2 ms·

I don't mind hiring practices that put some emphasis on diversity. However, I don't understand what DEI programs inside a company post hiring are supposed to "

by duxup 1y ago

I don't mind hiring practices that put some emphasis on diversity. However, I don't understand what DEI programs inside a company post hiring are supposed to "DO" and I think a lot of expectations around them start to very quickly expose some absurdities and amorphous nature of the idea surrounding internal private company DEI programs. In the end private companies can't undo racism, they can't undo the past, that's a human problem that private companies whose job it is to make money just aren't equipped to address in a way that would satisfy folks concerned with other social problems. For Shopify: >Wavering internal support turned into concrete action in recent months when entire teams dedicated to helping Black and Indigenous entrepreneurs were laid off. Is that even helpful? Is Shopify the right choice for Black and Indigenous entrepreneurs? Shopify is just a product. Shopify isn't a charity, they're not necessarily going to produce a positive outcome for every customer ... so emphasizing customers among a minority, is that a net positive for sure? That's the weird aspect I wonder about DEI and external efforts. Internally, it feels like a private company having resource groups for specific minorities again runs into a similar issue where that's not the company's motivation, or even competency ... I think private companies can help, but their reach is very limited and larger social problems are just not theirs to solve and they're the wrong people / not equipped to do it.

HairySeldon 1y ago
Post-hire DEI programs are a divide-and-rule strategy for union busting. Prevent class solidarity by encouraging identity politics.
- duxup 1y ago
  If that was the case I would expect more support for such programs at union busting / anti union companies… but I don’t think that is the case. Quite the opposite actually. I don't think your theory makes much sense.
  - ahaickccjdjdbd 1y ago
    Amazon disagrees with you, and they’re one of the best union busters in the business. https://archive.is/1khJw https://archive.is/1khJw > Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a "diversity index" that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity Nearly all top tech companies pushed DEI, and nearly all of them were found to be involved in anti worker activities in the past. On top of that, you can find many books about how diverse democracies fail - here’s one from obamas reading list: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Experiment-Diverse-Democracies-Endure/dp/0593296818 https://www.amazon.com/Great-Experiment-Diverse-Democracies-... Additionally, here’s a quote from Aristotle on diversity: “ And it is a mark of a tyrant to have men of foreign extraction rather than citizens as guests at table and companions, feeling that citizens are hostile but strangers make no claim against him”. Adding racial diversity is a tried and true tactic over millennia to allow a small group to rule over a larger. It prevents the populace from organizing and keeps them divided. It’s no coincidence the billionaires who are overseeing the ever increasing wealth gap have pushed “diversity is our strength” and convinced a large portion of the population to defend this position.
subpixel 1y ago
DEI is/was predicated on the false assumption that workplace diversity is a solution to societal inequality. I find it fascinating and frustrating that the taboo around examining DEI critically was so strong it took an autocrat to break it.
- piva00 1y ago
  From personal experience working through the early 2000s where there was no talk about DEI, and nowadays where there was a huge PR push for it, I don't feel it was all about solving societal inequality, that was just corporate messaging, the real benefit comparing workplaces that didn't care about diversity vs the ones that cared: - Men would create a hostile environment for women, I worked in a couple of companies which were 85%+ men, any new hire that was a woman suffered some kind of harassment, over or covert ("locker room talk" bullshit). This constantly pushed women out. - Diversity of ethnicities/nationalities brought a lot of different perspectives, having different cultures working together always helped teams I worked at to consider points of view that would only have surfaced later. Even ways of working that would cross-pollinate, like living a different culture would make you adopt practices that you think are improvements over yours. - Inclusion of people with disabilities, in 2005 I would never imagine the company I was working for to hire a blind person, there was an extreme bias they wouldn't be able to do the work. Nowadays I've worked with a few blind people, a few with reduced mobility that didn't even use a keyboard for typing, accommodations were needed but nothing that actually impacted work while improving their lives tremendously. Who would be caring about doing this effort if DEI didn't become a thing? I find it fascinating how the USA can go to either extreme so quickly, I do understand why it might have become such an annoyance to people opposed to it, feels like activism is so overboard that ended up being detrimental to the cause. I don't work in the USA so I really don't feel this need to push against any of the actions I've experienced in my life, at all points it actually helped people with minimal impact to myself while also helping me to realise biases and work on them, and I feel that's the actual societal change that DEI initiatives helps with: de-estranging others that are not 100% similar to you.
- duxup 1y ago
  I think the resistance to criticism was really just at the places where you had people invested in it. I think DEI most places was pretty light / inconsequential… but you only hear about the extreme cases because that’s more interesting.
tzs 1y ago
Identifying groups of people that could be customers but aren't because of some external factor and figuring out if you can do something to mitigate that factor is a perfectly normal part of business. A company doing that isn't trying to solve the underlying issue. That is indeed, as you noted, probably something they cannot do and others are better equipped to handle it. For instance suppose you find out that many women with young children are not coming to your business because they have no one to look after the kids while the mother is there. You might add a supervised playroom so the mothers can bring the kids and leave them in the playroom. This doesn't come anywhere near solving the underlying issue of daycare being too expensive for many parents but it could increase your business and make the lives of those mothers tangibly better.

