Hacker News Reader

Comment by oldtechworker | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

That is precisely what a union is - a political block. Ostensibly the block is based on enriching workers. Although in practice its always about satisfying the union which varies in actual alignment with worker enrichment. In this case there is less alignment than you would hope for.

> unions are for fighting for better conditions for their workers regardless of gender or race

Regardless of, but not blind to. Different workers do experience different conditions because of race and gender among other things, and unions need to account for those differences not pretend they don't exist.

> I could in no way trust a tech Union to actually fight for me and not against me

You probably didn't mean it this way, but this strongly implies to me you are knowingly doing things that someone who cared about racial or gender equality would feel like they would need to fight. Why is that?

It doesnt imply that at all. The union by its own admission is treating members differently based on race. You cant claim that its good and not happening at the same time.

Not the OP, but I feel the racially focused initiatives of today are misdirected, counterproductive, and themselves racist. And like you, I deem it as not in my best interest, or society at large, to endorse or support those who are doing the wrong thing (even if they are doing so with the best of intentions).

I think we should have completely race and gender blind hiring and promotions. That enough is something someone that cares about equity is against, is it not? Being against equity, which is equal outcomes regardless of input, does not imply one is discriminating people by race or gender or harassing people.

We don't have race and gender blind life so what would this even look like? When you are asking me not to see something that I can perceive very clearly, I cannot call that wisdom.

To clarify, are you saying that fighting systemic discrimination is a bad thing?

From my perspective (as, for what it's worth, a cis white man), ensuring all my colleagues have equity is a pretty strong win. I want my company to have the best working conditions possible. That means ensuring that the most talented people feel welcome there, regardless of their demographics. Which, in turn, means removing systemic ways that people from some demographics may not feel welcome or able to take those jobs. Where's the downside?

The initiatives pushed in this article are themselves discriminatory. For example YouTube was sued because they were not hiring Asian or white men and fired someone for still interviewing them. That is discrimination, regardless of the goal, which was presumably to increase the amount of women or specific ethnicities. More diversity in tech is great sure, but not if it means racial and sexist discrimination.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com