The reason it's still happening is a lot of people will more heaven and earth to deny discrimination exists, just read the comments here in any thread involving such. Though given that a court of law has found their actions racist, I suspect this thread may prove an exception.
I think the reason many people denyit is because many people have an incredibly unnuanced view off the world where everything and everyone is rigidly good or bad and there can be no shades of grey. Therefore if you did something a bit
A Seattle jury found the actions racist. A bit different. Juries make incorrect awards all the time and get overturned on appeal.
IBM appears to be able to adjust the rewards to sellers at its discretion as it does not have a solid contract with them. His incentive plan letter, used for such contracts, contains a warning that the letters are not commission contracts in a very real and legally binding sense.
So the assumption is that they capped his commission because of his skin color, which might be true.
However it turns out this is a common practice at IBM (and not limited to skin color): https://www.heraldsun.com/news... [heraldsun.com]
But you took the bait. You guys keep falling for the race-baiters every single time. No wonder you are so perpetually outraged.
Cases like this are really simple. Black person was paid 15% of what a white person got for doing the same work. IBM had an opportunity to explain how that disparity was unrelated to race, showing the other factors that influenced their decision. The jury was then able to decide if those other factors were believable (i.e. not made up to justify the racism) and if they did in fact merit the reward only being 15% of what the other guy got.
In this case they decided that IBM could not justify the disparity, an
Cool story bro. Now explain why white sales guys are suing IBM: https://www.heraldsun.com/news... [heraldsun.com]
Also it seems cheaper to me to not hire black guys in the first place if I was racist. But what do I know? SJWs always know the truth because they read it on the internet and anyone who says different votes for trump.
"Lawyers for the men contend IBM reduced the payments not for its stated reasons, but because upper-level managers had set up and were enforcing an informal, hidden budget for commission payouts. Under it, the salesmen faced cuts simply because they otherwise stood to make too much money."
That doesn't stop them from being racists and making much deeper cuts to darker skinned sales people.
"Also it seems cheaper to me to not hire black guys in the first place if I was racist. But what do I know
There are probably a few reasons. The one I can think of is IBM is a US Govt approved contractor, and as such they have to do certain things, some of which deal with mandatory diversity and non-discrimination requirements. If they want to keep selling billions of $ of nonfunctional AI and business management applications to US Govt, they must report back periodically on metrics showing they meet these requirements.
Not sure if the regulation covers all of a company or just their Government Services sector
"There are probably a few reasons. The one I can think of is IBM is a US Govt approved contractor, and as such they have to do certain things... "
Exactly, human resources at IBM are definitely trying their best to reflect diversity in their hiring practices, it's an easy data point for outsiders to monitor. The IBM managers who decide how much of a commission salesmen get, not so easy to keep tabs on.
If a salesman was paid less commission than their contract, that would be a breach of contract, not a racial issue.
If the contract was vague, then why was the other salesman paid more?
It could be racism. But I strongly suspect other issues. Like one salesman was a better negotiator. Or had a crap manager.
But whatever the reason, cheating salesmen out of their commissions for any reason when they hit the jackpot is a really bad move. Salesmen live for commissions, they talk to each other, and the good o
"It could be racism. But I strongly suspect other issues. Like one salesman was a better negotiator. Or had a crap manager."
Given the story, all of those in concert seem likely to me.
"But whatever the reason, cheating salesmen out of their commissions for any reason when they hit the jackpot is a really bad move. Salesmen live for commissions, they talk to each other, and the good ones will leave."
Yeah. And with what I've read on IBM over the years I'm not really surprised.
Systems programmers are the high priests of a low cult.
-- R.S. Barton
Big Blue made a big boo-boo (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this crap still happening?
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason it's still happening is a lot of people will more heaven and earth to deny discrimination exists, just read the comments here in any thread involving such. Though given that a court of law has found their actions racist, I suspect this thread may prove an exception.
I think the reason many people denyit is because many people have an incredibly unnuanced view off the world where everything and everyone is rigidly good or bad and there can be no shades of grey. Therefore if you did something a bit
Re: (Score:-1)
IBM appears to be able to adjust the rewards to sellers at its discretion as it does not have a solid contract with them. His incentive plan letter, used for such contracts, contains a warning that the letters are not commission contracts in a very real and legally binding sense.
So the assumption is that they capped his commission because of his skin color, which might be true.
However it turns out this is a common practice at IBM (and not limited to skin color): https://www.heraldsun.com/news... [heraldsun.com]
But you took the bait. You guys keep falling for the race-baiters every single time. No wonder you are so perpetually outraged.
Re: (Score:4, Informative)
Cases like this are really simple. Black person was paid 15% of what a white person got for doing the same work. IBM had an opportunity to explain how that disparity was unrelated to race, showing the other factors that influenced their decision. The jury was then able to decide if those other factors were believable (i.e. not made up to justify the racism) and if they did in fact merit the reward only being 15% of what the other guy got.
In this case they decided that IBM could not justify the disparity, an
Re: Big Blue made a big boo-boo (Score:-1)
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
From your link:
"Lawyers for the men contend IBM reduced the payments not for its stated reasons, but because upper-level managers had set up and were enforcing an informal, hidden budget for commission payouts. Under it, the salesmen faced cuts simply because they otherwise stood to make too much money."
That doesn't stop them from being racists and making much deeper cuts to darker skinned sales people.
"Also it seems cheaper to me to not hire black guys in the first place if I was racist. But what do I know
Re: (Score:3)
There are probably a few reasons. The one I can think of is IBM is a US Govt approved contractor, and as such they have to do certain things, some of which deal with mandatory diversity and non-discrimination requirements. If they want to keep selling billions of $ of nonfunctional AI and business management applications to US Govt, they must report back periodically on metrics showing they meet these requirements.
Not sure if the regulation covers all of a company or just their Government Services sector
Re: Big Blue made a big boo-boo (Score:2)
"There are probably a few reasons. The one I can think of is IBM is a US Govt approved contractor, and as such they have to do certain things ... "
Exactly, human resources at IBM are definitely trying their best to reflect diversity in their hiring practices, it's an easy data point for outsiders to monitor. The IBM managers who decide how much of a commission salesmen get, not so easy to keep tabs on.
Breach of contract? (Score:2)
If a salesman was paid less commission than their contract, that would be a breach of contract, not a racial issue.
If the contract was vague, then why was the other salesman paid more?
It could be racism. But I strongly suspect other issues. Like one salesman was a better negotiator. Or had a crap manager.
But whatever the reason, cheating salesmen out of their commissions for any reason when they hit the jackpot is a really bad move. Salesmen live for commissions, they talk to each other, and the good o
Re: (Score:2)
"It could be racism. But I strongly suspect other issues. Like one salesman was a better negotiator. Or had a crap manager."
Given the story, all of those in concert seem likely to me.
"But whatever the reason, cheating salesmen out of their commissions for any reason when they hit the jackpot is a really bad move. Salesmen live for commissions, they talk to each other, and the good ones will leave."
Yeah. And with what I've read on IBM over the years I'm not really surprised.