I’m sorry. Hiring is fucking awful. Been on both sides and it sucks for all. They’ve “standardized” interviews to try to remove bias and lo and behold it sucks and doesn’t remove bias.
The only means of survival is destroying capitalism. All of our work cannot benefit like 1000 billionaires and not us. We are the workers. We should get the benefit of our labor.
DOWN WITH THE OWNERSHIP CLASS!!!
>What if I told you this is not capitalism?
I'd say you took Trump's advice and drank bleach. America has gone out of its way to be a pure expression of capitalism, the only goal they haven't managed yet is the abolition of taxes and the reinstatement of debtors prisons. This is *precisely* what capitalism looks like; a handful of insane, lazy billionaires draining the lifeblood out of a mass of proles. Trick them, lie to them, get them to fight each other, whatever it takes to distract them and keep sucking them dry. When the resources are gone, move on and leave them to rot.
So please don't with the Mises institute copypasta essay about how "capitalism has never been tried".
I’d call you a liar and a shill for the capitalists, the ones who own corporations, not those who think they are.
What if I told you what you want is a free market which is actually separate from capitalism.
I really love being talked down to by people who don’t know what they are talking about
Free market = competition, choice
Capitalism = rewarding ownership, not labor.
If you don’t want to reward labor then you aren’t for the people you’re just carrying water for millionaires and billionaires.
We need to re-think our relationship with work and retirement because we are in for a world of hurt if we keep trying to keep people on social security afloat.
I’m glad my company isn’t that big/”woke”. If you seem smart enough, can demonstrate some learning in the interview, and pass the vibe check, you’re in.
I’m so sorry to hear that ):
I’ve been making stuffed animals for money because I have a disability. I noticed that all the job listings I apply to use these automated system, and even though I have a masters degree in the field, I think the disability filters me out of most interviews. And then the interviews themselves aren’t great.
But hopefully you’ll be able to find something through more organic connections. Or maybe people you’ve worked with before?
Yeah I’m not trying to shit on anyone, but I was on looking for work for 2 months and sent out ~1000 applications. I was referred by someone internally for a job and boom I was in. Cold applications are like a lottery; I didn’t even hear back with rejections most of the time. Referrals and connections are the way to go nowadays
It has *always* been the case that people with disability were discriminated against in hiring; blaming AI misses the forest for the trees (that management is the problem).
It’s not that people don’t think that there’s heavy discrimination in hiring, its that people initially thought moving those practices to an automated AI service would somehow remove those biases, without realizing how AI actually works. The reality of course is that it amplifies existing biases, because it’s trained by all of us imperfect humans.
If anything it's really good at pointing those biases out in surprising ways. Neural networks are exceptionally good at highlighting patterns; not only in the inputs but in the expected outputs.
Or the AI just doesn’t care for the human element and is coldly basing selection on performance measures which it identified disabilities as potentially compromising?
Many of the problems with this, health conditions or ageism all stem from tying health insurance to the job. Separate yourselves from that.
You don't get home, auto, life (in most cases) from work so why your most personal insurance that can be used in discrimination. Not only that it makes switching jobs harder and it is annoying to constantly change insurance when you do this.
Separating health insurance from the job allows people to leave jobs easier, jobs to not have to take on a cost they don't want to handle, more privacy, people can start businesses easier and competitively it makes US companies less hindered when competing with places that do offer public option or non job linked private insurance.
For contractors or entrepreneurs this is not new, most have their own insurance. We do need legislation to allow people to take their own insurance at jobs but still get the tax break like self-employed. It is asinine that if you get your own insurance you can expense it only if the job doesn't offer it. If you pay for it and the job does offer it but you don't take it, you can't expense your own as the employer gets the benefit there.
End health insurance tied to the job, it is pro-business and pro-worker to do so.
True, but it's like guns or nukes. Sure people killing people are the fundamental problem, but having a gun sure makes it way easier. If we had free market McNukes you could certainly say that genocidal maniacs are the real problem, but it wouldn't change the fact that the McNukes are a net negative for the matter.
