Just because there are some pointless laws, or some laws that you disagree with, doesn't mean it's OK to break them.
Nonsense, it is totally ok to break laws that are wrong.
Or would you suggest that no one should have run the underground railroad before the civil war to try and help escaped slaves get to freedom in the north? That was VERY illegal, yet tens of thousands of people were helped by brave souls helping former slaves.
In a democracy, your choice is to fight to have those laws repealed.
Cute, but it took a war to deal with the issues of slavery (yes, I know other issues were involved, just making that one point). No amount of democracy was going to work.
And besides, it gets pointed out over and over, yet people keep saying it... We do NOT live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic...
And legislating morality also includes things like abolishing slavery or child labour, so it is not inherently wrong or useless, although you're right about prohibition and the like.
And there you go proving my very point... Slavery was wrong, yet was legal for most of human history... Yet you think everyone should have just obeyed until it was illegal...
In reality, most young people have already mixed with a wide range of older people (relatives, teachers, friends of their parents, older siblings of their friends or whatever) and in most jobs there is a mixture of ages anyway.
Good thing you didn't draw with a large sweeping brush there...
"most young people have" is where you went off the rails...
It's not an anecdote. I'm not telling you about something I experienced, but the fact of actual applicants claiming successfully against discriminatory employers.
Actually, it IS an anecdote. To become data you'd need to know how many people were discriminated against.
If you say "500 companies last year were fined for discrimination", that number could be a lot or a little. There will ALWAYS be someone fined, the government has to appear to be doing something.
That doesn't make it common, which is what you implied.
I know you hate workers rights, and that's why you are arguing.
No, you don't know that, you're simply wrong.
But the fact is you are wrong about it being impossible to police.
It is impossible to police against anyone who remotely knows what they are doing. There are always stupid people who actually admit what they are doing, but if you use the right words, it isn't that hard.
Just because laws do not stop 100% of discrimination from going on doesn't mean that they don't do anything.
You're right, but you assume they have only good effects. They do not, they have negative effects as well.
Many millions of dollars are spent on compliance and lawyers to try and avoid such lawsuits in the first place.
companies are having to make greater efforts at compliance to avoid appearing discriminatory.
There is compliance, then there is the "appearance of compliance". It isn't rocket science, look at the H1B situation where companies advertise for jobs they have no intention to fill, only to show they made an effort before bringing in a H1B instead. If you believe they aren't doing the same think with the discrimination laws, then you're just kidding yourself.
It used to be that flight attendants were just single young ladies, but I see a fair number of men now, and people of various ages.
Yes, and that was NOT an improvement. I remember the tail end of those days and getting on a plane today is a terrible experience. In the 80's, flying was much nicer.
Of course, I will say that allowing women into the cockpit to fly was an improvement, I've met plenty of women pilots who have good judgement and are just as safe as men, so that is nice. But I'd turn back time on the flight attendants if it was up to me.
Before you think I'm sexist, think of it like Hooters, you wouldn't want men serving there, now would you?
I imagine there are some very driven people at Google, and that is fine... But their social interests, hobbies, and family lives likely have little to do with yours, unless you're a bachelor who has no interest in work/family life balance.
Well in my country employers are found liable under this legislation reasonably often, so I don't know where you get the idea it's impossible to enforce.
The plural of antidote is not data. "reasonable often" doesn't mean much when you don't actually know what the percentage of convictions out of all offenses, since you don't know the number of times it happens.
Of course, you might also be in one of those countries that has made it so hard to fire someone that companies don't want to hire. France has this problem at the moment. Worker rights are nice and all, but the more they have the less competitive a company is. We live in a global marketplace these days, so you have to compete as such.
Not only that it seems to be having an effect with older people often employed in jobs which used to go to young people.
Hetero or not, I am no more offended by a gay pride shirt than I am a football jersey or Old Navy branded tee, or someone wearing 3D jewelry depicting Christ nailed to a cross. Nor would I decline a gay pride ribbon at this point in time -- or a polygamy / polyamory pride ribbon, come to that. It's past time to push back. Hard.
Push back hard? That is the problem... They are pushing so hard they are going to get a back lash if they aren't careful.
Fine, you can have your rights, no worries... but it doesn't end there... They don't just want rights, they want "acceptance and understanding".
That is where it goes too far. I can think they are weird and that doesn't make me bad, and they are trying to make it so.
