Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
My concern is that dei hiring practices are curtailing merit based hiring.
I don't care either way what ones political affiliations are or what one identifys as as long as they're the best for the job.
(This is simply a critical assessment of the issue and does not reflect any personal views on dei or what some refer to as woke)
My experience is that if DEI hiring ends in a bad hire, that the organization at large was likely going to do a bad hire anyway. Some people might find it easier to blame DEI, but the truth is that your leadership sucks at your business. DEI is a scapegoat.
For example, people were jumping up and down at Boeing's mission statement including DEI and pinning all their woes on that. Except the severe mistakes were made before that mission statement, and a more clear line can be drawn from how McDonnell Douglas leadership failed, got slurped up into Boeing, and ultimately somehow got to call the shots at Boeing.
Hollow, insincere self congratulation around DEI was a common feature of bad leadership, but it's not the cause of the problems. Plenty of successful companies with solid hiring also have DEI initiatives without detriment.
You bring up a very good point that the industry itself might be flawed.
The issue for me—and the reason I made my original statement—is that we can't curtail human nature. By its nature, considering DEI aspects in hiring can potentially taint the criteria by which candidates are selected.
I'm not saying that cronyism and nepotism aren't very real and serious issues across various industries and countries. However, DEI feels like a similar practice—just framed differently. It leads companies to hire a specific type of person for the wrong reasons rather than hiring the right person for the right reasons.
Moreover, in the U.S., only about 43% of the population is non-white. That means that, on any given job application, roughly 50% of the applicants are likely to be white. If a large business has an employee pool that is significantly more than 50% non-white, that suggests the industry is hiring with a specific demographic in mind—not based on merit, but based on ethnicity, appearance, or political beliefs. I think we can both agree that, in most industries, those factors should not be relevant.
nature. By its nature, considering DEI aspects in hiring can potentially taint the criteria by which candidates are selected.
Still an organizational problem if people are hired without regard to merit. In fact that’s the whole reason it’s worth having a DEI focus : you can’t just hire on demographics and it takes a bit more work to hire on merit while trying to reduce inequity.
If you see people hired solely on demographics, either your impression s wrong or the hiring manager sucks
That’s why whenever I hear people claim someone was a DEI hire they always follow up with a meticulous assessment of their qualifications, awards, interview performance and achievements and they compare them accurately with another applicant that had better qualifications, awards, interview performance and achievements. They don’t simply look at the first non white cis het male in a position of power and scream ‘DEI!!!’ betraying the bigotry that is actually pushing this. No siree.
I will contend that actually is more or less the case. Considering it is simply human nature to be more lazy than more productive.
If hiring personnel are dictated to hire more on dei then on merit that's what they're going to do.
I'm not saying that this is happening industry-wide across an entire population.
I'm just simply stating that it's a concern that this might be happening.
If hiring personnel are dictated to hire more on dei then on merit
Then they duck and should be replaced
This is simply a critical assessment of the issue
It certainly isnt
Yes it is. Dei literally favors diversity over merit.
It pressures people into hiring somebody they otherwise wouldn't.
What merit based hiring.
When they have connections based on a privileged upbringing so they should be considered first like a true american instead of those people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
Where candidates have amazing credentials and accolades but are terrible at the job.
DEI had corporations promoting idiots because they represented a minority. We have idiots doing jobs they are not qualified for because of DEI. HOWEVER!!! I used to work for Nordstrom, I was an interviewing a tech, as a tech myself, the guy I wanted was damn good, smart as techs come, and hungry to make a name for himself, and Black. They chose the incompetent white boy that they felt fit the culture. SO! We went from hiring idiot white boys, to hiring idiots of different ethnicities. THIS DOES NOT FIX THE FUCKING PROBLEM YOU GOAT HOARDERS! Trumps merit, intelligence, requirements, sounds like what we should have been doing, I'm just concerned coming from him it's a racist dog whistle and we are gonna be back to hiring idiot white boys...
The world has tons of qualified candidates and tons of people out of work. Nowhere have I seen any indication DEI leads to hiring of “idiots”. That has been the domain of nepotism.
We have idiots doing jobs they are not qualified for
You mean like the current presidency? 🤔
I need help reading this
When is the general strike and protest?
From what I’ve read, Feb 5. I mostly divorced from Reddit, but /r/50501 has decent info.
I bet you wish you had Biden back now.
I do not wish for either of them.
What, you don’t think the Biden years were better than now?
If the choice was get kicked in the balls or get punched in the face I would select neither.
The comparison is more like a kick in the balls vs tab on the shoulder. Either might hurt but they are not the same
The fact that anyone thinks the two are comparable is why Trump is president again.
That sounds like a democrat problem. It sounds like they should have ran a candidate that was actually popular rather than forcing through the disliked senile old man that backed a genocide before switching to his tarnished by proximity understudy. But of course the democrats are not a serious party.
Who do you suggest?
What if they don't have a better alternative? Is there a rule against pointing out problems without immediately having a solution?
As discourse goes, it's fine to point out problems, but also of limited usefulness without an alternative. In fact, it can be outright harmful if it "let's the perfect be the enemy of the good". Or at least perhaps "let's the perfect be the enemy of the at least they aren't Nazis"
No one is suggesting fascism as an alternative to democracy. But fascism isn't the root of the problem, it's a symptom. Trump didn't put himself in power, he was elected. Trump isn't the root cause, and if we refuse to focus on anything other than the republican party we won't be able to find the root case. And without knowing the root cause it's hopeless to look to a solution.
Is there a law against asking?
No, but I wouldn't call what you're doing "just asking." Seems more like sealioning to me.
It was nice how there weren't multiple news stories per hour about the president when he was in office. It was also cool how sometimes the news about him was good and how sometimes he told the truth about things
Does he even know he's still alive? Still better, though.
I doubt he remember his name, but better a dead dinosaur skeleton than whateverthe fuck we have right now.