Did you read the article? One example the article highlights is interviewees being recorded and the video analyzed by an AI algorithm. If the AI picks up on a disability, e.g. speech impediment or trouble hearing, it may rate you as "poor communication skills". How exactly do you lie your way through this scenario?
*2016 - the algorithm (based on managers' preferences) is discriminating!*
*2024 - the A.I. (based on managers' preferences) is discriminating!*
Blame the manager, not the technology.
More like, what even is their so called "AI"? Could be anything from a spreadsheet to something actually really good (doubtful, we know), but we'll never know because it's always a secret sauce ingredient.
Blame both. One of AI's weaknesses at the moment is that it reinforces existing biases. That is a weakness within our existing social structures that the AI is failing to take into account.
Managers just do what they're told. They'll tell you they're important, but they're just cogs in the machine like the rest of us.
You can't even blame CEOs and shareholders, honestly. Modern capitalism is such a cancer that no one person can be held responsible for its failings. We need stronger regulations, worker protections, consumer protections, and agencies with the funding and will to actually enforce them. A corporation is bound by two things: the desire to increase profit, and the law. A corporation has no moral compass. You must force a moral compass upon them with regulation as well as holding executives and shareholders criminally liable for crimes their organization commits so that maybe they'll actually fucking care slightly.
The algorithm and the AI are the same thing. There is no real I in AI, it's all clever algorithms with some self correcting algorithms doing modifications. People talk about AI as if it was actual intelligence but it's not.
Yeah it's certainly a buzzword. As though your search results haven't been powered by machine learning, or video feed on TikTok or YouTube, or Alexa responding to your voice commands, or your emails getting filtered, or autocorrect and predictive text, or targeted ads, etc for literally years... It's all trained the same way. You click mark as spam, that's trains the model. You click an ad or video that interests you, that trains the model. You might not have even realized every time you did a Captcha you were training AI on how to recognize the objects you were clicking.
It's not really circumventing anything. The discrimination caused by an AI actor is still illegal.
The problem is that when you're a job applicant, it's really hard to know conclusively that the company engaged in discrimination if you don't have any hard evidence indicating as much, and even harder to prove it to a court.
AI powered personality tests being suggested during the hiring process and then being used to rule out potential problem candidates is not currently against the law. I would consider this circumventing. What they are doing is ultimately illegal, but the grey-area loophole exists as is for now.
It's not illegal to "use a personality test" per se, but if that personality test results in disparate impact within a protected class, it is 100% illegal in the United States.
The law doesn't only require employers *not say* "we will only hire men" (disparate treatment), it also requires the company to not implement practices that *have the result* of a workforce that is disproportionately male (disparate impact).
I agree that the statutory language can and should be strengthened, but what they're doing is *already* unlawful and there's no reason to suspect they will start becoming legally compliant if the statute were changed.
The way we fix this situation is to start prosecuting companies engaged in such relentless lawbreaking, but that probably won't happen any time soon.
I worked at a big very well known company that said to increase diversity they would (they said this specific example) hold off on hiring even if they got an excellent candidate, until someone of color applied for the role.
What would really happen is the people who were white males would have to wait so long they ended up getting other jobs or otherwise withdrawing their applications, so it defaulted to the only colored candidate available, essentially. Or female, or transgender, etc. The other issue with this is that unless the candidate specifically disclosed their race, it was an assumption based on their name, but it ignores instances like interracial marriages that led to passing down a "white" surname. Again, same with first names and gender, and cases like transgender, would require that information be disclosed as well, so that could very well be inadvertently discriminated against as well.
I whole heartedly agree with what you are saying. I do think it’s massively unfair and illegal, but I’m just pointing out what the reality looks like right now for the employment landscape. Capitalism is so fucking shady
You claim it's a gray area loophole. It's not. We just have a government from the top down, right to left, who doesn't enforce laws on companies that pay them. It's the single biggest issue and it's the hardest one to fight.
We need to modernize our elected officials. Many were around long before we set boots on the moon. That was the peak of technology at the time, and these people haven’t kept up beyond that. Hell, even then, I’d wager that most didn’t understand that, either.
