this post was submitted on 24 May 2024
55 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19293 readers
2100 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Move over, Disney. Florida has a new boogeyman.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nightwingdragon 1 points 7 months ago

I'm going to go against the grain here.

From the article:

In the four-page complaint, Moody argues that the company’s goal of inclusivity for people of color in 30% of corporate roles and 40% of retail and manufacturing roles by 2025 violates federal and Florida civil rights acts. More than 48% of employees at Starbucks are white, 31.7% are Hispanic, 8.1% are Black, and 5.9% are Asian, according to the company’s most recently released data.

Additionally, Moody pointed to ties between the diversity goals and executives’ bonuses to claim the company has racial quotas. According to the Nation’s Restaurant News, 7.5% of Starbucks executive bonus consideration was tied to diversity in 2023.

Companies that have these kind of goals are problematic. And it can cut both ways: One company could say "we have enough minorities now, so we can go back to hiring a bunch of white people", while another could say "Hey, we've only got 25% minorities here and our bonus is tied to having 40%. Better hire a bunch of minorities even if they're not the best qualified for the job." Either viewpoint is problematic, especially if those making the decisions benefit financially (even if indirectly) by making at least some choices based on ethnicity rather than qualifications.

If you hired the best qualified people and you happen to have a good mix of minorities, men, women, etc., then you have a diverse team. If you hired some minorities in order to meet a quota or save your own bonus, then you hired a bunch of "token black guys" based on their skin tone rather than qualifications. If you stopped hiring minorities and just intend to hide behind the quota instead of continuing to hire qualified minorities, you're just a racist asshole.

With all of that said, we all know why DeSantis is doing this: He's a racist, narcissistic asshole who wants to build his political career off of racism and hate. But having what are essentially hiring quotas in place as part of your policy gives people like DeSantis ammo to do it, while also doing little to nothing to actually help the minority populations they're supposed to be helping.