[umanwizard]

> I just read that as "management has no idea how to evaluate the quality of work of their employees".

You probably couldn't explain how you walk, or how you cook an egg, or how you speak English, at the level of detail that would be required for something like this. Yet you do know how to do all those things.

Just because you can't write down detailed objective instructions for how to do something does not at all mean you have no idea how to do it.

[danaris]

So should we apply this logic to other areas where one person's "gut reactions" can have a huge negative effect on someone else's life?

Should we not require any due process under law, because the officer "just knew" that it was that brown guy who stole the bread?

What's being asked for is accountability for decisions that can literally result in someone ending up homeless—and that are hugely subject to bias, both conscious and unconscious, in a country that is currently riven by divisions of race, gender, sexuality, and class.

[umanwizard]

I would be very surprised if there is anyone who would become homeless if they were fired from their tech job at the New York Times.

[JumpCrisscross]

> So should we apply this logic to other areas where one person's "gut reactions" can have a huge negative effect on someone else's life?

Maybe we're balancing the wrong side of the equation? Expanding teach-to-the-test across the economy strikes me as the wrong move.

[haswell]

> Should we not require any due process under law, because the officer "just knew" that it was that brown guy who stole the bread?

This is a bit fallacious and a false analogy. Due process under law exists because it's definable. We have standards for evidence, burden of proof, reasonable doubt, etc.

The challenges in cleanly defining what it means to be a "good employee" don't somehow mean other aspects of society that can be defined shouldn't be.