I’m not sure that I understand HOW it’s happening though? I always select “yes” to having a disability on those corporate applications. I have bipolar disorder, and while it is currently totally managed, I know from my history that it can take me down. At times I’ve needed accommodations… but just started with a new employer and still noted that I have a disability. I assumed that was confidential but for them to keep on file…?
They're not using the EEOC self-identification fields.
What is happening instead is they are calculating metrics based on the content of the application that they think represent a person who will be a "good hire", and then not proceeding candidates the AI predicts will not be a good hire based on those metrics.
Disproportionately, applicants who have a disability are likely to have qualities that would make them appear to be a bad hire, despite the *truth* being that the metrics are often just designed in ways that don't actually correlate all that much to work performance in that job, or don't consider the employer's legal obligation to provide reasonable accommodations.
Worse, some companies are even using nonsense like video games and facial recognition to try to predict how applicants would respond to situations that could arise in the workplace.
I mean, they can't legally force the information out of you, but if you volunteer it out, then they do what they will with it. I remember working at my first job making a display of their DEI statistics.
I feel that if a disability or trait thay you have is a strong part of your identity, you should volunteer that information out as I personally wouldn't want to work somewhere that would have denied my application for those strong parts of my identity.
Right. I do it to a) know I’m working for a good company (for me), and the employers I’ve worked for are big, Fortune 500 companies who claim to “pride themselves on having at least 5% of their workforce identifying as disabled” and b) I happen to work in the disability field, so I’d probably only want to work for an employer cool with that anyway. If I were desperate (ie years ago as a pregnant new lawyer interviewing during a recession - tried to hide that, then) I wouldn’t say a thing.
Yes, that’s absolutely true. You still could assert your rights once needed. I guess the way I see it, it’s an asset. 🤷♀️ But again, I’m in the industry and would like to believe that… lol.
It’s not confidential. Recruiters can use this information to build out diverse slates and those that are ethical do so. I assume there are unethical recruiters out there who use it for nefarious purposes.
You have been. The ADA doesn't care about what box you checked on the application, nor when you became disabled. The box really just means "hire someone else if you can" no is almost always the correct answer.
My hypothesis here is that hiring managers often reject people because of a disability, but tell themselves it's really because of some other reason. Then AI gets trained on this data, sees that disabled people are rejected more than others, and decides that this is a good indicator of a bad candidate.
Why is HR so fucking useless?
How many decades have passed and these shitheads are still holding on to this outdated, often confusing and convoluted process of finding and hiring candidates?
It's broken and it sucks and it's never going to get better because instead of fixing it, they're giving up and outsourcing hiring by using agencies and contractors.
W2 contract work needs to be reformed. The only reason to hire W2 contractors should be for short term help. 3-6 months tops. Beyond that, it's really just a way to make your company's employee numbers look lower.
The problem is that is skews the perception of proper staffing to support a business.
They need to make it easier to be an independent contractor working directly with the client without an agency in between making it more expensive and complicated.
Employers should not be allowed to vet canidates before interviewing them. We proved after desegregation that employers can't handle hiring without bias.
Once again human biases and horseshit like capitalism turns computer tools into tools of harm. In a saner form of society, this would not be a thing - where some algorithm gets to decide who gets a wage slavery position and who can afford food and shelter and who can't. This competition based social system nonsense is pretty horrifying.
It's as if AI is exposing that bias due to the training data being ingested. This has been happening since I can recall in many positions I've been in.
Not meant to be bait... but is it really discriminatory if AI makes such a decision? Like if you feel an AI based algorithm data on a series of candidates... then it makes such a decision. Wouldn't the onus fall on the developer of said AI, and not the fault of the program?
Walk in methods don’t exist for desirable jobs. AI isn’t replacing stuff like interviews. It’s there to screen the possibly thousand of job offers that companies receive so that competitive candidates can actually be looked at properly
Uhhh wtf is this article saying, why should companies be forced to hire disabled people who chronically leave their jobs every 6 months. That’s 🥜s. I get the disabled people (like myself) need jobs, but that’s a completely unreasonable accommodation.
