wage. This is all about creating an institutional framework for exploitation.

The au pair program is a one year sojourn. There is exploitation in the program - we used it for several years and saw some horrid things happne among some of our au pairs' friends (including one family who very strictly limited their au pair's food, for example, and more than one case where there was sexual harassment). The program needs reform, not expansion, but is also a very temporary status.
Valid concerns. But balanced against the benefits of getting foreigners into this country, and in particular, exposing increased strata of Americans to people of diverse cultures, I'm with Ty. It's a net positive.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 10:20 AM   #4612
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 22,076
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
A relatively small number of gun nuts (some are close relatives) want their guns, really care about the issue, and vote. Most of the country thinks that the gun nuts are crazy and would be happy with gun control, but when Election Day comes they vote on other issues. So the politicians -- mostly Republicans, but some Democrats too -- don't want to cross them. If we put issues to a majority vote, we'd have control. This isn't Athens.
I'm pro enhanced background checks and banning ridiculous weapons nobody needs.

But on the broader issue you raise, we're a Republic, and not a pure democracy, for a reason.

The majority of this country, if we're to judge from its tastes, interests, beliefs, and views, shouldn't be allowed to vote at all. The last thing anyone should do is give a pure majority of Americans any kind of power.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 10:45 AM   #4613
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 24,576
Foh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Was there any real movement since the Brady bill? Was that Dem inspired? The Dems have had the congress and White house several times since. What did they do? That nothing will happen today doesn't mean something monumental would happen is only we had President D and that sweet D congress. The worst part is making it political instead of simply something we should not have to endure.
Yes. It's the Dem's fault too since they didn't have a supermajority when they controlled Congress. Let's ignore all the other bills shot down by Republicans who vote as a fucking block against any form of gun control and who are currently pushing a fucking reciprocity bill (that fell three Senate votes short last time) through Congress.

There are Dems who vote the wrong way on this, but don't piss me off. The worst part is not "making it political." The worst part is Republicans are either gun lunatics, bought and paid for by the NRA, or terrified of losing their job for doing the right thing. It sure as hell is political. And it's fucking disgusting.

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 10:52 AM   #4614
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 24,576
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
A couple points I'd add: it is easier to hire qualified and diverse candidates when management is qualified and diverse, and when hiring is centralized in one or two people with their head screwed on straight. Once you start hiring by committee, a broad set of biases start coming into play. Hiring committees are in my mind the biggest block to law firms diversifying.
Good point. But hiring committees are set up to get people like me in the room because the one or two people who traditionally make hiring decisions do not have their heads screwed on straight.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard, "I never thought of it like that," in one of these meetings, I'd have like 50 or 60 cents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
Also, to illustrate your point on qualifications, I've had long debates over whether specific candidates who worked damn hard to get where they were from nothing should be hired over candidates who coasted through the best schools without so much as a work-study job taking full loads of half-assed courses. What a ridiculous argument. Really. And that argument is colorblind: the folks who prefer the Choate Hallers disdain the white kid from Iowa as well as the black kid from Boston.
Absolutely. But the white kids from Iowa who pulled themselves up through hard work and make partner put their feet up on that dark wood desk and disdain the black kid from Boston.

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 10:56 AM   #4615
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 24,576
Re: Foh

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
Yes. It's the Dem's fault too since they didn't have a supermajority when they controlled Congress. Let's ignore all the other bills shot down by Republicans who vote as a fucking block against any form of gun control and who are currently pushing a fucking reciprocity bill (that fell three Senate votes short last time) through Congress.

There are Dems who vote the wrong way on this, but don't piss me off. The worst part is not "making it political." The worst part is Republicans are either gun lunatics, bought and paid for by the NRA, or terrified of losing their job for doing the right thing. It sure as hell is political. And it's fucking disgusting.

TM
Am I losing my mind?* How is it that my response to Hank appears above the post I'm responding to?

TM

*Worse than usual
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 10:58 AM   #4616
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 24,576
Alternate universe

The board has decided to stop publishing posts in chronological order. Is it just me?

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 11:26 AM   #4617
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 83,497
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
A relatively small number of gun nuts (some are close relatives) want their guns, really care about the issue, and vote. Most of the country thinks that the gun nuts are crazy and would be happy with gun control, but when Election Day comes they vote on other issues. So the politicians -- mostly Republicans, but some Democrats too -- don't want to cross them. If we put issues to a majority vote, we'd have control. This isn't Athens.
I'm not sure what lots of this is intended to mean, but as an example, the Dems pushed ACA through knowing it would piss off lots of voters. The next day why didn't they push through some gun control measures?

There are a lot of issues were you can fault the Rs alone, but both sides live with this one. And I'm talking laws, not Presidential orders they can be reversed after the next guy comes in.
__________________
like Kanye.
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 11:43 AM   #4618
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,666
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
I'm not sure what lots of this is intended to mean, but as an example, the Dems pushed ACA through knowing it would piss off lots of voters. The next day why didn't they push through some gun control measures?

There are a lot of issues were you can fault the Rs alone, but both sides live with this one. And I'm talking laws, not Presidential orders they can be reversed after the next guy comes in.
Hank's right on this one. The last Dem that made gun control an issue was Bill Bradley.
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 11:44 AM   #4619
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 15,666
Re: Foh

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
Am I losing my mind?* How is it that my response to Hank appears above the post I'm responding to?

TM

*Worse than usual
Seems to be putting replies next, instead of at the end of the thread.
Adder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2018, 03:10 PM   #4620
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 29,328
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
Two points on this article.

They claim it is not satire. At least not intentionally.

It is written by two leading lights of the "law and economics" school. One a Law Prof. at UChicago, the other a Prof. in Econ and Law at Yale and a Microsoft "thinker". We have been debating whether conservatives are all about low taxes or racism. Doesn't this article, by these supposedly Burkean intellectuals, kind of end that debate.
I think it's not such a bad idea.
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 PM.