10 ms·
Fascinating how the absolute richest of the richest employees in the world, Google employees, seem the most oppressed, or "marginalized". Here's how my "CEO fo
by fleddr 4y ago
Fascinating how the absolute richest of the richest employees in the world, Google employees, seem the most oppressed, or "marginalized".
Here's how my "CEO for a day" fantasy would work...
The DEI department is de-solved immediately. All non-work slack channels closed. The new hiring strategy is merit-only, using tests that are as neutral as possible, with transparent salary scales and promotion paths. Equality but not equity.
Anybody having a problem with this policy, stirring up shit, doing walkouts, trying to get colleagues fired and other wildly unprofessional behavior can leave.
Surely many think this is aggressive and that I'm a creepy authoritarian. No, this cleans up the obnoxious 5% that makes everybody's lives miserable, so the outcome is a pleasant, fair and peaceful workplace.
A DEI department is a discrimination machine. Division is their output, because if there is none, it's obsolete.
- lkschubert8 4y agoThe question is what are the merit only tests, and how do you have a transparent and merit based promotion path? Honestly if you have the solution for that you don't need to be CEO for a day, start a consultant shop teaching your methods and I'm sure plenty of places will bite.
- nathanaldensr 4y agoWhen you become CEO, let me know. I'd love to work for such a company!
- cr__ 4y agoDo you think there is workplace discrimination taking place against Dalits, and if so, how would you like to see it addressed?
- charia 4y agoI don't know if I'd subscribe to the above person's ideas, but the simple business approach would probably work right? Treat it like any form of behavior that creates a hostile work environment and thereby lowers overall workplace productivity. Businesses are incentivized to keep things running in the most productive method possible. Discrimination costs your business in lowering employee productivity and other affects like possibly losing talent or opportunities. Warning discriminating employees that their behavior could cost them their job or simply firing them depending on the severity of the situation seems like a simple enough solution?
- fleddr 4y agoI have absolutely no idea if such discrimination takes place. As to how to address it, a first step is the method of reporting. The accusation of discrimination is a serious one, and I'm against hotheaded employees randomly shouting things in slack or emails. I'd offer an institutional channel to report it to, which will investigate each complaint seriously. The person making the report needs to have a good story, something tangible, some evidence. And I'd take it from there. If the story checks out and is beyond any doubt, the offender gets disciplined. Preferably a single and last warning. If the story holds no ground at all, the reporter gets a warning for defamation. Wild generalizations like "all people of caste X discriminate" is a discrimination in itself and not actionable. Keep making generalizations and I'd fire you. This is work, not a postmodernist philosophy class.
- marricks 4y agoIt’s Maslows hierarchy of human needs: some employees are treated well enough they have capacity to care about other issues and how their work affects the world. Ideally all employees would have the time and capacity for that care.
- jxf 4y ago> The new hiring strategy is merit-only, using tests that are as neutral as possible, with transparent salary scales and promotion paths. Equality but not equity. What specific proposals do you have to ensure that this happens? Which perfectly neutral, bias-free tests would you employ? How would you ensure that the humans delivering the tests or screening candidates were neutral and perfectly bias-free? Also, would you be doing all this yourself as the CEO? If so, seems like an inefficient use of your time. Perhaps you'd employ some staff to ensure this gets carried out at the scale of Google. These folks would be assigned to creating the sense of fairness, merit, and justice you describe at scale, so that everyone felt included in the same way. You could even put them in their own department. Hmm...
- gruez 4y ago>What specific proposals do you have to ensure that this happens? Which perfectly neutral, bias-free tests would you employ? How would you ensure that the humans delivering the tests or screening candidates were neutral and perfectly bias-free? Devising which metrics to measure is tough, but your objection isn't really a checkmate like you think it is. OP presumably is against the type of DEI initiatives that are in the form of "group X makes up Y% of the overall population but only make up Z% of the employees at this company. This means there's discrimination going on and we need to enact affirmative action to increase the participation of group X". I can arguably ask the same questions about the approach given there. I doubt that it's "neutral, bias-free", nor do I think the people in DEI would be "neutral and perfectly bias-free". Yes, coming up with objective metrics is hard, but it's not something that's solved by DEI. Using that as an objection against getting rid of DEI doesn't make sense.
- underwater 4y agoTargetting underrepresented candidates and trying to change the top of funnel (the focus of most DEI effort) is independent from changing the hiring criteria.
- gruez 4y agoThis seems to be an area where the supposed goals of DEI (increased diversity) align with expected business behavior (ie. trying to expand the applicant pool to get better talent and/or reduce costs). That's a good argument for keeping DEI, but also a good argument for getting rid of DEI and telling recruiters/managers to just do their jobs (ie. trying to find candidates wherever you can, whether they're an white appalachian coal miner or a visible minority from the inner cities).
