8 ms·

Yes. There are places where employees MUST go in these meetings that talk about social differences, inclusions, diversity, etc.

by daok 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dahart 6y ago
Everyone has to discuss diversity at work because there are laws prohibiting discrimination, that's a good thing. Not everyone has to discuss politics at work.
- ikiris 6y ago
  I'd love it if there was a difference between the two again.
  - dahart 6y ago
    I think I know what you mean, and me too. But... mandatory diversity training at work is typically very bland, sticks to communicating what the rules are, and is very apolitical compared to forums, employee banter, or stuff you find on the news or Facebook or YouTube. Having been through a bunch of them at several companies, I wouldn't put them in the same camp as 'politics' at all.
    - stagehn 6y ago
      It is heavily political since there's no evidence of efficacy. You can see the heterodox academy piece that summarises the available evidence. Since it is not efficacious then I'm forced to conclude that the motive is political and ideological.
- stateofnounion 6y ago
  > Everyone has to discuss diversity at work because there are laws prohibiting discrimination How are these two things causally connected in your mind?
  - dahart 6y ago
    Are you implying they're not connected, that discrimination and diversity are unrelated? Your wording makes it sound like some kind of political debate trap you're setting. FWIW, I'm uninterested in arguing here why and whether there should be such laws, or justifying efforts to prevent discrimination. The existence of these laws is a fact, and you're free to study the history and legal precedents for why they exist. Here's a generic but decent starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
    - davidivadavid 6y ago
      No. He's implying that the fact something is a law doesn't mean your employer should lecture you about it.
      - dahart 6y ago
        Why? Isn't making people aware of laws how you abide by them? The risk of not educating people and being caught ignoring abuses is fairly serious. Broadly speaking, some of the laws we're talking about are laws that specifically require making employees aware of their existence.
        s1artibartfast 6y ago
        I think they are talking about meetings at work which do not focus on the law or workplace etiquette, but serve to raise awareness of for diversity/minority/social justice issues outside the workplace.
        dahart 6y ago
        Where is that happening? And are you sure we're not actually talking about people who misunderstand the purpose and legal requirements of diversity training programs? As far as I can tell, this is the first comment in the thread to suggest we're talking about widespread mandatory "social justice" meetings that are political in nature and unrelated to the workplace's legal obligations. That's not what I got from @daok's comment or anything in between, and there are widespread mandatory diversity training programs in the U.S. that explain all the comments above, from my perspective. I've never seen that (mandatory meetings unrelated to work) myself, across employment at 2 multinational corporations, several mid-sized companies, and a handful of startups. The mandatory diversity training programs in most companies are there to meet the legal obligations of discrimination law, whether they tell you that or not. Usually they tell you that.
- BeetleB 6y ago
  > Everyone has to discuss diversity at work because there are laws prohibiting discrimination Sorry, but this is misleading. Most such companies are actively complying with antidiscrimination laws. These diversity discussions/initiatives at work are almost always unrelated to those laws. It's not a case of "Hey, we suddenly realized we're not complying with laws, so let's launch these initiatives." Most such discussions don't have any content about the law or legal aspects because they are not about laws prohibiting discrimination.
  - dahart 6y ago
    What are the initiatives about then, if not the laws and/or prohibiting discrimination? Do these companies agree with your claim, are you getting that from HR and/or company lawyers, or is this an opinion? I've never been to a diversity training program that did not talk about the laws, and I've been to many. You are suggesting that companies are wasting their money for no reason, and consciously running training programs that are unnecessary? Why would "most" companies do that? > Most such companies are actively complying with antidiscrimination laws. Complying with US discrimination law means that companies are providing "reasonable accomodations" for people in historically discriminated categories, and for anyone who might file a complaint in the future. Educating the employees about acceptable behavior is a pretty obvious way to avoid getting sued. > It's not a case of "Hey, we suddenly realized we're not complying with laws, so let's launch these initiatives." The risk of running into both PR & legal trouble over diversity complaints has risen over time, due to increasing levels of education, increasing exposure to cases of discrimination and abuse, and generally increasing awareness of diversity issues.
    - BeetleB 6y ago
