4 ms·
I sat in an all hands where the vice president of HR proudly crowed to the company that they had hired 75% non-whites that quarter.
by the_sleaze_ 1y ago
I sat in an all hands where the vice president of HR proudly crowed to the company that they had hired 75% non-whites that quarter.
- epistasis 1y agoSeems like a lawsuit right there... is this happened I sure hope that there was a lawsuit! Or at least HR implementing new hiring practices company wide afterwards...
- mensetmanusman 1y agoNo one is brave enough to start such lawsuits. Likelihood of winning too low, first mover disadvantage at play.
- tick_tock_tick 1y agoWho's going to start a lawsuit and get blacklisted? HR is normally pushing for this.
- analog31 1y agoThat's a lot of whites for a roofing company.
- gcanyon 1y agoIn your mind, if the company had researched their past hiring and found that whites/males had been favored for the previous history of the company, how long would it be reasonable for them to favor minorities and other underrepresented groups to balance the scales?
- xdennis 1y agoIf that's the case, I do think favoring non-whites and non-males is perfectly okay. But how do you think people arrive at the conclusion that whites/males have been favored in the past? Do they: 1) inspect their hiring practices and find evidence of discrimination 2) look at the proportion of minorities in the company vs proportion of minorities in the general population and conclude that any disparity is proof of discrimination
- 3oil3 1y agoI think they come to that conclusion with that segregation thing? Besides that, all nonsense. We need the best for the job, the best we can have. Just the best, with no regards to anything else but the abilities to fulfil the job and all around it. Instead of non-sense of choosing someone based on racial, etnic, religous, etc... it goes both way. Instead of that, put more teachers in schools, provide free books/uniforms/utilities. Fix that damn airco in that kindergarden class. Better what makes better.
- amanaplanacanal 1y agoWe think we want the best, and then at hiring time we look for "culture fit", or hire people we already know, or our relatives instead. Then we wonder why everybody is just like us.
- 3oil3 1y agoYep, you'r 100% right, it reminds me I once read that of all given jobs offers, 50% would be taken by someone who got introduced internally. Out of personal exeperience as employer, that so was decided by me because it was filling the need instantly. And out of those personal experiences, bad employees brought bad recruits, good employees brought good recruits. Unknown recruits? half good, half bad. Ironically chiraldic.
- gcanyon 1y ago> We need the best for the job I'm curious why you say that, since we've arguably been managing without "the best for the job" for centuries, anytime the best was a woman or a minority.
- 3oil3 1y agoBecause we must do better than our ancestors, we have no escuses, whereas e.g. 1880 gobal ileteracy rate > 80%. More comfortable schools with less pupils per 1 teacher we need, fix the issue, not give painkillers.
- typewithrhythm 1y agoYou cannot make a fair system by introducing subjective ideas like historical balance. A set of rules for fairness require that current decisions only account for individual merit; not special status.
- gcanyon 1y agoI didn't propose subjective harm in the past, why would you suggest that I did? But in any case, it seems like your answer is zero, right?
- Ohmec 1y agoInverting the privilege pyramid does not make for a balanced and healthy system.
- klipt 1y ago"If countries conscripted only men for thousands of years, for how many thousands of years is it reasonable to conscript only women to balance the scales?"
- akimbostrawman 1y agoIf these people where actually sincere and not just hiding behind a ideological smokescreen that only benefits them they would be for this same as with DEI in other men dominated jobs like sewage cleaning, road building or other physically taxing but underpaid jobs. It really makes you think that all the "men and women are the same and sometimes women are even better" always starts at the silicon valley jobs and stops right at enlistment which would be actual equality.
- gcanyon 1y agoI'm a white male, there is zero chance DEI benefits me directly. But I think we all benefit from a diverse society, with female plumbers and electricians, minority software developers, etc. etc.
- akimbostrawman 1y agoIt's not only not benefitting you but actively putting you at a disadvantage because of the way you where born. Why do you think that? Because it makes you feel good or because there is an actual measurable benefit? And no you don't need to have a specific skin color or sexual orientation to be considered diverse/different. If you think "all white dudes are/think the same" maybe change white to black and say that in front of a mirror.
- gcanyon 1y agoWhat makes you think I think "all white dudes are/think the same"? Did I say anything to suggest that? The difference, I think, is that I'm not blind to the advantages I receive every day for being a white male. In the words of Louis CK, "If you're a white male and don't admit that it is thoroughly awesome, you're an asshole."
- kelnos 1y agoThis isn't a thread about what's reasonable, it's a thread about what's legal.
- gcanyon 1y agoThat means a "what's reasonable" question is disallowed?
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y agoSuppose you were abused by your parent. How much would it be reasonable for you to abuse your child, in order to balance the scales?
- gcanyon 1y agoThat's a bad metaphor.
- rayiner 1y agoIt’s a good metaphor. You can’t undo racial discrimination against someone who is now dead by discriminating against someone else who is now alive.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoNo, it’s a bad metaphor. The correct analogy is, “Suppose you were abused by your parent; should you be allowed to establish a benefit specifically and only for the abused children of other parents?” You and 0xDEAFBEAD answer that question no, because that benefit discriminates in your mind against all non-abused children. And against all adults, probably. I don’t know how deep the grievance mobilization goes.
- gcanyon 1y agoI'd argue the correct analogy is "Suppose you were abused by society; should society be forced to address that abuse." But that's just me.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y agoYou're asking too much of society with such vague complaints. We should focus on getting basics right: prosperity, jobs, reduce crime, reduce road death, and so forth before navel-gazing about "abuse by society". In any case, even if society does somehow "address the abuse", it shouldn't come in the form of randomly abusing other people. But that's what you appear to be advocating for: Because some people were discriminated against, we should now randomly discriminate against some other people.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]