I can entirely understand that the demographics of Google employees won't match that of the more general population. But if the demographics going into the interview process consistently and noticeably fail to match the demographics actually being hired, then it looks like there might be a problem.
Why? Perhaps they cast a wide net and hope to find as many possible candidates as possible, but then end up hiring who they are most comfortable working with.
That doesn't make them criminals, it makes them human.
To avoid lawsuits, most large companies have to spend a lot of time and money to "appear" to be "doing the right thing", regardless of whatever they are actually doing.
Even if no discrimination is happening, if it "appears to be happening", they'll get sued either way.
This is a huge waste of time and money, to accomplish nothing, since at the end of the day people will do whatever the hell they want anyway, and color it in whatever words are required to be "legal".
Banning people from age, race, gender discrimination is just as pointless as banning people from smoking pot or drinking beer. All three have been tried and all three have failed.
Yea, it might be the law, but we have lots of laws that are pointless and only serve to weaken respect for the rule of law.
Not using drugs is also a law, as is the "don't drink under 21" thing, and most of us have broken one or the other of those.
You can't legislate morality or tell people who to associate with. Well, you can try, and we have, but it fails every time. Just look at prohibition and how well that worked out.
If you pay people what they are worth and for the work they do, I think it pays itself back to the company.
I had another employee who came in after hours for a few weekends and helped with some work that wasn't in his job description. Some people would take advantage of that since he was on salary, but that is just wrong and sends the wrong message to everyone else in the company.
I'm not so fool to think that employees don't talk behind my back about such things.
So I paid him a bonus for his time. It was me saying, "thanks for coming in after hours and doing something outside of why you were hired".
After all, had he not done so, I'd probably have paid more to hire a contractor to do it.
That sounds very nice, like something a politician would say running for office... I'm sure it will get upvoted...
Now coming back to reality... If old people feel disenfranchised, then perhaps old people should start companies and hire other old people and do the same in reverse.
Perhaps black people can start companies and hire only black people. Oh wait, that already happens... except you won't find white people applying there then claiming race discrimination.
The problem with anti-disrimination laws is it moves beyond a level playing field and moves into fixing the outcome.
It used to be that black person or a woman *COULDN'T* own a business. That has been fixed. But insisting that a white person hire a black person to promote diversity, is just absurd.
Companies are for-profit private enterprises, not tools of the government to mold social whims. And didn't you hear, companies are people...
Yeah, I've known heteros like that too. It's shocking how they just act like it's "okay" to talk about the opposite-sex people they care most about in life. They should really know better and keep that damned hetero stuff in the closet.
There is talking about it, then there is "throwing it in your face".
Some gay people wear it on their shoulder as a matter of pride and want EVERYONE TO KNOW. It is part of their identity to the point of excluding most other things. A chip on their shoulder.
I don't care if Tim tells us that it is his 5th anniversary with Bill this month, good for them, I hope they are happy.
What I do mind is when Tim comes into the office wearing a gay pride shirt and hands out rainbow ribbons and talks about nothing else. I've met gay people who just won't shut up about it. I honestly can't recall any non-gay people who are like that.
"Black people who are intelligent and educated"... Yes, I have no problem working with imaginary creatures either.
Actually, I have worked with some intelligent black people, so they do exist... They are not well represented either in the IT business or the flying business, for various reasons.
Back when I ran a flight school, during a 3 year period we had exactly one black student, the entire time. Had he stuck with it, I'd have hired him, he was mid 30's, family man, looking for a career change. But he stopped coming in half way through his training for whatever reason.
It depends on the company, who is doing the hiring, etc.
At a smaller company or in a small dept where the person doing the hiring will work with the person, then part of the "rational criteria" is "do I want to work with this person?".
Tell me, does a 30 year old white male want to work all day with another 30 year old white male, or with a 50 year old black woman?
Regardless of anything else, the answer should be obvious.
Now in fairness, a 30 year old white male who can't do the job shouldn't be hired, but I imagine somewhere out there you can find one who can. The 50 year old black female never had a chance, because the person doing the hiring doesn't want to work with her.
That is probably a "crime" in your eyes, or in some people's eyes in any case... but it is life and reality and laws won't change that...
Again, the law exists to combat prejudice exactly like that.
Yes, it does, and it is about as effective as the laws against drug use...
When you pass laws that are impossible to really enforce, you end up with a nation of law breakers, who then slowly lose respect for law in general...
