2 ms·

> So if you're looking at, say, a 300-person software company, it's very possible they support veterans, want to hire veterans, and have 0 veterans on staff. W

by kodah 5y ago

> So if you're looking at, say, a 300-person software company, it's very possible they support veterans, want to hire veterans, and have 0 veterans on staff. We're a little less than 10% of the population, that aligns with other protected classes. If you have no veterans that signals you have some issues. Having few is to be expected, but still not "good" imo. > There's also a huge difference between opposing military conflicts and supporting veterans, which is evident in the equal support for the VA among Democratic and Republican voters There is, but pay attention to how those folks speak. A lot of their attitudes about the MIC will usually leak to veterans, veteran issues, and policies that would affect us. It's treading a very close line. One good start would be to include that in unconscious bias training, but you actually need veterans at a company in the first place to necessitate that.

smt88 5y ago
Currently the only protected classes people demand to see at a company are women (far larger share of Americans than veterans) and Black people (about 2x the number of veterans). Veterans are also people who are more likely to end up in certain industries, unlike (say) a Black person. You'd expect a lot of veterans in military, law enforcement, and government. How many does that leave for the rest of us to hire? And how many are getting the degrees necessary for certain fields, like nursing or civil engineering? I don't agree that 0 veterans (up to a point) says something about a company until you can show that they had a pool of qualified applicants and chose not to hire any. I would say the same about racial bias, too, by the way. A company with no Black people isn't confirmed racist until you know their applicant demographics.
- kodah 5y ago
  I said that "you have some issues"; that's not quite the same as levying a discriminatory label. In fact, I'd be cautious in asserting things like that. Rather, its a signal that a company has room to grow and change if it prioritizes such things.

by kodah 5y ago

smt88 5y ago

Currently the only protected classes people demand to see at a company are women (far larger share of Americans than veterans) and Black people (about 2x the number of veterans). Veterans are also people who are more likely to end up in certain industries, unlike (say) a Black person. You'd expect a lot of veterans in military, law enforcement, and government. How many does that leave for the rest of us to hire? And how many are getting the degrees necessary for certain fields, like nursing or civil engineering? I don't agree that 0 veterans (up to a point) says something about a company until you can show that they had a pool of qualified applicants and chose not to hire any. I would say the same about racial bias, too, by the way. A company with no Black people isn't confirmed racist until you know their applicant demographics.

kodah 5y ago
I said that "you have some issues"; that's not quite the same as levying a discriminatory label. In fact, I'd be cautious in asserting things like that. Rather, its a signal that a company has room to grow and change if it prioritizes such things.