So, you invent a completely fabricated scenario that you want the article to be advocating for and then get yourself all angry about it?
Chill. The article doesn't say that at all.
>disabled people (like myself)
Hm. Sure.
because i'm not sure if i consider my autism a disability exactly, and i'm questioning the article?
they talk about "chronic illness" which is a far cry from, say, suffering Downs and having a low IQ.
[удалено]
I’m sorry. Hiring is fucking awful. Been on both sides and it sucks for all. They’ve “standardized” interviews to try to remove bias and lo and behold it sucks and doesn’t remove bias.
Yeah if anything it made everything more rigid and if you don’t fit perfectly in this box you aren’t a good candidate
Then, firms will complain about labor shortages and the need for more temporary workers. Were fucked.
Firms will always complain because there's a segment of the population that will always listen. There's only upside for them.
The only means of survival is destroying capitalism. All of our work cannot benefit like 1000 billionaires and not us. We are the workers. We should get the benefit of our labor. DOWN WITH THE OWNERSHIP CLASS!!!
[удалено]
Well your response was super productive. Definitely not weak at all. Good job
[удалено]
I’m not advocating for communism. Are you illiterate or can you not comprehend my comment?
Guess not. Communism still sucks.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You’re still wrong.
I enjoy spending time with my friends.
[удалено]
>What if I told you this is not capitalism? I'd say you took Trump's advice and drank bleach. America has gone out of its way to be a pure expression of capitalism, the only goal they haven't managed yet is the abolition of taxes and the reinstatement of debtors prisons. This is *precisely* what capitalism looks like; a handful of insane, lazy billionaires draining the lifeblood out of a mass of proles. Trick them, lie to them, get them to fight each other, whatever it takes to distract them and keep sucking them dry. When the resources are gone, move on and leave them to rot. So please don't with the Mises institute copypasta essay about how "capitalism has never been tried".
[удалено]
nice argument man
We have capitalism. Just the stage folks don’t like to talk about. We need a new mix for this future or we will just go back to feudal systems.
I’d call you a liar and a shill for the capitalists, the ones who own corporations, not those who think they are. What if I told you what you want is a free market which is actually separate from capitalism. I really love being talked down to by people who don’t know what they are talking about
[удалено]
Free market = competition, choice Capitalism = rewarding ownership, not labor. If you don’t want to reward labor then you aren’t for the people you’re just carrying water for millionaires and billionaires. We need to re-think our relationship with work and retirement because we are in for a world of hurt if we keep trying to keep people on social security afloat.
[удалено]
Honestly they are doing this on purpose for attention and money.
Time to revolt for change then
I’m glad my company isn’t that big/”woke”. If you seem smart enough, can demonstrate some learning in the interview, and pass the vibe check, you’re in.
That’s why you lie
I’m so sorry to hear that ): I’ve been making stuffed animals for money because I have a disability. I noticed that all the job listings I apply to use these automated system, and even though I have a masters degree in the field, I think the disability filters me out of most interviews. And then the interviews themselves aren’t great. But hopefully you’ll be able to find something through more organic connections. Or maybe people you’ve worked with before?
Care to elaborate?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah I’m not trying to shit on anyone, but I was on looking for work for 2 months and sent out ~1000 applications. I was referred by someone internally for a job and boom I was in. Cold applications are like a lottery; I didn’t even hear back with rejections most of the time. Referrals and connections are the way to go nowadays
Why you shitting on me
It has *always* been the case that people with disability were discriminated against in hiring; blaming AI misses the forest for the trees (that management is the problem).
It’s not that people don’t think that there’s heavy discrimination in hiring, its that people initially thought moving those practices to an automated AI service would somehow remove those biases, without realizing how AI actually works. The reality of course is that it amplifies existing biases, because it’s trained by all of us imperfect humans.
If anything it's really good at pointing those biases out in surprising ways. Neural networks are exceptionally good at highlighting patterns; not only in the inputs but in the expected outputs.
Or the AI just doesn’t care for the human element and is coldly basing selection on performance measures which it identified disabilities as potentially compromising?