It is like a teacher telling kids, "you all have to be friends with Billy now". Sure, the teacher can say it, can even try to enforce it, but if the kids don't like Billy, then they don't like him and nothing the teacher says will change that.
But one might get a bit suspicious if this consistently happens to people in an under-represent demographic within the company.
That sounds true on the surface...
But consider that the demographics of the population that is qualified to work at Google and the population of the US are not the same thing....
That strikes me as the biggest flaw in such thinking, that they should have a similar percentage of women, blacks, Asians, etc. as the general US population...
But the US population isn't their hiring pool, people qualified to do the job are their hiring pool.
I'm in my early 40s and in my last set of interviews, I would work into the conversation that I'm married, have kids, and believe in a work/family balance. I wanted to be "discriminated" against. I didn't want to work for a company that expected me to work consistently more than 45 hours a week.
You're a smart man...
I have kids as well, family men (and women) don't bother me at all, they tend to be more stable employees anyway.
My bookkeeper has a son, she sometimes needs to leave work in the middle of the day if school calls because he is sick. She always makes up the work on an evening or weekend, and I never give her any trouble about leaving during the day to take care of him.
In return, she thanks me for the flex time and for giving her room to care for her child. I get a loyal employee who feels appreciated by the company that she works for.
I see that as a win-win deal. The work gets done, she takes care of her son, what is not to like?
Generally yes, but there are exceptions... If the job requires lifting boxes of 70lbs, such as being a UPS driver, then yes, you can ask, "do you have anything that would prevent you from lifting boxes by yourself of 70lbs?"
You can't ask "are you disabled", but you can ask, "can you perform this job function?"
It doesn't matter in this case, the story is clearly made up...
She is ugly, but for a company the size of Google, that shouldn't matter... I imagine there is more than one ugly person working there...
More likely she doesn't interview well, or isn't a social person. Look at her CV and she has had a LOT of 1 year jobs over the past 20 years. A few 5 and 6 year jobs, but mostly 1 year jobs.
So she moves around a lot.
Also, it is worth noting that anyone who graduated college in 1982 who thinks Google would be a good "social fit" hasn't met many people at Google.
I'm 40 and I think I'd be a bit old to work there.
Or, you wanted raises larger than 1.5%. The only way you get a raise of any significance (or a promotion) these days is by switching jobs.
That isn't always true...
I have had employees that were worth keeping and I offered more money to.
My office manager/book keeper, a few years ago, was doing very well and I was paying her $40k per year. When it came time to do the annual review, she asked for a 5% raise, instead I gave her a 20% raise to $50k.
Why? Because she ran the office, knew everything day to day, and the place just wouldn't work without her. She had taken on more duties since I hired her and deserved more pay.
She was shocked when I offered the money, to which I replied, "when a company has a great employee who does more each year and makes themselves valuable to the business, a company would be foolish to not compensate them for that.
Yea, I have to say, anyone willing to steal 14 million dollars and involve me in the process... expects to get their cut of 7 million...
I wouldn't put it past them to not think about killing me...
I'd rather have 7 million and know that the person who knows WHY I have 7 million also has 7 million and is happy, than to have 14 million and look over my shoulder for the rest of my life.
When you're committing a crime, don't screw your partner who can expose you.
Ignoring her picture, since she isn't being hired for her looks.
She has had a LOT of jobs that last a year. That was the biggest red flag that I saw. But there might be reasons for that, perhaps that was contract work, or perhaps those companies closed, I didn't look at it closely enough to tell.
She may also be OVER qualified for whatever position was being interviewed for, so while she could do it, other people could do it and would work for less.
If I have two otherwise qualified people for a position and one insists on 100k per year and someone else will take 70k, why would I hire the 100k per year person?
---
Side note: I have actually dealt with that. Had an employee who started 10k over what I had planed to pay, due to nearly 20 years experience. Didn't need the experience, but he was a fit for the position, so sure, ok.
Started him at 60k, instead of the 50k I had planned for. Within 9 months, he was asking for 70k and hinted that without it, he might have other offers worth considering. I went ahead and gave him the 70k as I was not prepared to lose him, but I also started a search for a replacement, which was wise because at the 1 year mark, he asked for another raise to 75k, at which point I informed him that I couldn't do that and in fact was looking for a replacement due to the cost, I simply didn't need 20 years of experience, 5 was enough. I replaced him with someone with about 7 years of experience who accepted 50k with a smile.
