News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
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...
Absolutely it does.
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.
Or you could do the reasonable thing and instead of hiring less qualified people, you can sponsor DEI training programs, scholarships, and followup internships. Help them become qualified.
That's not the employer's job to take the government's place.
It's also not their place to level the social playing field, yet here we are.
If it's clear they are otherwise discriminating then yes it is
The Employers either should help the less disadvantaged, or they shouldn't. Make up your mind.
If they should, I argue they should do it by sponsoring training opportunities. If they shouldn't do it, then they shouldn't do it at all, including by preferentially hiring the disadvantaged.
I personally think it is not the Employers responsibility, but it is still the right thing to step up when the government fails at its job.
They should, in the place that is under their jurisdiction, i.e. the hiring process.
So they should help, but only in an inefficient, counterproductive way that could also damage their business?
Because why exactly? Who said training and education has to be outside a company's jurisdiction?
You also want companies running towns while we're at it?
It is efficient in the long run because offering them very jobs means they're kids get to grow up in better socio-economic conditions.
You can give all the education you want to women and people of various ethnic backgrounds and the handicapped, in the end the white guy with the same (or sometimes worse) qualifications will get hired in their place unless DEI measures are put in place, that's their whole point, getting companies to recognize that if they don't make a conscious effort to prevent it, there's systemic discrimination happening in all industries.
They also affect people after they get hired. Hiring a woman to end up giving her less money for the same work goes against DEI. Accommodations for people who have physical or mental health challenges affects everyone, even people who believe it's not for them, they're one car running a red light away from needing those and in some States that accident could mean them simply being laid off with no consequence for their employer and no recourse for the employee.
I want government to do a better job. In lack of that, training and education is something I don't mind handing over to employers. A lot of job specific training is already provided by employers anyway. Safety trainings, how to work with specific tools and technologies, continuous education, regulatory compliance, business ethics...
The whole point of my post is arguing for removing biases by making the hiring process race and background blind, instead of "positive discrimination". The argument isn't to bring back discrimination, but what is the best way to prevent it.
I am talking about hiring policies here. I have opinions about wages as well, but if we keep switching topics, we will get nowhere.
This is actually a good point. I didn't really consider disabilities and health accommodations as part of DEI, since they are protected by law where I live, not part of the voluntary DEI initiatives. These should stay imo.