Split Thread DEI in the US

[arthwollipot]

Which prominent proponents of DEI have promoted frameworks which leave out affirmative action to boost minority inclusion? I'm genuinely curious to know whom you've been reading on this stuff because I've yet to find a DEI expert who would neglect to pack this particular tool.

If you'd like to tell me how you get from "it's one of the tools in the toolbox" to "it's never a tool in the toolbox" then I might think about obliging you.

 

[Darat]

Lawyers.

Why didn't that work?

 

[Blank]

Finally, you admit that you were guessing people's nationality and gender based on their names to skip their resumes. That is exactly the kind of biased, "gut feeling" hiring that DEI is designed to prevent. It seems your company was not practicing DEI to find the best talent. They were just swapping one form of arbitrary gatekeeping for another to chase a quarterly bonus.

No, the guessing was there to save time. Diversity targets were scored based on the multiethnicity/LGBTQ+ (not that we could ask, but those were clearly in our targets) of the team. Had I guessed wrong from the name and background, it wouldn't have mattered. Just more time wasted at interviewing a candidate I couldn't pick unless I wanted to forfeit parts of my bi-yearly bonus.

You are basically just making a big "no true DEI" fallacy here.

Company DEI policies forced race/gender considerations into our recruitment, without those policies we would have used blind CVs/interviews and ended up with non-diverse teams filled with the Indian/Bangladeshi men that usually made up the top 10 of our merit based rankings.

You also keep using the word "best" for a role that you previously described as requiring English and a pulse. If a person does the job so that things run along predictably and on schedule, they are a top tier candidate. There is no higher metric for that kind of production work. If a PhD or a Masters student does not make the line run any better than a nurse does, then they are not "better" for that specific role. In fact, as you previously said, the nurse is likely the better fit for the actual environment.

The difference really came at the other end of the spectrum. Bad recruits were a big problem. People struggling to show up to work in time, taking long sick leaves or my personal favorite, grabbing a mobile phone and going for a 2hr toilet break.

This seems like a common way for companies in the ECTS system to avoid the long term commitment of permanent contracts, but it clearly hurt your production consistency.

Yup, another stupid company policy along with the DEI that was implemented. As far as I know it was all because of some class action stuff in California.

 

[d4m10n]

If you'd like to tell me how you get from "it's one of the tools in the toolbox" to "it's never a tool in the toolbox" then I might think about obliging you.

You are evidently quoting/replying to someone else here; no idea what to make of that.

My question was whether there are any notable DEI advocates who do not also advocate Affirmative Action as part of the overall project.

If not, then it's easy to see why people who oppose the latter will nearly always oppose the former as well.

 

[wareyin]

No, the guessing was there to save time. Diversity targets were scored based on the multiethnicity/LGBTQ+ (not that we could ask, but those were clearly in our targets) of the team. Had I guessed wrong from the name and background, it wouldn't have mattered. Just more time wasted at interviewing a candidate I couldn't pick unless I wanted to forfeit parts of my bi-yearly bonus.

You are basically just making a big "no true DEI" fallacy here.

Company DEI policies forced race/gender considerations into our recruitment, without those policies we would have used blind CVs/interviews and ended up with non-diverse teams filled with the Indian/Bangladeshi men that usually made up the top 10 of our merit based rankings.



The difference really came at the other end of the spectrum. Bad recruits were a big problem. People struggling to show up to work in time, taking long sick leaves or my personal favorite, grabbing a mobile phone and going for a 2hr toilet break.



Yup, another stupid company policy along with the DEI that was implemented. As far as I know it was all because of some class action stuff in California.

I see your point about the applicant pool. If the vast majority of your applicants are from one specific demographic, then even a blinded process will naturally result in a team that reflects those same proportions. As with the classical music example, if only one demographic has the resources to afford the instrument and the lessons, the pool is already skewed before the first interview even happens.

In your case, requiring a STEM degree for a "pulse level" job was that instrument. By setting a requirement that you admitted was irrelevant to the work, you skewed the pool of resumes you could draw from. Really, if your ranking system put PhD and Masters candidates at the top of the list for a "pulse level" job, it was a bad metric. Your DEI policy accidentally did you a favor by forcing you to look past the academic resumes to find the people who were actually the best fit for the production floor.

Finally, the idea that a class action suit in California forced a European company to implement these specific policies sounds like a corporate myth. California law does not dictate hiring quotas or bonus structures in Europe. It is far more likely your leadership chose these policies to avoid the long-term commitment of permanent contracts, then used "California" or "DEI" as a convenient scapegoat for the "revolving door" problems they created themselves.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Lawyers.

The people who are mostly discriminated against tend to not have the resources to hire lawyers. The reason for many policies is because there are bad actors, people who will discriminate and have discriminated against protected classes of people. Moving the burden to those who are suffering discrimination sounds good, to those in power, because they know that it is an uphill battle. As Darat stated, leaving it to law suits didn't work before, why would it work now?
Your responses kinda prove why DEI is necessary.

So, I ask again, how do you ensure there is no discrimination of protected classes in hiring practices?

 

[Brainster]

I would also suggest looking at the gender distribution of the NYP. Is that a success story for diversity? I say it is.

And it came about through meritocracy. So are you in support of meritocracy?

 

[thaiboxerken]

And it came about through meritocracy. So are you in support of meritocracy?

Are you? What would a meritocracy look like to you?

 

[Brainster]

Are you? What would a meritocracy look like to you?