The experience only helps if the job requires it. If it doesn't, the biggest issue is expecting to be paid for it anyway.
From time to time they will, but this idea that it isn't going on and if it is, will be stopped, is fantasy.
It is just colored in BS words to provide legal cover.
Frankly, honesty would probably be better for everyone involved. People get their hopes up, not knowing they never had a chance because they aren't the right "race, age, gender, orientation, etc".
Just say what you want and be done with it, you'll largely get it anyway.
Next the SJW will want laws saying that you have to be friends with people of each "race, age, gender, orientation", or you're being a "friend discriminator" and be subject to personal fines.
Sounds stupid, doesn't it? What is the difference when a company does it?
I specifically asked if you were also comfortable with blacks, homosexuals and women to be rejected a job because their colleagues would feel uncomfortable. Address that. I just want to figure out from which century did you drop in from.
If you think that the 21st century is somehow special, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Some places are ok with the above, some are not. Culture varies from place to place and doesn't change just because someone passes a law.
I live in Texas, homosexuals are not nearly as welcome here as they are in California. I have known a few, some throw it in your face, others keep it to themselves. Those who keep it to themselves are welcome to work for me. Those who don't, wouldn't get along with me anyway. Since I've never employed more than 20 people at a time, everyone who works for me more or less has to get along with me.
As for black people? I have no problem with black people who are intelligent and educated. It is the punks that I can't stand. Of course, I can't stand punk white kids either, so perhaps I really discriminate against punks.:)
---
The irony is that I have employed some older folks who have done wonders, and others who have not. What I HAVE found is that people under 25 are far less dependable than people over 45. One of my best hires was a 59 year old man named Chuck who was semi-retired from the health care business. He worked for me part time, 20 hours a week, to have something to do. One of the best employees I've ever had, totally dependable and had a brain and used it.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because there are some pointless laws, or some laws that you disagree with, doesn't mean it's OK to break them.
Nonsense, it is totally ok to break laws that are wrong.
Or would you suggest that no one should have run the underground railroad before the civil war to try and help escaped slaves get to freedom in the north? That was VERY illegal, yet tens of thousands of people were helped by brave souls helping former slaves.
In a democracy, your choice is to fight to have those laws repealed.
Cute, but it took a war to deal with the issues of slavery (yes, I know other issues were involved, just making that one point). No amount of democracy was going to work.
And besides, it gets pointed out over and over, yet people keep saying it... We do NOT live in a Democracy, we live in a Republic...
And legislating morality also includes things like abolishing slavery or child labour, so it is not inherently wrong or useless, although you're right about prohibition and the like.
And there you go proving my very point... Slavery was wrong, yet was legal for most of human history... Yet you think everyone should have just obeyed until it was illegal...
That type of thinking is very scary...
It depends on the individual. Or do you seriously think that all 30 year old white males (or 50 year old black women) are the same?
There are always exceptions, but in this case, my comment is correct far more often than it isn't.
By the law, it should only be right 50% of the time, and there is next to zero chance of that being the case.
And that is the problem, because when clear and obvious behavior doesn't match the law, then respect for the law from all sides goes down.
In reality, most young people have already mixed with a wide range of older people (relatives, teachers, friends of their parents, older siblings of their friends or whatever) and in most jobs there is a mixture of ages anyway.
Good thing you didn't draw with a large sweeping brush there...
"most young people have" is where you went off the rails...
It's not an anecdote. I'm not telling you about something I experienced, but the fact of actual applicants claiming successfully against discriminatory employers.
Actually, it IS an anecdote. To become data you'd need to know how many people were discriminated against.
If you say "500 companies last year were fined for discrimination", that number could be a lot or a little. There will ALWAYS be someone fined, the government has to appear to be doing something.
That doesn't make it common, which is what you implied.
I know you hate workers rights, and that's why you are arguing.
No, you don't know that, you're simply wrong.
But the fact is you are wrong about it being impossible to police.
It is impossible to police against anyone who remotely knows what they are doing. There are always stupid people who actually admit what they are doing, but if you use the right words, it isn't that hard.
Just because laws do not stop 100% of discrimination from going on doesn't mean that they don't do anything.
You're right, but you assume they have only good effects. They do not, they have negative effects as well.
