3 ms·

I find these approaches to be borderline abusive. I understand the desire to attempt to put people in another persons "shoes", but I find that this makes a bro

I find these approaches to be borderline abusive. I understand the desire to attempt to put people in another persons "shoes", but I find that this makes a broad assumption that the minority members "shoes" are in the worst state. That is, not being able to voice opinions while also being criticized is the worst state. It is a terrible generalization. I would only feel comfortable with this training if listening was the only requirement and reflecting and sharing opinions was encouraged for all. If you have seen some of the videos of the older white woman (whose name escapes me) that used to give the blue eyed/brown eyed experiment her approach strikes me as being abusive. I understand what she is attempting to teach, but I deeply dislike her delivery. I feel that she is trying to scar (not scare, scar) people into compliance.

throw_m239339 6y ago
> I find these approaches to be borderline abusive. They are not only abusive but based on a racist ideology, since these "training" sessions are often racially segregated therefore imply that some races are inherently racist. It builds up resentment and division, which is exactly what corporations want, employees at odd with each others so they won't question actual abusive management techniques designed by the higher ups. This is cunning.
- brippalcharrid 6y ago
  I read earlier this year that Whole Foods were calculating the risk of unionisation across their stores and that they believed that this correlated with factors within a store including lower levels of ethnic diversity. https://archive.is/zqIGa https://archive.is/zqIGa Whether, with all other things taken into account, this remains a factor, and whether there is causation, I don't know, but they did see fit to mention it specifically as a "Store Risk".
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Much more realistic perspective. I don't think increased ethnic diversity must play a role in inhibiting formation of unions, but it can be. If I would need to implement a divide and conquer approach to any group, I certainly would start with benefiting certain members above others. Conflict is almost guaranteed this way. Oldest trick in the book. Some diversity proponents try to mandate solidarity will indeed undermine efforts for workers rights. That approach might even be more subtle.

throw_m239339 6y ago

> I find these approaches to be borderline abusive. They are not only abusive but based on a racist ideology, since these "training" sessions are often racially segregated therefore imply that some races are inherently racist. It builds up resentment and division, which is exactly what corporations want, employees at odd with each others so they won't question actual abusive management techniques designed by the higher ups. This is cunning.

brippalcharrid 6y ago
I read earlier this year that Whole Foods were calculating the risk of unionisation across their stores and that they believed that this correlated with factors within a store including lower levels of ethnic diversity. https://archive.is/zqIGa https://archive.is/zqIGa Whether, with all other things taken into account, this remains a factor, and whether there is causation, I don't know, but they did see fit to mention it specifically as a "Store Risk".
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Much more realistic perspective. I don't think increased ethnic diversity must play a role in inhibiting formation of unions, but it can be. If I would need to implement a divide and conquer approach to any group, I certainly would start with benefiting certain members above others. Conflict is almost guaranteed this way. Oldest trick in the book. Some diversity proponents try to mandate solidarity will indeed undermine efforts for workers rights. That approach might even be more subtle.