- pavlov 4y ago> “A DEI department is a discrimination machine. Division is their output, because if there is none, it's obsolete.” By the same logic SRE is responsible for breaking my software because if the site is always reliable then they’re obsolete.
- rebelos 4y agoPlease have a seat and let me tell you a story about a little something called 'Kubernetes'.
- fleddr 4y agoI think you just summed up my career. I make web apps so insanely complex that I'm guaranteed to do the rewrite. I also love JS frameworks reinventing all of it every year or so. Keep them coming.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y agoYou get rid of the obnoxious 5%, but at what cost? How much of your top 5% are you alienating and losing? Is it worth it? If so, I suspect all the companies would've already done it.
- fleddr 4y agoAt what benefit, you mean? Slowly, more and more companies are taking a stance against activism. Coinbase did it, BaseCamp, and recently Netflix drew a line in the sand.
- dekhn 4y agoWould you also be willing to get rid of the Memegen Police... err, Community Moderation Team?
- fleddr 4y agoI don't know what that is but yes I'd totally get rid of it. As well as the people complaining about me getting rid of it. They don't call me The Cleaner for nothing.
- htk 4y ago
- dgfitz 4y agoUnsurprisingly, this went from first to like 12th in 90 seconds.
- fleddr 4y agoWe're going for the full experience :)
- fleddr 4y agoThanks. Interesting, isn't it. I'm thinking we're at the point where a significant amount of progressives are starting to (silently) reject the absurdly toxic way in which social justice issues are handled. I would totally expect my post to be downvoted and seen as some Elon Musk style power trip. Or perhaps people think I'm right-wing, or do not care about these issues. All false. I'm progressive (center-left by northwestern European standards). The policies are to remove regression so that true progress can be made. I find positive discrimination and equity insulting to minorities, you're basically saying that they're lesser beings. My bigger pet peeve though is activists, in particular the type perpetually victimizing themselves, creating division, creating a culture of fear and silencing. I find that insulting to actual victims.
- thematrixturtle 4y agoYou hold the standard European view on this, which is that we can "fake it till we make it", just treat everybody as equal and eventually racism will go away. Unfortunately, this doesn't really seem to be happening, which is where you get the American view: oppressed minorities need to be actively supported so they can become more equal. But this, paradoxically, requires labeling the oppressed and stokes more of the division it seeks to eliminate. My preferred solution comes from the hippie era: we simply need to fuck until we're all a nice shade of chocolate.
- 4y ago
- Mandatum 4y agoSo you'd turn it into IBM?
- koheripbal 4y agoAs an anecdote, we introduced a policy in the office that political and religious discussions should not take place in the office. Three people out of 50 quit. They were absolutely the most toxic and unproductive people in the office and nearly everyone was happy to see them leave. There is a high correlation between unproductive employees and activist employees. A company is like a sports team that is working together towards a singular goal. It is not a family. It is not a microcosm of the world nor the community.
- fleddr 4y agoThat indeed is the summary of my post: fire all activists. All of them. Most activism has no relevance at work, but worse: it typically achieves the exact opposite of making the workplace more fair. It's regressive, not progressive.
- phantomathkg 4y agoWhy not hire all slaves? that ensure no activist exists.
- nathanaldensr 4y agoFalse dichotomy. You don't have to be a slave to not be an activist.
- fleddr 4y agoYou must have mistyped the word worker. This is an ancient concept where you pay somebody and they do their job.
- phantomathkg 4y agoA sports team, does it mean the team can be as racist as it can be and achieve a singular goal at the same time?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nemo44x 4y agoI’d go a step further and fire anyone that was closely associated with the slack channels, e-mail groups, etc. Give them very generous severance and be kind, but simply recognize they aren’t compatible with the majority of employees and need to be isolated before they can do more damage.
- fleddr 4y agoAgreed. I was putting it mildly, basically.
- shitlord 4y agoTo me, the purpose of employment is to earn money. It's not to promote my political agenda or make the world a better place. I can do that on my own time. I support DEI efforts to the extent that they will increase my company's stock price and therefore my compensation.
- phantomathkg 4y agoDoes it means the purposes of a company is to exploit the world like there are ten thousand worlds out there? Exploit other human being and all horrible things we have fixed in last century?
- shitlord 4y agoThe company's job is to maximize profits. If it's not doing that, then it's leaving money on the table, doing a disservice to its shareholders, and creating an opening for its competitors. Exploitation isn't always conducive to this goal. It's the government's responsibility to deal with exploitation and create laws to prevent it.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
- fleddr 4y agoAbsurdly unhinged comment. I must have hit a nerve, activist.
- cool_dude85 4y agoYou're not saying you'd do some kind of activist, political move like firing me for things I say off the clock, are you?