Many millions of dollars are spent on compliance and lawyers to try and avoid such lawsuits in the first place.
companies are having to make greater efforts at compliance to avoid appearing discriminatory.
There is compliance, then there is the "appearance of compliance". It isn't rocket science, look at the H1B situation where companies advertise for jobs they have no intention to fill, only to show they made an effort before bringing in a H1B instead. If you believe they aren't doing the same think with the discrimination laws, then you're just kidding yourself.
It used to be that flight attendants were just single young ladies, but I see a fair number of men now, and people of various ages.
Yes, and that was NOT an improvement. I remember the tail end of those days and getting on a plane today is a terrible experience. In the 80's, flying was much nicer.
Of course, I will say that allowing women into the cockpit to fly was an improvement, I've met plenty of women pilots who have good judgement and are just as safe as men, so that is nice. But I'd turn back time on the flight attendants if it was up to me.
Before you think I'm sexist, think of it like Hooters, you wouldn't want men serving there, now would you?
Nothing... it is everything else beyond that...
I imagine there are some very driven people at Google, and that is fine... But their social interests, hobbies, and family lives likely have little to do with yours, unless you're a bachelor who has no interest in work/family life balance.
Well in my country employers are found liable under this legislation reasonably often, so I don't know where you get the idea it's impossible to enforce.
The plural of antidote is not data. "reasonable often" doesn't mean much when you don't actually know what the percentage of convictions out of all offenses, since you don't know the number of times it happens.
Of course, you might also be in one of those countries that has made it so hard to fire someone that companies don't want to hire. France has this problem at the moment. Worker rights are nice and all, but the more they have the less competitive a company is. We live in a global marketplace these days, so you have to compete as such.
Not only that it seems to be having an effect with older people often employed in jobs which used to go to young people.
Citation?
Again, the plural of antidote is not data.
Hetero or not, I am no more offended by a gay pride shirt than I am a football jersey or Old Navy branded tee, or someone wearing 3D jewelry depicting Christ nailed to a cross. Nor would I decline a gay pride ribbon at this point in time -- or a polygamy / polyamory pride ribbon, come to that. It's past time to push back. Hard.
Push back hard? That is the problem... They are pushing so hard they are going to get a back lash if they aren't careful.
Fine, you can have your rights, no worries... but it doesn't end there... They don't just want rights, they want "acceptance and understanding".
That is where it goes too far. I can think they are weird and that doesn't make me bad, and they are trying to make it so.
I can entirely understand that the demographics of Google employees won't match that of the more general population. But if the demographics going into the interview process consistently and noticeably fail to match the demographics actually being hired, then it looks like there might be a problem.
Why? Perhaps they cast a wide net and hope to find as many possible candidates as possible, but then end up hiring who they are most comfortable working with.
That doesn't make them criminals, it makes them human.
To avoid lawsuits, most large companies have to spend a lot of time and money to "appear" to be "doing the right thing", regardless of whatever they are actually doing.
Even if no discrimination is happening, if it "appears to be happening", they'll get sued either way.
This is a huge waste of time and money, to accomplish nothing, since at the end of the day people will do whatever the hell they want anyway, and color it in whatever words are required to be "legal".
Banning people from age, race, gender discrimination is just as pointless as banning people from smoking pot or drinking beer. All three have been tried and all three have failed.
Yea, it might be the law, but we have lots of laws that are pointless and only serve to weaken respect for the rule of law.
Not using drugs is also a law, as is the "don't drink under 21" thing, and most of us have broken one or the other of those.
You can't legislate morality or tell people who to associate with. Well, you can try, and we have, but it fails every time. Just look at prohibition and how well that worked out.
If you pay people what they are worth and for the work they do, I think it pays itself back to the company.
I had another employee who came in after hours for a few weekends and helped with some work that wasn't in his job description. Some people would take advantage of that since he was on salary, but that is just wrong and sends the wrong message to everyone else in the company.
I'm not so fool to think that employees don't talk behind my back about such things.
So I paid him a bonus for his time. It was me saying, "thanks for coming in after hours and doing something outside of why you were hired".
After all, had he not done so, I'd probably have paid more to hire a contractor to do it.
That sounds very nice, like something a politician would say running for office... I'm sure it will get upvoted...
Now coming back to reality... If old people feel disenfranchised, then perhaps old people should start companies and hire other old people and do the same in reverse.
