I think that the point is to not provide a safe path around it because adverse/disparate impact.
-
-
Replying to @orthonormalist
I don't have any ethical concerns with employers trying to hire people with higher IQs
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
Yeah but you're not sitting on the Supreme Court.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @orthonormalist
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, here...? I don't believe there are any legal grounds to rest on if you're providing information about applicants with their consent, LinkedIn-style.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason @orthonormalist
The Supreme Court decided in 1971 that requiring job applicants to take IQ tests (or any test that can't be shown to measure skill related to the job) violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. To sell such a product is to sell someone a minefield. None would buy!
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Using it would be too risky for a company to want to use in any overt capacity, so I don't think it would sell well.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
(I assume you know all this and the value add here is "totally doesn't look like an IQ test", but maybe onlookers do not)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
Replying to @webdevMason @orthonormalist
To do this I think most companies are happy writing "4 year degree required" even when its clearly not, because: * it shifts any disparate impact claims onto another entity * terrible/funny plus that instead of hiring departments paying for it, they make the employee pay for it!
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
If you could devise a system like that, which crucially shifts the blame of any complaints lodged at it, then you might have gold!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yep, the definition of goldmine is "a lot of people/businesses would really want that" + "that'd be very difficult to pull off"
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @simonsarris
I think the risk you run is that the Supreme Court deciding (especially if this -succeeded- which a 'goldmine' would by definition) "Nope, this is still adverse impact".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @orthonormalist @simonsarris
I still think I haven't made my point — the Supreme Court CAN'T do that until there are extant legal grounds for someone to sue a LinkedInesque product for consensually hosting applicants' info
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.