2 ms·

> because they were already all white men, new hires weren't allowed to be, so viable candidates were turned away, leading to under-staffing Is there any evide

by exe34 2y ago

> because they were already all white men, new hires weren't allowed to be, so viable candidates were turned away, leading to under-staffing Is there any evidence that this has ever happened in the history of the US? Not in this particular case as we wait for the details to emerge, but for any documented case?

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Is there any evidence that this has ever happened in the history of the US? How would you even have a DEI program that didn't work this way? You're currently understaffed and make efforts to hire someone to fill the position. The first qualified applicant you find doesn't meet the DEI goals. Your options are now a) hire them, stop being understaffed, but don't meet the DEI goals, or b) don't hire them and hold out for a candidate that can meet the DEI goals, but in the meantime you remain understaffed. You don't always have the luxury of choosing between two concurrent applicants and this is a pretty unambiguous trade off whenever that doesn't happen.
- vkou 2y ago
  In every place I worked in, qualifications are a show-stopper hard goal, DEI is a soft goal. When someone doesn't have the qualifications you don't hire them on a micro level. When you don't meet the soft goal you look at your approach on a macro level. Is your pipeline bad? Are you missing qualified candidates? Are you biased? You can work to improve all those things without any compromise on quality. And sometimes the soft goal is not reachable, or it's not reachable industry-wide, due to the pigeonhole principle. But that's doesn't feed into anecdotes and fairy tales about the boogieman. What's actively repulsive and illogical is what he's doing - one or a group of people made a mistake, nobody yet knows what the mistake is, what contributed to it, and how it should be prevented in the future, but he spins a fairy tale that rests on assuming that they are unqualified. The only verifiably unqualified person in this story at the moment is him. Don't give that nonsense the time of day. And look, here I am, not taking my own advice and engaging with that crap.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > In every place I worked in, qualifications are a show-stopper hard goal, DEI is a soft goal. In this case the issue isn't qualifications, it's mean time to fill the position when you're understaffed. Suppose you could find a qualified non-DEI candidate in one month and a qualified DEI candidate in six months. If you take the time to find the DEI candidate, the position is left unfilled for five months longer than it would have been. That's pretty bad if the result is a higher probability of a plane crash in the meantime, or any other important thing.
    - vkou 2y ago
      You don't seem to understand how these programs actually work in practice (One might even snark and say that you aren't sufficiently qualified.) DEI is measured as a statistical, after-the-fact, population-level macro mandate. Any particular hiring decision is made on qualifications. It's illegal to not hire someone because their protected characteristics, and if you see someone doing it, you should whistleblow. It's not illegal to look at your hiring efforts and decide to cast your hiring net in a different demographical area. But at the end of the day, you hire the candidate that meets the bar. If you can't fill headcount, either your bar is too high, your firm sucks to work for, you aren't paying enough, or you need to work harder on hiring. I have been involved in a lot of hiring over the years. I've never, ever been pressured, or even implied at that I should base any of my micro decisions (whether in rating or hiring) on someone's protected characteristics. I've likewise never seen them being used as justifications for my peers' decision-making. Oh, and everyone always bitches that hiring is too slow and it's too hard to find people. That's a universal constant, just like the universal constant of 'there's always more work to do than there is time to do it in'. I have, however seen demographic-level statistics to be used as justification for "Maybe we should have a career booth at a work fair in the University of St. Louis. Does anyone want to go do that?"
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        > DEI is measured as a statistical, after-the-fact, population-level macro mandate. For this to mean anything it has to be not just a metric but a target, and as soon as it's a target, you're not just measuring something after-the-fact. > It's not illegal to look at your hiring efforts and decide to cast your hiring net in a different demographical area. "Not illegal" isn't the issue when the debate is about what the law should be. Suppose that you want to hit your numbers and that you further know that you can find more qualified candidates in a specific area which is predominantly white. If you advertise in the predominantly white area, you find a candidate in a month. If you advertise in that area and other areas, you find a candidate in a month, but it's the same candidate. Neither of these allow you to meet your numbers. Whereas if you advertise only in predominantly black areas, you eventually find a qualified candidate, and you meet your numbers, but it takes six months and in the meantime you're understaffed. > If you can't fill headcount, either your bar is too high, your firm sucks to work for, you aren't paying enough, or you need to work harder on hiring. Or you're hiring for a job with a limited number of qualified applicants while purposely reducing the number of applicants from a particular demographic because they would be qualified but mess up your numbers.
twoodfin 2y ago
The quest for diversity in the ATC workforce at the FAA is actually pretty horrifying: https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471 https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