Perhaps black people can start companies and hire only black people. Oh wait, that already happens... except you won't find white people applying there then claiming race discrimination.
The problem with anti-disrimination laws is it moves beyond a level playing field and moves into fixing the outcome.
It used to be that black person or a woman *COULDN'T* own a business. That has been fixed. But insisting that a white person hire a black person to promote diversity, is just absurd.
Companies are for-profit private enterprises, not tools of the government to mold social whims. And didn't you hear, companies are people...
Yeah, I've known heteros like that too. It's shocking how they just act like it's "okay" to talk about the opposite-sex people they care most about in life. They should really know better and keep that damned hetero stuff in the closet.
There is talking about it, then there is "throwing it in your face".
Some gay people wear it on their shoulder as a matter of pride and want EVERYONE TO KNOW. It is part of their identity to the point of excluding most other things. A chip on their shoulder.
I don't care if Tim tells us that it is his 5th anniversary with Bill this month, good for them, I hope they are happy.
What I do mind is when Tim comes into the office wearing a gay pride shirt and hands out rainbow ribbons and talks about nothing else. I've met gay people who just won't shut up about it. I honestly can't recall any non-gay people who are like that.
"Black people who are intelligent and educated"... Yes, I have no problem working with imaginary creatures either.
Actually, I have worked with some intelligent black people, so they do exist... They are not well represented either in the IT business or the flying business, for various reasons.
Back when I ran a flight school, during a 3 year period we had exactly one black student, the entire time. Had he stuck with it, I'd have hired him, he was mid 30's, family man, looking for a career change. But he stopped coming in half way through his training for whatever reason.
It depends on the company, who is doing the hiring, etc.
At a smaller company or in a small dept where the person doing the hiring will work with the person, then part of the "rational criteria" is "do I want to work with this person?".
Tell me, does a 30 year old white male want to work all day with another 30 year old white male, or with a 50 year old black woman?
Regardless of anything else, the answer should be obvious.
Now in fairness, a 30 year old white male who can't do the job shouldn't be hired, but I imagine somewhere out there you can find one who can. The 50 year old black female never had a chance, because the person doing the hiring doesn't want to work with her.
That is probably a "crime" in your eyes, or in some people's eyes in any case... but it is life and reality and laws won't change that...
Again, the law exists to combat prejudice exactly like that.
Yes, it does, and it is about as effective as the laws against drug use...
When you pass laws that are impossible to really enforce, you end up with a nation of law breakers, who then slowly lose respect for law in general...
It is like a teacher telling kids, "you all have to be friends with Billy now". Sure, the teacher can say it, can even try to enforce it, but if the kids don't like Billy, then they don't like him and nothing the teacher says will change that.
But one might get a bit suspicious if this consistently happens to people in an under-represent demographic within the company.
That sounds true on the surface...
But consider that the demographics of the population that is qualified to work at Google and the population of the US are not the same thing....
That strikes me as the biggest flaw in such thinking, that they should have a similar percentage of women, blacks, Asians, etc. as the general US population...
But the US population isn't their hiring pool, people qualified to do the job are their hiring pool.
I'm in my early 40s and in my last set of interviews, I would work into the conversation that I'm married, have kids, and believe in a work/family balance. I wanted to be "discriminated" against. I didn't want to work for a company that expected me to work consistently more than 45 hours a week.
You're a smart man...
I have kids as well, family men (and women) don't bother me at all, they tend to be more stable employees anyway.
My bookkeeper has a son, she sometimes needs to leave work in the middle of the day if school calls because he is sick. She always makes up the work on an evening or weekend, and I never give her any trouble about leaving during the day to take care of him.
In return, she thanks me for the flex time and for giving her room to care for her child. I get a loyal employee who feels appreciated by the company that she works for.
I see that as a win-win deal. The work gets done, she takes care of her son, what is not to like?
Generally yes, but there are exceptions... If the job requires lifting boxes of 70lbs, such as being a UPS driver, then yes, you can ask, "do you have anything that would prevent you from lifting boxes by yourself of 70lbs?"
You can't ask "are you disabled", but you can ask, "can you perform this job function?"
It doesn't matter in this case, the story is clearly made up...
She is ugly, but for a company the size of Google, that shouldn't matter... I imagine there is more than one ugly person working there...
More likely she doesn't interview well, or isn't a social person. Look at her CV and she has had a LOT of 1 year jobs over the past 20 years. A few 5 and 6 year jobs, but mostly 1 year jobs.
