The person filing the suit, Deborah Howington, is a self-described American 'Caucasian'. Racism doesn't really exist for white Americans. Discrimination maybe, racism no.
The US wants this fab up and running fast, but they also want TSMC to waste a bunch of time translating all their operations over into English.
The more time they spend arguing over this stupid shit, the better.
That's incredibly disingenuous. There are 12 suit filers in total, among which are Elena Huizar, a self described Latina woman, and Modupe Adesemoye, a self-described African American woman. Further, Howington is the primary suit filer because she was a hiring manager with the company, she isn't some white woman crying about not getting a job. She approached a lawyer because she was told to discard the applications of non-Taiwanese individuals and American born workers applying for unionized positions. Did you even bother reading the suit?
A multi-billion dollar corporation could commission a hundred translators and have their entire operations translated in under a month if they wanted to. That wouldn't even register as a rounding error in their budget and expenses. They're pissy that a discriminatory scheme they cooked up to save costs and disrupt union activity is getting exposed.
Racism is systemic. This is just discrimination. I wouldn't worry too much about this since affirmative action was attacked by their own supreme court.
If they want to keep working there, they can put in the same work the Chinese and Taiwanese workers put in.
English is not my native language, but I think there's a valid distinction between systemic (an institution being racist) and non-systemic racism (an individual or individual entity being racist)
If this was an American company doing this in another country, wouldn't we be calling this racist? I understand that there can be no systemic violence against white people in the US, but there can be discrimination (as you call it) against them. Also, like another commenter mentioned, what if other people (e.g black people) were discriminated against with this policy? Would you then call it racist instead of "just" discriminatory?
It doesn't seem a meaningful distinction to make in this case, at least to me.
There is no racism against white people because white people inherently hold the position of dominant social power in settler countries. The institutions, system and overall nation is geared to work towards their interests and serve them. White nationalism is at the core of most settler nations, manifest destiny being one of the earliest examples you might learn. Racism is a systemic issue. Discrimination might be what you're looking for.
You do realize that them not hiring other races/ethnicity also applies to Black individuals, Hispanics, Muslims, non-east Asian peoples such as Indians, and so on, correct?
You're the one who chose to hyperfocus on white people. Do you think that there are no resumes from black or Indian engineers that they threw in the trash in favor of Taiwanese ones?
That would be true. This may be a Taiwanese company, but they are working under labor laws, agreements and such of this country which has institutionally baked in laws that are easily circumvented and have various baked-in loopholes who were written and made to service white individuals. There's a reason for that focus.
Of course there were...I wasn't denying that? That's why it's discrimination when it comes to white individuals and not racism.
While I generally agree, this has to be the one case where the law was purpose written with black individuals in mind. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was in no ways carefully crafted to give white workers an edge.
Also did you reply to the wrong person? I didn't mention anything about racism in my reply? I'm not arguing on that point. I'm also confused at what you're trying to say.
I'm not saying the Civil Rights Act is crafted to give whites an advantage. You're assuming I meant that specific institutional policy in reference to this. I was speaking more of a general, big picture. I could also be assuming wrongly on what you're assuming.
My specific train of thought from what I read that it was mostly white workers that were getting discriminated against in the workplace. I wanted to make the distinction that it isn't "racism" against white people. For other cases, yes, it is racism. I don't disagree. However, these capitalists are operating within the framework of a settler society. They're using law and court that was designed AND created for AND by white individuals historically to also inflict grievances on minorities or protect their place in society while justifying their exploitation. The people aggrieved are using the Civil Rights Act to defend themselves, actually. With the chunk of white workers that are aggrieved and the original comment; I thought they were saying it is racism to discriminate against white workers/individuals or implying it was racism to discriminate against the whole group in which I thought was mostly white workers. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize and I'll remove everything.
I also apologize for responding later, I was at work.
It's discrimination based on race, it's literal racism
The person filing the suit, Deborah Howington, is a self-described American 'Caucasian'. Racism doesn't really exist for white Americans. Discrimination maybe, racism no.