by exe34 2y ago

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> Is there any evidence that this has ever happened in the history of the US? How would you even have a DEI program that didn't work this way? You're currently understaffed and make efforts to hire someone to fill the position. The first qualified applicant you find doesn't meet the DEI goals. Your options are now a) hire them, stop being understaffed, but don't meet the DEI goals, or b) don't hire them and hold out for a candidate that can meet the DEI goals, but in the meantime you remain understaffed. You don't always have the luxury of choosing between two concurrent applicants and this is a pretty unambiguous trade off whenever that doesn't happen.

vkou 2y ago
In every place I worked in, qualifications are a show-stopper hard goal, DEI is a soft goal. When someone doesn't have the qualifications you don't hire them on a micro level. When you don't meet the soft goal you look at your approach on a macro level. Is your pipeline bad? Are you missing qualified candidates? Are you biased? You can work to improve all those things without any compromise on quality. And sometimes the soft goal is not reachable, or it's not reachable industry-wide, due to the pigeonhole principle. But that's doesn't feed into anecdotes and fairy tales about the boogieman. What's actively repulsive and illogical is what he's doing - one or a group of people made a mistake, nobody yet knows what the mistake is, what contributed to it, and how it should be prevented in the future, but he spins a fairy tale that rests on assuming that they are unqualified. The only verifiably unqualified person in this story at the moment is him. Don't give that nonsense the time of day. And look, here I am, not taking my own advice and engaging with that crap.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > In every place I worked in, qualifications are a show-stopper hard goal, DEI is a soft goal. In this case the issue isn't qualifications, it's mean time to fill the position when you're understaffed. Suppose you could find a qualified non-DEI candidate in one month and a qualified DEI candidate in six months. If you take the time to find the DEI candidate, the position is left unfilled for five months longer than it would have been. That's pretty bad if the result is a higher probability of a plane crash in the meantime, or any other important thing.
  - vkou 2y ago
    You don't seem to understand how these programs actually work in practice (One might even snark and say that you aren't sufficiently qualified.) DEI is measured as a statistical, after-the-fact, population-level macro mandate. Any particular hiring decision is made on qualifications. It's illegal to not hire someone because their protected characteristics, and if you see someone doing it, you should whistleblow. It's not illegal to look at your hiring efforts and decide to cast your hiring net in a different demographical area. But at the end of the day, you hire the candidate that meets the bar. If you can't fill headcount, either your bar is too high, your firm sucks to work for, you aren't paying enough, or you need to work harder on hiring. I have been involved in a lot of hiring over the years. I've never, ever been pressured, or even implied at that I should base any of my micro decisions (whether in rating or hiring) on someone's protected characteristics. I've likewise never seen them being used as justifications for my peers' decision-making. Oh, and everyone always bitches that hiring is too slow and it's too hard to find people. That's a universal constant, just like the universal constant of 'there's always more work to do than there is time to do it in'. I have, however seen demographic-level statistics to be used as justification for "Maybe we should have a career booth at a work fair in the University of St. Louis. Does anyone want to go do that?"
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > DEI is measured as a statistical, after-the-fact, population-level macro mandate. For this to mean anything it has to be not just a metric but a target, and as soon as it's a target, you're not just measuring something after-the-fact. > It's not illegal to look at your hiring efforts and decide to cast your hiring net in a different demographical area. "Not illegal" isn't the issue when the debate is about what the law should be. Suppose that you want to hit your numbers and that you further know that you can find more qualified candidates in a specific area which is predominantly white. If you advertise in the predominantly white area, you find a candidate in a month. If you advertise in that area and other areas, you find a candidate in a month, but it's the same candidate. Neither of these allow you to meet your numbers. Whereas if you advertise only in predominantly black areas, you eventually find a qualified candidate, and you meet your numbers, but it takes six months and in the meantime you're understaffed. > If you can't fill headcount, either your bar is too high, your firm sucks to work for, you aren't paying enough, or you need to work harder on hiring. Or you're hiring for a job with a limited number of qualified applicants while purposely reducing the number of applicants from a particular demographic because they would be qualified but mess up your numbers.

twoodfin 2y ago

The quest for diversity in the ATC workforce at the FAA is actually pretty horrifying: https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471 https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471