So she moves around a lot.
Also, it is worth noting that anyone who graduated college in 1982 who thinks Google would be a good "social fit" hasn't met many people at Google.
I'm 40 and I think I'd be a bit old to work there.
Or, you wanted raises larger than 1.5%. The only way you get a raise of any significance (or a promotion) these days is by switching jobs.
That isn't always true...
I have had employees that were worth keeping and I offered more money to.
My office manager/book keeper, a few years ago, was doing very well and I was paying her $40k per year. When it came time to do the annual review, she asked for a 5% raise, instead I gave her a 20% raise to $50k.
Why? Because she ran the office, knew everything day to day, and the place just wouldn't work without her. She had taken on more duties since I hired her and deserved more pay.
She was shocked when I offered the money, to which I replied, "when a company has a great employee who does more each year and makes themselves valuable to the business, a company would be foolish to not compensate them for that.
Yea, I have to say, anyone willing to steal 14 million dollars and involve me in the process... expects to get their cut of 7 million...
I wouldn't put it past them to not think about killing me...
I'd rather have 7 million and know that the person who knows WHY I have 7 million also has 7 million and is happy, than to have 14 million and look over my shoulder for the rest of my life.
When you're committing a crime, don't screw your partner who can expose you.
Crime 101 I suppose...
Ignoring her picture, since she isn't being hired for her looks.
She has had a LOT of jobs that last a year. That was the biggest red flag that I saw. But there might be reasons for that, perhaps that was contract work, or perhaps those companies closed, I didn't look at it closely enough to tell.
She may also be OVER qualified for whatever position was being interviewed for, so while she could do it, other people could do it and would work for less.
If I have two otherwise qualified people for a position and one insists on 100k per year and someone else will take 70k, why would I hire the 100k per year person?
---
Side note: I have actually dealt with that. Had an employee who started 10k over what I had planed to pay, due to nearly 20 years experience. Didn't need the experience, but he was a fit for the position, so sure, ok.
Started him at 60k, instead of the 50k I had planned for. Within 9 months, he was asking for 70k and hinted that without it, he might have other offers worth considering. I went ahead and gave him the 70k as I was not prepared to lose him, but I also started a search for a replacement, which was wise because at the 1 year mark, he asked for another raise to 75k, at which point I informed him that I couldn't do that and in fact was looking for a replacement due to the cost, I simply didn't need 20 years of experience, 5 was enough. I replaced him with someone with about 7 years of experience who accepted 50k with a smile.
The experience only helps if the job requires it. If it doesn't, the biggest issue is expecting to be paid for it anyway.
From time to time they will, but this idea that it isn't going on and if it is, will be stopped, is fantasy.
It is just colored in BS words to provide legal cover.
Frankly, honesty would probably be better for everyone involved. People get their hopes up, not knowing they never had a chance because they aren't the right "race, age, gender, orientation, etc".
Just say what you want and be done with it, you'll largely get it anyway.
Next the SJW will want laws saying that you have to be friends with people of each "race, age, gender, orientation", or you're being a "friend discriminator" and be subject to personal fines.
Sounds stupid, doesn't it? What is the difference when a company does it?
I specifically asked if you were also comfortable with blacks, homosexuals and women to be rejected a job because their colleagues would feel uncomfortable. Address that. I just want to figure out from which century did you drop in from.
If you think that the 21st century is somehow special, I've got a bridge to sell you.
Some places are ok with the above, some are not. Culture varies from place to place and doesn't change just because someone passes a law.
I live in Texas, homosexuals are not nearly as welcome here as they are in California. I have known a few, some throw it in your face, others keep it to themselves. Those who keep it to themselves are welcome to work for me. Those who don't, wouldn't get along with me anyway. Since I've never employed more than 20 people at a time, everyone who works for me more or less has to get along with me.
As for black people? I have no problem with black people who are intelligent and educated. It is the punks that I can't stand. Of course, I can't stand punk white kids either, so perhaps I really discriminate against punks. :)
---
The irony is that I have employed some older folks who have done wonders, and others who have not. What I HAVE found is that people under 25 are far less dependable than people over 45. One of my best hires was a 59 year old man named Chuck who was semi-retired from the health care business. He worked for me part time, 20 hours a week, to have something to do. One of the best employees I've ever had, totally dependable and had a brain and used it.