Where to go, where to go.

West

discrimination comes in all packages

That was the point (poorly expressed, I see) of my post.

omg.

Scientists may just be the cheapest friggin' people on the planet.

There's a farewell lunch for one of the physicists. I don't really want to get into what these guys make a year, but let's just say, I am the lowest paid person here, making half of what the second lowest paid person makes.

They heaved the lunch planning on me, presumably because I'm the only person here with a vagina, and only people with vaginas can make reservations.

They all said, "don't care where we go."

So I suggested a restaurant closeby, not too expensive (affordable to me).

FREAKING OUT!

They have EIGHT DOLLAR BURGERS! WHOA!

Know what? Then you don't go. I don't care to see you painfully reach for your wallet and try and determine down to the penny exactly what you owe, and haggle over whether the service was good enough for a tip.

DON'T GO.

/rant

ita, I was being flip, and not entirely clear, I think. No, they can't legally discriminate for being white and or male, but, much like sexual harassment against men, it's probably hard enough to demonstrate in court as to be a not terribly meaningful protection.

As I understand the situation in my state, the racial and sexual aspects of the discrimination law are symmetric, but the age part is asymmetric. That is, a Black manager is no more allowed fire all of the White people in his unit than a White manager is allowed to fire all of the Black people. Similarly, if a manager decides that people over 40 lack the drive and energy to do the job, and she fires all of them without showing that their performance is substandard, she has violated the law. But if the same manager decides that people in their 20s lack the maturity to do the job she is welcome to fire them. That’s because the law specifically prohibits age discrimination against people over 40, not age discrimination in general.

Age is not so much a protected class; employees close to retirement are. Oh, ERISA.

etac:

much like sexual harassment against men, it's probably hard enough to demonstrate in court as to be a not terribly meaningful protection

Do you really think it's hard to prove sexual harassment against men? I can totally see where a guy would have piles of a different sort of embarassment about pressing charges no matter the gender of the harasser, but the acts themselves seem they'd be pretty clear. And the jury would probably really be on his side if the harasser was a guy.

Oh, argh, Allyson. Mom would totally second your emotion. As do I, but...not like, first-hand. This is the kind of shit that makes people think I'm "lucky" for being home all day, right?

I thought we were talking about sex discrimination, not sexual harrassment. (As in, "I was fired because my boss hates men," not "I was fired because I refused to sleep with my boss.")

I think the first would be incredibly difficult to prove, the second much less so.

You have a subsidized caf, don't you?

We had one for the longest time, and yeah, it was really cheap. And crappy. Then this caterer came in and bought out the contract and started serving a much more limited, but seriously gourmet menu. I mean, she serves on actual china. And ingredients are fresh, not from 5 gallon cans wrapped in white labels! And the prices went up by at least a factor of two, lets say.

Oh, the howls of pain from the same people who routinely expense lunches at the pricey restaurants in the hotels across the street for conferences. But their own money?

Now, I'll admit, I bitched when I could no longer get a cheese sandwich for $2, having to pay $7 for one. But that's because the cheese sandwiches are now leash-walked- goat cheese with pesto mayo whipped while italian arias soar, foreign, rare baby lettuce lovingly coaxed from the earth at midnight on some fancy bread whose wheat was whispered to each night under the moon. Or something. It's good. But it's not a cheap cheese sandwich .