[pwb25]

how is that discrimination other than signaling you know the language, have a job permit and so on.

[j7ake]

Because you’re assuming just from the name or photo thay someone knows the language and have job permit.

This means children from immigrant families growing up in Europe would be discriminated against simply because of how they look and what their last name is.

That’s classic discrimination.

[pwb25]

this you will see on their education history though, but sure thats the same for europeans in china too and so on

[Reubachi]

Okay, so if I put down that education history, then what? I can lie.

My points are that hiring should be more based on applied challenges and gauging recruit success in context. The heavy cost of vetting should be part of the onboarding, not recruiting; which would put the onus on the employer and away from the often discriminated employee.

[LoganDark]

Because then employers will treat the absence of that signal as a potential concern?

[pwb25]

yes, because it is

[LoganDark]

Look, "potential concerns" shouldn't matter unless they're real concerns. Judging someone based on "potential concerns" is discrimination. Judge someone based on who they are, not who you think they might be.

[pwb25]

in theory yes but people judge you for school or whatever on a CV anyway

[LoganDark]

Which is why discrimination laws exist. The fact that people do it doesn't make it right.