Expanding Definition of Retaliation

The definition of retaliation has to be expanded to terminating someone for engaging in discourse on issues of public concern.
If I discuss the environment or my preferred candidate, it may not be protected labor activity, but it should still be illegal to fire me because I oppose your view.
That power should be taken away from monopoly corporations at the hands of an authoritarian government. It’s very clear what I’m advocating.

How Discrimination Happens

This is how discrimination usually happens. One of three main ways.

Before you are hired, there is a stealth google search and low quality unapproved under the radar background check that is supported with a wink and a nod. Upon discovering information about your background, political views, religion, or even what they think it is when they are wrong, your application is disregarded. Also the criminal background check is used to use court cases that have no relationship to the actual job. A truck driver cannot have dui chargers/convictions. A computer programmer absolutely can, and it goes against PA law to consider an irrelevant criminal history. Additionally, future employers fail to connect the dots and realize that this increased gaps in the past, and go on about “work history.”

The other main way is that another reason is given for your firing or lay off but it’s really the discriminating reason. Basically you get fired in a situation where it is either someone else’s fault (this is the most pathetic type), or cases where essentially another person in the same situation would have not been fired for the same thing (less pathetic but still unfair). Or in some cases a bunch of people get laid off but you are much better technically than the other people who were also laid off and some of the people who were not laid off.

A third way is to use the line of “experience” to age discriminate but also to discriminate for other reasons. Sometimes you get the experience but employers ignore it and act like it is not there. Other times, there arises (frequently in tech) a situation where you do not have the exact qualifications down to the letter (you have version instead of, but could obviously learn to do the job. In this situation reasonable accommodations are not made despite your obviously high potential when they would have been made for another person in the same situation. If there is a double standard, then it is discrimination, although it can also be very stringent requirements legitimately.

This is a major problem in tech and anyone who knows the political system is screwed up knows that employers discriminate. It is much worse in computer programming than it is in other industries, but not exclusive to computer programming. This is because many people in charge of hiring computer programmers are instant gratification addicts. Like chess players who cannot see a few moves ahead, they cannot look a few months into the future and see the benefits of allowing someone to grow into a position. It is a problem for everyone when this happens, but it is discrimination when other people are given that chance who show less promise than you do.

It should be noted that these things only apply to native born Americans. If you are Indian you do not get googled, have your political views investigated, have extensive irrelevant criminal background checks for misdemeanors and non-violent charges. That is only if you are American. Instead you promote your own people and discriminate in reverse.

Pennsylvania must introduce two new laws. A law banning political discrimination, like New York does. A law banning discriminating for legal, off the job conduct, like California does. Its law banning discrimination based on non-related legal issues (for instance a telemarketer who hit his wife, it is not related) needs to be enforced 10 times harder.