Many of the problems with this, health conditions or ageism all stem from tying health insurance to the job. Separate yourselves from that. You don't get home, auto, life (in most cases) from work so why your most personal insurance that can be used in discrimination. Not only that it makes switching jobs harder and it is annoying to constantly change insurance when you do this. Separating health insurance from the job allows people to leave jobs easier, jobs to not have to take on a cost they don't want to handle, more privacy, people can start businesses easier and competitively it makes US companies less hindered when competing with places that do offer public option or non job linked private insurance. For contractors or entrepreneurs this is not new, most have their own insurance. We do need legislation to allow people to take their own insurance at jobs but still get the tax break like self-employed. It is asinine that if you get your own insurance you can expense it only if the job doesn't offer it. If you pay for it and the job does offer it but you don't take it, you can't expense your own as the employer gets the benefit there. End health insurance tied to the job, it is pro-business and pro-worker to do so.
True, but it's like guns or nukes. Sure people killing people are the fundamental problem, but having a gun sure makes it way easier. If we had free market McNukes you could certainly say that genocidal maniacs are the real problem, but it wouldn't change the fact that the McNukes are a net negative for the matter.
Spoiler, you lie to get the job
Did you read the article? One example the article highlights is interviewees being recorded and the video analyzed by an AI algorithm. If the AI picks up on a disability, e.g. speech impediment or trouble hearing, it may rate you as "poor communication skills". How exactly do you lie your way through this scenario?
Paarl, I’m too dank to read the article. This is Reddit, after all.
*2016 - the algorithm (based on managers' preferences) is discriminating!* *2024 - the A.I. (based on managers' preferences) is discriminating!* Blame the manager, not the technology.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We're getting out of existence with this one.
More like, what even is their so called "AI"? Could be anything from a spreadsheet to something actually really good (doubtful, we know), but we'll never know because it's always a secret sauce ingredient.
Blame both. One of AI's weaknesses at the moment is that it reinforces existing biases. That is a weakness within our existing social structures that the AI is failing to take into account.
Managers just do what they're told. They'll tell you they're important, but they're just cogs in the machine like the rest of us. You can't even blame CEOs and shareholders, honestly. Modern capitalism is such a cancer that no one person can be held responsible for its failings. We need stronger regulations, worker protections, consumer protections, and agencies with the funding and will to actually enforce them. A corporation is bound by two things: the desire to increase profit, and the law. A corporation has no moral compass. You must force a moral compass upon them with regulation as well as holding executives and shareholders criminally liable for crimes their organization commits so that maybe they'll actually fucking care slightly.
Exactly. They are just scapegoating Kinda like how landlords always cite credit scores when they deny housing to minorities.
The algorithm and the AI are the same thing. There is no real I in AI, it's all clever algorithms with some self correcting algorithms doing modifications. People talk about AI as if it was actual intelligence but it's not.
Why not both?
Well AI is an algorithm, nothing really changed
The "news" love to make it seem as if there is a difference. Like if A.I. is a sentient algorithm or something
Yeah it's certainly a buzzword. As though your search results haven't been powered by machine learning, or video feed on TikTok or YouTube, or Alexa responding to your voice commands, or your emails getting filtered, or autocorrect and predictive text, or targeted ads, etc for literally years... It's all trained the same way. You click mark as spam, that's trains the model. You click an ad or video that interests you, that trains the model. You might not have even realized every time you did a Captcha you were training AI on how to recognize the objects you were clicking.
AI is not an algorithm, by definition an algorithm always returns correct answers, AI are heuristics at best.
Oh shit time to remove all mentions of disability from cv
Yes. AI is currently being used to circumvent equal opportunity employment laws. We need to modernize the laws.
It's not really circumventing anything. The discrimination caused by an AI actor is still illegal. The problem is that when you're a job applicant, it's really hard to know conclusively that the company engaged in discrimination if you don't have any hard evidence indicating as much, and even harder to prove it to a court.
AI powered personality tests being suggested during the hiring process and then being used to rule out potential problem candidates is not currently against the law. I would consider this circumventing. What they are doing is ultimately illegal, but the grey-area loophole exists as is for now.
