Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atlanta, Georgia
Austin, Texas
Boston, Massachusetts
Chicago, Illinois
Columbus, Ohio
Dallas, Texas
Denver, Colorado
Indianapolis, Indiana
Los Angeles, California
Miami, Florida
Montgomery County, Maryland
Nashville, Tennessee
Newark, New Jersey
New York, New York
Northern Virginia
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Raleigh, North Carolina
Toronto, Ontario
Washington, DC
Green=protection for orientation and identity
Black=some protections for either orientation or identity
Red=no protections
If this becomes a factor, the list just got a lot shorter.
(Can I say that Florida being on the 'no protection' list surprised me?)
Last edited by Indigo Cardinal; 02-02-2018 at 09:28 AM..
Reason: Yellow could not easily be read.
I know this did get brought up a few times. Now with a group forming on it, how do you think this will affect the decision, if at all?
Considering that basically all employment in the US is at-will and non-unionized for degreed professionals, and considering there's a heavy burden of proof for wrongful termination, I doubt such legislation is likely to influence any corporation beyond PR points. Any workplace worth their salt has equal opportunity clauses in their contracts anyway (like I assume Amazon does). So the LGBT groups whining either don't know the law or just want publicity.
I say this as a gay guy by the way. I guarantee I could be fired from any company anywhere in the US for my orientation, and I'd have no recourse. With such weak labor and consumer protections in this country, any "protected class" legislation is simply lip service, and shrill activist groups aren't helping anyone out. If anything, they're hurting our cause by making the groups they claim to fight for less likable to the significant portion of the country that is already looking for any reason to nail them to the wall.
Last edited by Westerner92; 02-02-2018 at 09:58 AM..
Considering that basically all employment in the US is at-will and there's a heavy burden of proof for wrongful termination, I doubt such legislation is likely to influence any corporation. Any workplace worth their salt has equal opportunity clauses in their contracts anyway (like I assume Amazon does). So the LGBT groups whining either don't know the law or just want publicity.
I say this as a gay guy by the way.
You are mistaken about the law. There are places where you could in fact be fired simply because you are gay and it's not against the law. And yes, of course Amazon or any other company doesn't HAVE to discriminate just because it's not illegal to do so. But what about your husband if you have one, or the spouse of another gay LGBT employee who doesn't work for Amazon and can't find a job in that city because there are other employers who discriminate with impunity?
Even as a straight woman, I don't want to live someplace where bigotry and discrimination is acceptable in the ordinary course of business.
Considering that basically all employment in the US is at-will and non-unionized for degreed professionals, and considering there's a heavy burden of proof for wrongful termination, I doubt such legislation is likely to influence any corporation. Any workplace worth their salt has equal opportunity clauses in their contracts anyway (like I assume Amazon does). So the LGBT groups whining either don't know the law or just want publicity.
I say this as a gay guy by the way. I guarantee I could be fired from any company anywhere in the US for my orientation, and I'd have no recourse. With such weak labor and consumer protections in this country, any "protected class" legislation is simply lip service, and shrill activist groups aren't helping anyone out. If anything, they're hurting their cause by making the groups they claim to fight for less likable to the significant portion of the country that is already looking for any reason to nail them to the wall.
You've got to think outside the scope of the 50k Amazon employees and their families. Amazon is never going to fire someone due to being LGBT, even if it moved to rural Mississippi. But that's not what this about.
It's about what sort of message Amazon would be sending by investing billions of dollars in a state that doesn't have the best interests of its LGBT community, as a whole, at heart. It's a tacit acceptance of that state's status quo, is it not?
It's about whether Amazon is mindful of the social responsibility that comes with its immense power and staying true to the ideals it, as a company, has presented to the world, or if it really is just strictly about maximizing profit.
You are mistaken about the law. There are places where you could in fact be fired simply because you are gay and it's not against the law. And yes, of course Amazon or any other company doesn't HAVE to discriminate just because it's not illegal to do so. But what about your husband if you have one, or the spouse of another gay LGBT employee who doesn't work for Amazon and can't find a job in that city because there are other employers who discriminate with impunity?
Even as a straight woman, I don't want to live someplace where bigotry and discrimination is acceptable in the ordinary course of business.
Everyone discriminates with impunity. The burden of proof for discrimination in a court of law is so heavy that it's all but impossible to prove except in blatant cases. I appreciate the sexual orientation being added to the list of protected classes, and it'll happen everywhere eventually, but with at-will employment, it's somewhat useless in a practical sense. All it takes is one ***hole manager to dislike you, even in a pro-LGBT workplace, to get fired, and there's no way to prove their intentions. The same thing could happen with literally any identity anywhere in the US because of at-will employment.
Everyone discriminates with impunity. The burden of proof for discrimination in a court of law is so heavy that it's all but impossible to prove except in blatant cases. I appreciate the sexual orientation being added to the list of protected classes, and it'll happen everywhere eventually, but with at-will employment, it's somewhat useless.