The US wants this fab up and running fast, but they also want TSMC to waste a bunch of time translating all their operations over into English.
The more time they spend arguing over this stupid shit, the better.
That's incredibly disingenuous. There are 12 suit filers in total, among which are Elena Huizar, a self described Latina woman, and Modupe Adesemoye, a self-described African American woman. Further, Howington is the primary suit filer because she was a hiring manager with the company, she isn't some white woman crying about not getting a job. She approached a lawyer because she was told to discard the applications of non-Taiwanese individuals and American born workers applying for unionized positions. Did you even bother reading the suit?
A multi-billion dollar corporation could commission a hundred translators and have their entire operations translated in under a month if they wanted to. That wouldn't even register as a rounding error in their budget and expenses. They're pissy that a discriminatory scheme they cooked up to save costs and disrupt union activity is getting exposed.
Are you telling me that Taiwanese capital is opposed to workers' rights?
Mfw when capital attempts to smash workers rights and unions no matter its country of origin 😔
But yes. Any form of capital rabidly despises workers rights if it prevents them from earning even one more penny. Who would have guessed lol
Racism is systemic. This is just discrimination. I wouldn't worry too much about this since affirmative action was attacked by their own supreme court.
If they want to keep working there, they can put in the same work the Chinese and Taiwanese workers put in.
English is not my native language, but I think there's a valid distinction between systemic (an institution being racist) and non-systemic racism (an individual or individual entity being racist)
If this was an American company doing this in another country, wouldn't we be calling this racist? I understand that there can be no systemic violence against white people in the US, but there can be discrimination (as you call it) against them. Also, like another commenter mentioned, what if other people (e.g black people) were discriminated against with this policy? Would you then call it racist instead of "just" discriminatory?
It doesn't seem a meaningful distinction to make in this case, at least to me.
There is no racism against white people because white people inherently hold the position of dominant social power in settler countries. The institutions, system and overall nation is geared to work towards their interests and serve them. White nationalism is at the core of most settler nations, manifest destiny being one of the earliest examples you might learn. Racism is a systemic issue. Discrimination might be what you're looking for.
You do realize that them not hiring other races/ethnicity also applies to Black individuals, Hispanics, Muslims, non-east Asian peoples such as Indians, and so on, correct?
You're the one who chose to hyperfocus on white people. Do you think that there are no resumes from black or Indian engineers that they threw in the trash in favor of Taiwanese ones?
That would be true. This may be a Taiwanese company, but they are working under labor laws, agreements and such of this country which has institutionally baked in laws that are easily circumvented and have various baked-in loopholes who were written and made to service white individuals. There's a reason for that focus.
Of course there were...I wasn't denying that? That's why it's discrimination when it comes to white individuals and not racism.
While I generally agree, this has to be the one case where the law was purpose written with black individuals in mind. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was in no ways carefully crafted to give white workers an edge.
Also did you reply to the wrong person? I didn't mention anything about racism in my reply? I'm not arguing on that point. I'm also confused at what you're trying to say.
I'm not saying the Civil Rights Act is crafted to give whites an advantage. You're assuming I meant that specific institutional policy in reference to this. I was speaking more of a general, big picture. I could also be assuming wrongly on what you're assuming.
My specific train of thought from what I read that it was mostly white workers that were getting discriminated against in the workplace. I wanted to make the distinction that it isn't "racism" against white people. For other cases, yes, it is racism. I don't disagree. However, these capitalists are operating within the framework of a settler society. They're using law and court that was designed AND created for AND by white individuals historically to also inflict grievances on minorities or protect their place in society while justifying their exploitation. The people aggrieved are using the Civil Rights Act to defend themselves, actually. With the chunk of white workers that are aggrieved and the original comment; I thought they were saying it is racism to discriminate against white workers/individuals or implying it was racism to discriminate against the whole group in which I thought was mostly white workers. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize and I'll remove everything.
I also apologize for responding later, I was at work.