      I am speaking specifically to diversity initiatives visible to all employees, as opposed to those that are specific to managers or HR. The law doesn't require us to banish the phrase "master/slave" from our lexicon, yet it is part of our diversity initiative. The law doesn't require us to banish the words "whitelist/blacklist" from our lexicon, yet it is part of our diversity initiative. The law requires we do not discriminate based on a protected category (gender, race, etc). We have always been compliant. However, the law does not require us to hold special recruiting events for underrepresented folks when we are already compliant, but yet that is a major part of my company's diversity initiative.[1] There are pay disparity laws. We were fully compliant before they became the law. They are not part of the diversity initiative and usually not discussed. The law doesn't prohibit us from saying "Merry Christmas!" but our diversity initiative addresses this. The list goes on and on. Note: I am not saying I'm against such initiatives. Merely noting that at least for my company (and jurisdiction), these initiatives are not about what the law requires. We have always had employee expectations training for all employees, and it already covered things required by law, long before the company dove into these initiatives. It may be that your company's diversity initiative is about legal compliance, but for many company's, it is a lot more than that (by a lot, I mean the majority of the initiative is not required by law). > The risk of running into both PR & legal trouble There's a world of a difference between PR trouble and legal trouble. Your comment originally was about the legal side, and so is my response. I do believe that most diversity initiatives are about PR, and not about the law, which was why I responded. [1] These are invite-only, and so it's not open to all groups - just the ones we picked.
- hnreader998 6y ago
  Oddly, companies are actively and deliberately discriminating against race and gender in tech companies in the name of diversity and inclusion. It boggles my mind that none of them have been sued yet for these practices.
  - dahart 6y ago
    What are you referring to?
    - hnreader998 6y ago
      I should have been more clear. Like someone else mentioned, these diversity (and inclusion) discussions are not related to discrimination laws and equal opportunity. They are always related to increasing diversity in the company by hiring more underrepresented people (previously this just meant women in eng but now it's been expanded to POC). In order to achieve this, companies are actively discriminating against non-minorities, which some may call positive discrimination. Regardless, it's discrimination nonetheless and it's very common yet somehow nobody cares.
      - dahart 6y ago
        > these diversity (and inclusion) discussions are not related to discrimination laws and equal opportunity. FWIW, that's a claim that doesn't quite match my experience at work, nor of talking to some of the people who implement these programs. Though to be clear, we were talking about widespread mandatory company-wide meetings, not any old discussion on inclusion that happens to occur while at work. We may need to get more specific about which programs we're talking about, they're certainly not identical everywhere. It also doesn't seem to add up when I read our current laws, which are changing over time to emphasize. > In order to achieve this, companies are activity discriminating against non-minorities, which some may call positive discrimination. The historical term for this is affirmative action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action), and the idea is to temporarily increase benefits for a disadvantaged group, not to intentionally decrease benefits for the advantaged group. Calling it discrimination, therefore, is a framing that isn't always true, and is somewhat political. It's not always true because things aren't always zero sum. If I choose to give someone a dollar, you don't lose a dollar. If there really are a fixed number of jobs at a company that is 80/20 men, and the company decides 30% must go to women, then technically yes, that is a form of discrimination. But - just hypothetically - is it a negative discrimination if the reason that the company is 80/20 men in the first place is because it previously discriminated against women, and would have been 50/50 without several decades of history of unspoken discrimination? It's important to also think about a few things- One, that unlike social prejudices, affirmative action is not intended to be permanent. It's intended to help boost people who've been unfairly and systematically disadvantaged, while they're disadvantaged, and only until things even out. After that, the boost should go away by design. Two, that some of those disadvantages in history have been really extreme, and the kind of discrimination you might imagine you feel when your company tries to hire more women isn't the same order of magnitude of what women and black people as a whole have gone through. > Regardless, it's discrimination nonetheless and it's very common yet somehow nobody cares. Is all discrimination bad always? I'm very discriminating about my partners. I'm not sure that nobody cares, I think some people are in favor of seeing that gender and racial injustices actually go away, since not doing anything about it hasn't worked yet.