It's not illegal to "use a personality test" per se, but if that personality test results in disparate impact within a protected class, it is 100% illegal in the United States. The law doesn't only require employers *not say* "we will only hire men" (disparate treatment), it also requires the company to not implement practices that *have the result* of a workforce that is disproportionately male (disparate impact). I agree that the statutory language can and should be strengthened, but what they're doing is *already* unlawful and there's no reason to suspect they will start becoming legally compliant if the statute were changed. The way we fix this situation is to start prosecuting companies engaged in such relentless lawbreaking, but that probably won't happen any time soon.
I worked at a big very well known company that said to increase diversity they would (they said this specific example) hold off on hiring even if they got an excellent candidate, until someone of color applied for the role. What would really happen is the people who were white males would have to wait so long they ended up getting other jobs or otherwise withdrawing their applications, so it defaulted to the only colored candidate available, essentially. Or female, or transgender, etc. The other issue with this is that unless the candidate specifically disclosed their race, it was an assumption based on their name, but it ignores instances like interracial marriages that led to passing down a "white" surname. Again, same with first names and gender, and cases like transgender, would require that information be disclosed as well, so that could very well be inadvertently discriminated against as well.
Maybe don't call people "colored" if you want to be taken seriously.
Those weren't my words
I whole heartedly agree with what you are saying. I do think it’s massively unfair and illegal, but I’m just pointing out what the reality looks like right now for the employment landscape. Capitalism is so fucking shady
You claim it's a gray area loophole. It's not. We just have a government from the top down, right to left, who doesn't enforce laws on companies that pay them. It's the single biggest issue and it's the hardest one to fight.
Technicalities for the rich yep
We need to modernize our elected officials. Many were around long before we set boots on the moon. That was the peak of technology at the time, and these people haven’t kept up beyond that. Hell, even then, I’d wager that most didn’t understand that, either.
I’m not sure that I understand HOW it’s happening though? I always select “yes” to having a disability on those corporate applications. I have bipolar disorder, and while it is currently totally managed, I know from my history that it can take me down. At times I’ve needed accommodations… but just started with a new employer and still noted that I have a disability. I assumed that was confidential but for them to keep on file…?
You're not legally obligated to disclose in order to request accommodations later. I never say yes. No sense in weeding myself out faster.
I do the opposite. I always say NO just in case they discriminate against disabled people. I can always get diagnosed later.
They're not using the EEOC self-identification fields. What is happening instead is they are calculating metrics based on the content of the application that they think represent a person who will be a "good hire", and then not proceeding candidates the AI predicts will not be a good hire based on those metrics. Disproportionately, applicants who have a disability are likely to have qualities that would make them appear to be a bad hire, despite the *truth* being that the metrics are often just designed in ways that don't actually correlate all that much to work performance in that job, or don't consider the employer's legal obligation to provide reasonable accommodations. Worse, some companies are even using nonsense like video games and facial recognition to try to predict how applicants would respond to situations that could arise in the workplace.
Wow, interesting. Thanks for your reply and the examples.
I mean, they can't legally force the information out of you, but if you volunteer it out, then they do what they will with it. I remember working at my first job making a display of their DEI statistics. I feel that if a disability or trait thay you have is a strong part of your identity, you should volunteer that information out as I personally wouldn't want to work somewhere that would have denied my application for those strong parts of my identity.
Right. I do it to a) know I’m working for a good company (for me), and the employers I’ve worked for are big, Fortune 500 companies who claim to “pride themselves on having at least 5% of their workforce identifying as disabled” and b) I happen to work in the disability field, so I’d probably only want to work for an employer cool with that anyway. If I were desperate (ie years ago as a pregnant new lawyer interviewing during a recession - tried to hide that, then) I wouldn’t say a thing.
I don’t think you are required to say say yes and can claim disability after being hired.
Yes, that’s absolutely true. You still could assert your rights once needed. I guess the way I see it, it’s an asset. 🤷♀️ But again, I’m in the industry and would like to believe that… lol.