by duxup 1y ago

HairySeldon 1y ago

Post-hire DEI programs are a divide-and-rule strategy for union busting. Prevent class solidarity by encouraging identity politics.

duxup 1y ago
If that was the case I would expect more support for such programs at union busting / anti union companies… but I don’t think that is the case. Quite the opposite actually. I don't think your theory makes much sense.
- ahaickccjdjdbd 1y ago
  Amazon disagrees with you, and they’re one of the best union busters in the business. https://archive.is/1khJw https://archive.is/1khJw > Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a "diversity index" that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store. Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity Nearly all top tech companies pushed DEI, and nearly all of them were found to be involved in anti worker activities in the past. On top of that, you can find many books about how diverse democracies fail - here’s one from obamas reading list: https://www.amazon.com/Great-Experiment-Diverse-Democracies-Endure/dp/0593296818 https://www.amazon.com/Great-Experiment-Diverse-Democracies-... Additionally, here’s a quote from Aristotle on diversity: “ And it is a mark of a tyrant to have men of foreign extraction rather than citizens as guests at table and companions, feeling that citizens are hostile but strangers make no claim against him”. Adding racial diversity is a tried and true tactic over millennia to allow a small group to rule over a larger. It prevents the populace from organizing and keeps them divided. It’s no coincidence the billionaires who are overseeing the ever increasing wealth gap have pushed “diversity is our strength” and convinced a large portion of the population to defend this position.

subpixel 1y ago

DEI is/was predicated on the false assumption that workplace diversity is a solution to societal inequality. I find it fascinating and frustrating that the taboo around examining DEI critically was so strong it took an autocrat to break it.

piva00 1y ago
From personal experience working through the early 2000s where there was no talk about DEI, and nowadays where there was a huge PR push for it, I don't feel it was all about solving societal inequality, that was just corporate messaging, the real benefit comparing workplaces that didn't care about diversity vs the ones that cared: - Men would create a hostile environment for women, I worked in a couple of companies which were 85%+ men, any new hire that was a woman suffered some kind of harassment, over or covert ("locker room talk" bullshit). This constantly pushed women out. - Diversity of ethnicities/nationalities brought a lot of different perspectives, having different cultures working together always helped teams I worked at to consider points of view that would only have surfaced later. Even ways of working that would cross-pollinate, like living a different culture would make you adopt practices that you think are improvements over yours. - Inclusion of people with disabilities, in 2005 I would never imagine the company I was working for to hire a blind person, there was an extreme bias they wouldn't be able to do the work. Nowadays I've worked with a few blind people, a few with reduced mobility that didn't even use a keyboard for typing, accommodations were needed but nothing that actually impacted work while improving their lives tremendously. Who would be caring about doing this effort if DEI didn't become a thing? I find it fascinating how the USA can go to either extreme so quickly, I do understand why it might have become such an annoyance to people opposed to it, feels like activism is so overboard that ended up being detrimental to the cause. I don't work in the USA so I really don't feel this need to push against any of the actions I've experienced in my life, at all points it actually helped people with minimal impact to myself while also helping me to realise biases and work on them, and I feel that's the actual societal change that DEI initiatives helps with: de-estranging others that are not 100% similar to you.
duxup 1y ago
I think the resistance to criticism was really just at the places where you had people invested in it. I think DEI most places was pretty light / inconsequential… but you only hear about the extreme cases because that’s more interesting.

tzs 1y ago

Identifying groups of people that could be customers but aren't because of some external factor and figuring out if you can do something to mitigate that factor is a perfectly normal part of business. A company doing that isn't trying to solve the underlying issue. That is indeed, as you noted, probably something they cannot do and others are better equipped to handle it. For instance suppose you find out that many women with young children are not coming to your business because they have no one to look after the kids while the mother is there. You might add a supervised playroom so the mothers can bring the kids and leave them in the playroom. This doesn't come anywhere near solving the underlying issue of daycare being too expensive for many parents but it could increase your business and make the lives of those mothers tangibly better.