3 ms·

I worry that this is just messaging to build towards 'make DEI jobs immune from layoffs'. eg the quotes from comments: > "Instead, he said companies should cons

I worry that this is just messaging to build towards 'make DEI jobs immune from layoffs'. eg the quotes from comments: > "Instead, he said companies should consider race, gender and ethnicity when deciding who to let go." > 'Only software engineering and data science jobs saw larger declines, at 24% and 27%, respectively.' So the "hard" jobs are actually facing larger layoff waves than the DEI jobs.

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
I don't know if we should read too much into this, it seems like the kind of thing you'd expect in any subspecialty. "Widget polishers are being hit hard by layoffs; we talked to some widget polishers, and they all told us that this is a big problem because it's important for the widgets to be polished."
lordfrito 4y ago
> I worry that this is just messaging to build towards 'make DEI jobs immune from layoffs' A job that's immune to layoffs, sign me up! /s Seriously however, it seems to me that DEI positions are mainly about virtue signaling. The positions certainly don't have anything to do with a companies core competencies or products (you know, their actual business). So it's pure overhead. Wasn't this stuff traditionally handled by HR? As other's have pointed out, there are already laws on the books that must be followed, and plenty of precedent showing large $$$ payouts when the rules aren't being followed. If/when jobs like this become mandatory, then a new bureaucracy will emerge and spread like a cancer, the overhead hanging like a millstone around a companies ability to stay competitive. You're seeing this happen on universities, where the staff/student ratio continues to grow, raising tuition and reducing the value of the education. I worry about the future competitive value American companies will bring to the global economy.

3 ms·

I worry that this is just messaging to build towards 'make DEI jobs immune from layoffs'. eg the quotes from comments: > "Instead, he said companies should cons

by vanjajaja1 4y ago

SpicyLemonZest 4y ago
I don't know if we should read too much into this, it seems like the kind of thing you'd expect in any subspecialty. "Widget polishers are being hit hard by layoffs; we talked to some widget polishers, and they all told us that this is a big problem because it's important for the widgets to be polished."
lordfrito 4y ago
> I worry that this is just messaging to build towards 'make DEI jobs immune from layoffs' A job that's immune to layoffs, sign me up! /s Seriously however, it seems to me that DEI positions are mainly about virtue signaling. The positions certainly don't have anything to do with a companies core competencies or products (you know, their actual business). So it's pure overhead. Wasn't this stuff traditionally handled by HR? As other's have pointed out, there are already laws on the books that must be followed, and plenty of precedent showing large $$$ payouts when the rules aren't being followed. If/when jobs like this become mandatory, then a new bureaucracy will emerge and spread like a cancer, the overhead hanging like a millstone around a companies ability to stay competitive. You're seeing this happen on universities, where the staff/student ratio continues to grow, raising tuition and reducing the value of the education. I worry about the future competitive value American companies will bring to the global economy.