Yes. There are places where employees MUST go in these meetings that talk about social differences, inclusions, diversity, etc.

by daok 6y ago

Yes. There are places where employees MUST go in these meetings that talk about social differences, inclusions, diversity, etc.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dahart 6y ago

Everyone has to discuss diversity at work because there are laws prohibiting discrimination, that's a good thing. Not everyone has to discuss politics at work.

ikiris 6y ago
I'd love it if there was a difference between the two again.
- dahart 6y ago
  I think I know what you mean, and me too. But... mandatory diversity training at work is typically very bland, sticks to communicating what the rules are, and is very apolitical compared to forums, employee banter, or stuff you find on the news or Facebook or YouTube. Having been through a bunch of them at several companies, I wouldn't put them in the same camp as 'politics' at all.
  - stagehn 6y ago
    It is heavily political since there's no evidence of efficacy. You can see the heterodox academy piece that summarises the available evidence. Since it is not efficacious then I'm forced to conclude that the motive is political and ideological.
stateofnounion 6y ago
> Everyone has to discuss diversity at work because there are laws prohibiting discrimination How are these two things causally connected in your mind?
- dahart 6y ago
  Are you implying they're not connected, that discrimination and diversity are unrelated? Your wording makes it sound like some kind of political debate trap you're setting. FWIW, I'm uninterested in arguing here why and whether there should be such laws, or justifying efforts to prevent discrimination. The existence of these laws is a fact, and you're free to study the history and legal precedents for why they exist. Here's a generic but decent starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination
  - davidivadavid 6y ago
    No. He's implying that the fact something is a law doesn't mean your employer should lecture you about it.
    - dahart 6y ago
      Why? Isn't making people aware of laws how you abide by them? The risk of not educating people and being caught ignoring abuses is fairly serious. Broadly speaking, some of the laws we're talking about are laws that specifically require making employees aware of their existence.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        I think they are talking about meetings at work which do not focus on the law or workplace etiquette, but serve to raise awareness of for diversity/minority/social justice issues outside the workplace.
        dahart 6y ago
        Where is that happening? And are you sure we're not actually talking about people who misunderstand the purpose and legal requirements of diversity training programs? As far as I can tell, this is the first comment in the thread to suggest we're talking about widespread mandatory "social justice" meetings that are political in nature and unrelated to the workplace's legal obligations. That's not what I got from @daok's comment or anything in between, and there are widespread mandatory diversity training programs in the U.S. that explain all the comments above, from my perspective. I've never seen that (mandatory meetings unrelated to work) myself, across employment at 2 multinational corporations, several mid-sized companies, and a handful of startups. The mandatory diversity training programs in most companies are there to meet the legal obligations of discrimination law, whether they tell you that or not. Usually they tell you that.
BeetleB 6y ago
> Everyone has to discuss diversity at work because there are laws prohibiting discrimination Sorry, but this is misleading. Most such companies are actively complying with antidiscrimination laws. These diversity discussions/initiatives at work are almost always unrelated to those laws. It's not a case of "Hey, we suddenly realized we're not complying with laws, so let's launch these initiatives." Most such discussions don't have any content about the law or legal aspects because they are not about laws prohibiting discrimination.
- dahart 6y ago
  What are the initiatives about then, if not the laws and/or prohibiting discrimination? Do these companies agree with your claim, are you getting that from HR and/or company lawyers, or is this an opinion? I've never been to a diversity training program that did not talk about the laws, and I've been to many. You are suggesting that companies are wasting their money for no reason, and consciously running training programs that are unnecessary? Why would "most" companies do that? > Most such companies are actively complying with antidiscrimination laws. Complying with US discrimination law means that companies are providing "reasonable accomodations" for people in historically discriminated categories, and for anyone who might file a complaint in the future. Educating the employees about acceptable behavior is a pretty obvious way to avoid getting sued. > It's not a case of "Hey, we suddenly realized we're not complying with laws, so let's launch these initiatives." The risk of running into both PR & legal trouble over diversity complaints has risen over time, due to increasing levels of education, increasing exposure to cases of discrimination and abuse, and generally increasing awareness of diversity issues.
  - BeetleB 6y ago
