You must log in or register to comment.
Lol
There is a good chance they will also ditch DEI when it start to cut into their monies more.
apple is so good for having a diverse group of slaves to build their phones
A lot of them are temps/contracted too, which is even worse. (at least for their warranty/refurbishment locations)
Fuck yeah I love Costco
Well they don’t love you.
They can tout DEI and idpol all they want. They’re still stiffing union workers.
Companies are not things to love.
I don’t doubt that all companies push back against unions. They force the company to pay more. The only thing I have to say regarding Costco is that it usually pays its employees a much better wage than most stores.
lol I am sure as soon as DEI practices are removed everyone will only get hired based on their skillset.and not their “club memberships”. what a bunch of dickwads, as if people don’t know what you are trying to achieve.
Tim Cook is really playing both sides of the fence here.
The real fence is capital vs labor, and he doesn’t play both sides of that one
He always has.
I mean, he did give a generous “personal donation” to the Trump inauguration.
He was going to give it to whoever won. Of course he wants to be on the good side of those in power. It’s not about the president, it’s about Tim Cook.
Really? Because he didn’t the last time.
It’s about him being a dipshit.
If you are in charge of a company whose market cap is larger than most nations GDP, you have to engage in diplomacy. Sometimes that’s blatant and overt corruption.
Maybe his interpretation of DEI would be more H1Bs from India?
If I recall he said they were going to remove it and the board said no
IIRC it was a bunch of shareholders who demanded removal.
Citation needed.
Can someone smarter than me (I know, it’s a low bar) explain how DEI is unconstitutional? Especially when it comes to private enterprises like Apple and Costco?
And why are we comparing Apple to Costco?
Because they’re both standing behind their DEI programs when much of Corporate America is rushing to dismantle theirs.
Because both companies are doing the same thing at the moment regarding a certain subject…
DEI is basically “you know that thing we do where we only hire from the old boys club at our favorite ivy league university? Let’s hold off on that.”
Companies benefit from DEI policies because they expand their hiring pool, so the company ends up with better talent. They’re still aiming to hire the best out of that pool, of course. Companies are motivated by profit, not by reparations.
I know its effect won’t be more equality.
Its effect will be more equality. Unfortunately that is not a good thing for the old boys club, which is what motivates the FUD and disinformation you’ve heard regarding DEI as a buzzword.
It’s usually more than just “not only hiring old white dudes” but a conscious effort to make the place more representative of society by intentionally hiring people of diverse gender/ethnicity instead, sometimes leading to processes being closed to people who aren’t part of certain groups, which might in theory go against some laws depending on where you live, but the same thing can be achieved by just wasting time filtering out white men’s CV or just not calling them back after interviews, so I personally don’t mind just being excluded and giving others a chance, if they don’t have non white dude applicants then I’ll get called and otherwise I’ve got plenty of doors open to me, more than most in fact and that’s not ok.
the whole DEI inititive generally is to get people who historically underprivileged more positions at work. this however in a few instances, would lead to someone being hired because of their race, rather than skillset. Theres ongoing anti sentiment who fully believe that anything with DEI has made a company gone downhill (with basically 0 evidence, or very anecdotal evidence proving so)
Constitutionally, some claim it to be unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment that states:
“No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
as the idea of affirmative action, or DEI programs bascially give minorities a higher chance of being hired, therefore the idea is that people were not equally protected under law.
basically programs typically put Whites (and Asians in some contexts, tech jobs and universities) at a disadvantage.
Correct, unless it’s for work that doesn’t require special qualifications then it’s usually a question of “out of those employees with very similar qualifications, is one of them part of an ethnic minority/a woman?”
I like your definition, but I would argue the question is less “are they an ethnic minority or woman?” And more “do they have likely have experiences and perspectives different from our existing team based on their demographic?” A homogenous team is more likely to share a blind spot or weakness. It’s why varied backgrounds, ages, and gender identities are helpful.
Right, a white person joining a team that’s 100% non white would be considered an ethnic minority in this case.
I understand your point but HR won’t do a background check to figure out if an Indian candidate comes from a socio-economic background that makes them closer to the rest of the well off engineers team already in place vs a white guy that might have been raised in a very poor household. That’s why it’s usually ethnic origin, gender, handicap and surface stuff like that.
I want to add that while I agree that in most companies “most of it is hubabaloo” and the companies just hire qualified people, there are some loud and visible examples of blatantly unqualified people getting a position with only apparent qualification being pronouns in their bio. For example a game developers spokesperson not realizing calling all gamers “insufferable bigoted incels” on social media is not a reasonable way to market a videogame.