Again, you are still missing the point. There are places where someone could say "I don't want to have to work with one of them queers, you're fired!" and that would be fine.
And the burden to prove discrimination isn't THAT difficult. I say that as someone whose first internship in law school was with the local anti-discrimination agency investigating these cases. The mere fact that someone is a member of a protected class doesn't automatically mean it's discriminatory if they are disciplined or fired, but when you investigate and get records showing that the ONLY person disciplined for a particular thing oh so coincidentally happened to be the only woman or person of color, well, it's not that hard to show probable cause.
Again, you are still missing the point. There are places where someone could say "I don't want to have to work with one of them queers, you're fired!" and that would be fine.
And the burden to prove discrimination isn't THAT difficult. I say that as someone whose first internship in law school was with the local anti-discrimination agency investigating these cases. The mere fact that someone is a member of a protected class doesn't automatically mean it's discriminatory if they are disciplined or fired, but when you investigate and get records showing that the ONLY person disciplined for a particular thing oh so coincidentally happened to be the only woman or person of color, well, it's not that hard to show probable cause.
I think you're missing my point as well. Surely it occurred to you that the cases you investigated had a sample bias for being particularly blatant.
A workplace can fire you without giving a reason, no? Or am I misunderstanding the "at-will" laws?
Like I said, I appreciate adding orientation to the list of protected classes and think it should be, but it's not much comfort as an at-will employee. Unless I misunderstand what "at-will" employment means, the reality is that I can be fired (as well as you) on a discriminatory basis with no recourse. A culture of acceptance factors heavily into where I work, where I live, and who I associate with, but state level lip service doesn't. If these groups were actually worried about the laws, they'd see that Austin and Dallas, for instance, do have orientation as a protected class for housing and employment.
But again, we need to address labor and consumer laws for protected class legislation to have any teeth.
Whining at Amazon and appealing to their sense of PR isn't going to do much for their goals is all I was saying, unless their goal is PR.
Last edited by Westerner92; 02-02-2018 at 10:53 AM..
I think you're missing my point as well. Surely it occurred to you that the cases you investigated had a sample bias for being particularly blatant.
A workplace can fire you without giving a reason, no? Or am I misunderstanding the "at-will" laws?
Like I said, I appreciate adding orientation to the list of protected classes and think it should be, but it's not much comfort as an at-will employee. Unless I misunderstand what "at-will" employment means, the reality is that I can be fired (as well as you) on a discriminatory basis with no recourse. A culture of acceptance factors heavily into where I work, where I live, and who I associate with, but state level lip service doesn't. If these groups were actually worried about the laws, they'd see that Austin and Dallas, for instance, do have orientation as a protected class for housing and employment.
But again, we need to address labor and consumer laws for protected class legislation to have any teeth.
Whining at Amazon and appealing to their sense of PR isn't going to do much for their goals is all I was saying, unless their goal is PR.
You are misunderstanding how at-will employment intersects with anti-discrimination laws. Yes, as an at-will employee, you can be fired without cause - in other words, you don't have to mess up or do something wrong, they can just say ok, we're done here. BUT you cannot be fired (or failed to be hired) simply because you are a member of a protected class and for no other reason. And there will be a burden on the employer to prove that the termination was not because of a discriminatory reason if that is alleged. Can it be hard to distinguish on an individual basis between "we just don't think you'll fit in here" and "we don't think anyone over 40 will fit in here"? Yes, but you can also see that one is the normal freedom of the at-will labor market and one is age discrimination.
And I do think a company like Amazon would at least take this issue into consideration because while it doesn't directly impact their own business practices, it impacts their hiring pool - it's part of the reason they ruled out hundreds of cities that wanted to be considered, because they didn't fit what Amazon needed logistically but also because they couldn't hire the kind of workforce they need because those locations were not desirable to that workforce.
And btw, you are incorrect that most of the cases I investigated had a sample bias for being blatant. The vast majority of the investigations were closed for lack of probable cause, and there was evidence that the person was fired or disciplined for cause, or that a non-discriminatory reason was the basis for a termination (last hired or something like that), etc. The legitimate cases were actually pretty rare but they got a lot more than lip service once they were identified and validated.
Had a business trip with a bunch of folks from Indy. They say the city is rapidly trying to expand a rail system to make it more attractive for Amazon, but they don't think Indy is even going to make the top 5 in the end.
But what about your husband if you have one, or the spouse of another gay LGBT employee who doesn't work for Amazon and can't find a job in that city because there are other employers who discriminate with impunity?
Or even the hypothetical LGBT Amazon employee themselves. Departments downsize, or people want new challenges, or sometimes you get a boss you just can't stand--would you (general you), as an LGBT employee, want to be in an area of the country where your gender identity and/or sexual orientation could keep you from getting another job (since it wouldn't be illegal to discriminate against you) if something happens with the job you have? Would you really want to be looking at *having* to move, on top of everything else, if that were to happen?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