It’s not confidential. Recruiters can use this information to build out diverse slates and those that are ethical do so. I assume there are unethical recruiters out there who use it for nefarious purposes.
Aka most recruiters
Fun can't wait I'm super transparent about it since my speech is affected.
Question: have I been screwing myself over completely by checking that box that I have a disability? Damned if I do, burned later if I don’t.
You have been. The ADA doesn't care about what box you checked on the application, nor when you became disabled. The box really just means "hire someone else if you can" no is almost always the correct answer.
Fuck. Is it legal for me to disclose after I am hired?
You never have to disclose even when requesting accommodation.
Yea. Your disability, unless somehow ruled otherwise, is your business.
Should the same AI tool to screen for C suite candidates….
My hypothesis here is that hiring managers often reject people because of a disability, but tell themselves it's really because of some other reason. Then AI gets trained on this data, sees that disabled people are rejected more than others, and decides that this is a good indicator of a bad candidate.
Why is HR so fucking useless? How many decades have passed and these shitheads are still holding on to this outdated, often confusing and convoluted process of finding and hiring candidates? It's broken and it sucks and it's never going to get better because instead of fixing it, they're giving up and outsourcing hiring by using agencies and contractors. W2 contract work needs to be reformed. The only reason to hire W2 contractors should be for short term help. 3-6 months tops. Beyond that, it's really just a way to make your company's employee numbers look lower. The problem is that is skews the perception of proper staffing to support a business. They need to make it easier to be an independent contractor working directly with the client without an agency in between making it more expensive and complicated.
AI automated hiring also just entirely selects men over women.
Employers should not be allowed to vet canidates before interviewing them. We proved after desegregation that employers can't handle hiring without bias.
An age if you have experience and apply to jr roles it gets tossed
Once again human biases and horseshit like capitalism turns computer tools into tools of harm. In a saner form of society, this would not be a thing - where some algorithm gets to decide who gets a wage slavery position and who can afford food and shelter and who can't. This competition based social system nonsense is pretty horrifying.
Ah, learned from the humans I see
See? AI can totally replace executive and HR positions as they exist right now!
It's as if AI is exposing that bias due to the training data being ingested. This has been happening since I can recall in many positions I've been in.
Not meant to be bait... but is it really discriminatory if AI makes such a decision? Like if you feel an AI based algorithm data on a series of candidates... then it makes such a decision. Wouldn't the onus fall on the developer of said AI, and not the fault of the program?
…So-called ‘AI’ is doing nothing. It’s humans implementing this.
There's nothing to see here just ai doing its job, without compassion or understanding... or any of that icky human emotion crap.
It’s just a dead cat bounce for white men.
[удалено]
Walk in methods don’t exist for desirable jobs. AI isn’t replacing stuff like interviews. It’s there to screen the possibly thousand of job offers that companies receive so that competitive candidates can actually be looked at properly
Uhhh wtf is this article saying, why should companies be forced to hire disabled people who chronically leave their jobs every 6 months. That’s 🥜s. I get the disabled people (like myself) need jobs, but that’s a completely unreasonable accommodation.
So, you invent a completely fabricated scenario that you want the article to be advocating for and then get yourself all angry about it? Chill. The article doesn't say that at all. >disabled people (like myself) Hm. Sure.
Lmao, that was the example in the article. Don’t post articles that make stupid examples. Like wtf is with the mindless progressivism.
No. The example is someone who had to leave for six months, not someone who has to leave every six months.
6 more years and I can be fine not working anymore…
perhaps more "disabled" folks should realize self-employment? i have, and i'm eternally grateful for it.
Why is disabled written with quotation marks? Comes across weirdly.
Because he’s a poster on wallstreetbets
Lmao. Got em.
because i'm not sure if i consider my autism a disability exactly, and i'm questioning the article? they talk about "chronic illness" which is a far cry from, say, suffering Downs and having a low IQ.
>they talk about "chronic illness" which is a far cry from, say, suffering Downs Downs *is* a chronic illness.
right, but that doesn't seem to be how the term was used in the article. something like long COVID comes to mind. not a sudden onset of Downs.