    I am speaking specifically to diversity initiatives visible to all employees, as opposed to those that are specific to managers or HR. The law doesn't require us to banish the phrase "master/slave" from our lexicon, yet it is part of our diversity initiative. The law doesn't require us to banish the words "whitelist/blacklist" from our lexicon, yet it is part of our diversity initiative. The law requires we do not discriminate based on a protected category (gender, race, etc). We have always been compliant. However, the law does not require us to hold special recruiting events for underrepresented folks when we are already compliant, but yet that is a major part of my company's diversity initiative.[1] There are pay disparity laws. We were fully compliant before they became the law. They are not part of the diversity initiative and usually not discussed. The law doesn't prohibit us from saying "Merry Christmas!" but our diversity initiative addresses this. The list goes on and on. Note: I am not saying I'm against such initiatives. Merely noting that at least for my company (and jurisdiction), these initiatives are not about what the law requires. We have always had employee expectations training for all employees, and it already covered things required by law, long before the company dove into these initiatives. It may be that your company's diversity initiative is about legal compliance, but for many company's, it is a lot more than that (by a lot, I mean the majority of the initiative is not required by law). > The risk of running into both PR & legal trouble There's a world of a difference between PR trouble and legal trouble. Your comment originally was about the legal side, and so is my response. I do believe that most diversity initiatives are about PR, and not about the law, which was why I responded. [1] These are invite-only, and so it's not open to all groups - just the ones we picked.
hnreader998 6y ago
Oddly, companies are actively and deliberately discriminating against race and gender in tech companies in the name of diversity and inclusion. It boggles my mind that none of them have been sued yet for these practices.
- dahart 6y ago
  What are you referring to?
  - hnreader998 6y ago
    I should have been more clear. Like someone else mentioned, these diversity (and inclusion) discussions are not related to discrimination laws and equal opportunity. They are always related to increasing diversity in the company by hiring more underrepresented people (previously this just meant women in eng but now it's been expanded to POC). In order to achieve this, companies are actively discriminating against non-minorities, which some may call positive discrimination. Regardless, it's discrimination nonetheless and it's very common yet somehow nobody cares.
    - dahart 6y ago
      > these diversity (and inclusion) discussions are not related to discrimination laws and equal opportunity. FWIW, that's a claim that doesn't quite match my experience at work, nor of talking to some of the people who implement these programs. Though to be clear, we were talking about widespread mandatory company-wide meetings, not any old discussion on inclusion that happens to occur while at work. We may need to get more specific about which programs we're talking about, they're certainly not identical everywhere. It also doesn't seem to add up when I read our current laws, which are changing over time to emphasize. > In order to achieve this, companies are activity discriminating against non-minorities, which some may call positive discrimination. The historical term for this is affirmative action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action), and the idea is to temporarily increase benefits for a disadvantaged group, not to intentionally decrease benefits for the advantaged group. Calling it discrimination, therefore, is a framing that isn't always true, and is somewhat political. It's not always true because things aren't always zero sum. If I choose to give someone a dollar, you don't lose a dollar. If there really are a fixed number of jobs at a company that is 80/20 men, and the company decides 30% must go to women, then technically yes, that is a form of discrimination. But - just hypothetically - is it a negative discrimination if the reason that the company is 80/20 men in the first place is because it previously discriminated against women, and would have been 50/50 without several decades of history of unspoken discrimination? It's important to also think about a few things- One, that unlike social prejudices, affirmative action is not intended to be permanent. It's intended to help boost people who've been unfairly and systematically disadvantaged, while they're disadvantaged, and only until things even out. After that, the boost should go away by design. Two, that some of those disadvantages in history have been really extreme, and the kind of discrimination you might imagine you feel when your company tries to hire more women isn't the same order of magnitude of what women and black people as a whole have gone through. > Regardless, it's discrimination nonetheless and it's very common yet somehow nobody cares. Is all discrimination bad always? I'm very discriminating about my partners. I'm not sure that nobody cares, I think some people are in favor of seeing that gender and racial injustices actually go away, since not doing anything about it hasn't worked yet.