3 ms·
These politics only appeal to ~10% of the population anyway, and they aren't favored by a majority of any ethnicity. This stuff isn't mainstream because voters
by throwaway894345 5y ago
These politics only appeal to ~10% of the population anyway, and they aren't favored by a majority of any ethnicity. This stuff isn't mainstream because voters like it (which is why it never makes its way into any real laws), it's mainstream because the cultural and media elites like it and they don't have to trifle with a democratic process to impose it.
Corporate DEI stuff is also useful to "prove" that an employer isn't racist--current anti-discrimination law puts the burden of proof on employers to show that they didn't discriminate, and since it's not possible to prove a negative, they must instead compete to show that they're among the more 'woke' companies ("look at our DEI propaganda, how could we possibly be guilty of discrimination?").
- robonerd 5y agoCorporate DEI has laws backing it, but I don't think that's the full picture. Corporations have a genuine economic interest in diverse hiring even if those laws didn't exist: 1) Diverse hiring expands the labor pool, which suppresses wages. 2) Diverse labor organizes less effectively, particularly if the workers can be kept on edge around each other.
- jrsj 5y agoIf anyone has seen Severance on Apple TV, the animosity fostered between the MDI and O&D departments is an excellent example of the strategy behind this last point. “Management isn’t taking advantage of you; it’s the person sitting next to you with a different gender or skin color that’s the threat”
- pc86 5y agoThere are laws against certain types of discrimination. Corporate DEI is something else altogether (and if the anecdata elsewhere in this thread are to believed, run in direct opposition to some of those anti-discrimination laws).
- throwaway894345 5y agoI don't doubt that it's not the full picture, but I'm skeptical about your theory. My $0.02: Regarding (1), it only expands the labor pool if the pipeline for "diverse" labor hasn't already been exhausted. Instead we seem to see employers competing for "diverse" labor, including in some cases foregoing technical qualifications for "diverse" qualifications. This is only in the company's best interest to the extent that it's economically advantageous to appear to be striving for diversity. Regarding (2), I really don't think most companies are to the point where they're deliberately stoking racial division as an anti-union tactic, at least not in the FAANG space. Seems like it would be a lot easier to push the political divide button which is pre-primed on account of the media.
- jrsj 5y agoFor 2) corporations themselves may not be doing it with that in mind but when management consultants like McKinsey etc began pushing for this stuff I absolutely believe it was a consideration.
- Crabber 5y ago>I really don't think most companies are to the point where they're deliberately stoking racial division as an anti-union tactic Amazon tracks lack of racial diversity as a union formation risk metric https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61403 https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61403
- jrsj 5y agoI guess what I mean is that I believe this will become a political issue again & the backlash will be strong enough that cultural & media elites will no longer be able to maintain it.
- kansface 5y agoMy understanding is that Corporate DEI is mostly bottom up, not top down.
- jrsj 5y agoIt usually starts as an HR initiative & then ERGs are created as a means of fulfilling goals set by the HR departments. I wouldn’t really characterize it as bottom up, although I’m sure there are plenty of companies where C suite & other divisions didn’t want this to happen & it’s being used as political leverage against them.