So while most companies just call countering biases in hiring DEI, the term DEI for many people is now associated with hiring unqualified people, largely because those rare examples I mentioned being amplified and presented as the norm by right-wingers.
If you ask me, companies should drop the term DEI from their hiring policies and just write them neutrally. Sure, most of the perception of unfairness is probably unfounded, but not all of it. And whether true or not, the perception that the hiring process was not fair by people rejected by the hiring process just builds resentment and builds support for morons like Trump that speak against such policies.
I’m not familiar with the example you’re referencing. Was it stated this person was only hired for their pronouns or just due to a diversity initiative?
There are people who reveal themselves to be unqualified and incompetent through all types of hiring practices all the time. That does not invalidate the methodology entirely because none is perfect. If it was doing so consistently in a way that can be documented, that’d be different. But if that were the case, for profit companies would drop it on their own without external pressure.
The problem is it doesn’t matter what you call it. Affirmative action, DEI, whatever. The people who complain about DEI will complain about that new term. I’m not sure there’s a neutral way to describe that if two candidates are about equal, you’ll pick the one from a disadvantaged/underrepresented background. Even if you said you’re looking for unique perspectives, if it’s not a white man who ends up making the mistake, some people will complain that unique perspectives are anti white and racist and hurting the country.
you’ll pick the one from a disadvantaged/underrepresented background.
So is having that policy even worth it? I would argue doing blind remote interviews without knowing the persons race and background would be almost as effective without giving ammunition to hate-mongers.
It’s not like you have roughly equal candidates for a position often in the first place. And it could also help against nepotism and other unfair practices.
Hiring unqualified people also happens without DEI though and looking at studies on DEI’s impact on productivity it might actually happen more without it in place considering that output usually increases when implementing DEI measures…
A bunch of candidates from diverse backgrounds, the unqualified white dude gets hired out of unconscious systemic racism or out of fear of being flagged as a company with DEI measures in place. Nepotism as well, hire the son of a good employee even though better candidates exist…
Hiring unqualified people also happens without DEI though
Absolutely it does.
looking at studies on DEI’s impact on productivity it might actually happen more without it in place considering that output usually increases when implementing DEI measures…
Maybe, but I am sceptical in trusting studies like this, since they are rarely unbiased.
But even assuming it is true, making these policies obvious and giving them a name (DEI) creates an easy target to point at when assholes rouse hate against minorities. So as I said, I don’t think it is worth it in the long term. Plus, it probably also helps create/reinforce the subconscious notion that minorities need help to qualify for jobs, rather than being equal. Appearances matter when trying to win people over.
Because of subconscious notions they do need help to get jobs they’re qualified for. Hell, being bald is a deterrent, being called Kevin is a deterrent, being short is a deterrent to get hired with similar qualifications!
According to AI, not having a bookshelf in the background of a video call is a deterrent.
But why not do blind remote interviews or similar neutral policy? DEI doesn’t help any of the people you mentioned.
“Our new fairness in hiring program ensures we hire strictly on merit by eliminating human biases using cutting edge technology.”
You can’t argue against that. Compare that with random DEI selling pitch and tell me you don’t see how DEI is unnecessarily divisive.
Hiring on merit means only hiring white men because from birth they have an advantage. Unless you ignore all socio-economic issues people need to deal with throughout their whole lives, hiring based on merit only makes no sense, sometimes you have to give a chance to people you wouldn’t naturally give a chance to in order to break centuries old practices. Maybe in a thousand year a black kid will have exactly the same opportunities as a white kid, but it’s not the case now.
I fully agree with your second point, it’s so easy to blame minorities (be it racial or gender or sexual identity) that those situations are what gets talked abkut. The number of unqualified people who are hired/have been hired based on who they know vs what they know probably far outweighs mishandled DEI policies.
The number of unqualified people who are hired/have been hired based on who they know vs what they know probably far outweighs mishandled DEI policies.
I agree, but as I said, making it obvious and giving it a name (DEI) creates an easy target to point at when assholes rouse hate against minorities. So as I said, I don’t think it is worth it in the long term.
Plus, it probably also helps create/reinforce the subconscious notion that minorities need help to qualify for jobs, rather than being equal.
“No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Republicans have gotten away with breaking this so many times…
Well y’see there’s this one weird trick where you can declare people not people anymore
Thank you. That was easy to understand.
My understanding is it’s basically pulling the uno reverse card to suggest it’s anti-white behaviour.
“I got passed over for a promotion cause they needed another minority manager instead of a white one” type stuff
I’m not American so no idea what your constitution says.
The constitution say very little, yet people love to interpret it.
“People”
We
More perfect
Welfare