Yes, I support meritocracy, certainly in the sense that arth seems to mean it--where the best, most qualified people get the job. I would say that a meritocracy wouldn't look dramatically different than what we have now. Certainly we are closer to it than we were before the civil rights and women's rights and gay rights movements.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A meritocracy would have a level playing field for all people. What we have in the USA now is not even close.

 

[arthwollipot]

Meritocracy isn't all it's cracked up to be, actually. Somehow, people still manage to shoehorn inequity into it.

 

[dirtywick]

i never really thought of qualified as most or least. to me it’s are or aren’t

 

[Brainster]

Meritocracy isn't all it's cracked up to be, actually. Somehow, people still manage to shoehorn inequity into it.

Kind of an amusing article. His argument seems to be that the new elites, because they worked their way up the ladder, can train their kids in how to work their way up the ladder. And the reward?

And so the elite is in that sense bound to or compelled by its wealth to work all the time and at whatever tasks the market favors and to yield enormous quantities of effectively alienated labor in order to get the income it needs to pass its privilege on to its children. And that means that they’re wealthy, but they’re not well. This is not a form of human flourishing.

Yep, the reward is that you dump your kids onto the same treadmill.

 

[Blank]

Finally, the idea that a class action suit in California forced a European company to implement these specific policies sounds like a corporate myth.

Not a European company. A multinational US company that operates in several countries, that is why we had to deal with all sorts of US brainrot. Compulsory DEI trainings, anti-corruption trainings that had absolutely no relevance for us but had to take part in those anyway. This also meant that we were stuck with the one we recruited for the full 18 months unless we wanted to go for a really complicated HR/Legal ticketing show. Luckily we had simpler tasks so parking a employee at wet bench/wafer cleaning was always a possibility, if they were a hazard.

In your case, requiring a STEM degree for a "pulse level" job was that instrument. By setting a requirement that you admitted was irrelevant to the work, you skewed the pool of resumes you could draw from. Really, if your ranking system put PhD and Masters candidates at the top of the list for a "pulse level" job, it was a bad metric.

Pretty much everyone here has atleast a Bsc (around 50% on the region), setting a limit at trade school would make no sense since relevant trade schooled people (electricians etc...) would be making pretty good bank at their own jobs and people with just high school degrees are not someone you want near expensive tools. ATS needs something simple to screen so the Bsc. or relevant work experience worked fine for that.

It is always a lottery and you are rolling the odds on any recruitment, but higher degrees pan out more often than not. Sure there were unsuitable PhDs as well, but the success rate on higher grades was better.

 

[wareyin]

Not a European company. A multinational US company that operates in several countries, that is why we had to deal with all sorts of US brainrot. Compulsory DEI trainings, anti-corruption trainings that had absolutely no relevance for us but had to take part in those anyway. This also meant that we were stuck with the one we recruited for the full 18 months unless we wanted to go for a really complicated HR/Legal ticketing show. Luckily we had simpler tasks so parking a employee at wet bench/wafer cleaning was always a possibility, if they were a hazard.



Pretty much everyone here has atleast a Bsc (around 50% on the region), setting a limit at trade school would make no sense since relevant trade schooled people (electricians etc...) would be making pretty good bank at their own jobs and people with just high school degrees are not someone you want near expensive tools. ATS needs something simple to screen so the Bsc. or relevant work experience worked fine for that.

It is always a lottery and you are rolling the odds on any recruitment, but higher degrees pan out more often than not. Sure there were unsuitable PhDs as well, but the success rate on higher grades was better.

I'm guessing the 18 month rule you are claiming the US forced on you was the Vizcaino v. Microsoft "permatemp" lawsuit one. That was the case where Microsoft got in trouble back in the 90s for keeping people as "independent contractors" for years rather than hiring them as employees just to avoid giving them benefits. It sounds like you were not actually hiring employees at all, but skating by with contractors to cheap out on labor costs, and then complaining about "US brainrot" that actually found you better workers like those nurses.

And about those nurses, you previously claimed the nurses were better at the job than the PhDs, but now you're claiming that higher degrees pan out more for this "speak English and have a pulse" production job. Which is it? If your success rate with degrees is so much better, then the nurses should not have been your "really good" examples.

Furthermore, I am seeing a lot of management failure here. You're using useless metrics to screen out qualified people. You're using contractors to cheap out on labor costs while costing yourself more in the 18 month churn of finding and training qualified people. Heck, if these people are contractors, "parking" a hazardous one for 18 months is even more of a management failure. The entire point of using a staffing agency is that you can end an assignment instantly if someone is a risk. If you're keeping a "hazard" near expensive tools for a year and a half just to avoid a "ticketing show" or a hit to your recruitment bonus, there is something very wrong here.

 

[Trausti]

Why didn't that work?

It does work. If you have actual evidence of racial or sex employment discrimination, you won't have a hard time getting a lawyer. Those lawsuits usually include attorneys fees. But, again, you need actual evidence.

 

[Trausti]

The people who are mostly discriminated against tend to not have the resources to hire lawyers. The reason for many policies is because there are bad actors, people who will discriminate and have discriminated against protected classes of people. Moving the burden to those who are suffering discrimination sounds good, to those in power, because they know that it is an uphill battle. As Darat stated, leaving it to law suits didn't work before, why would it work now?
Your responses kinda prove why DEI is necessary.

So, I ask again, how do you ensure there is no discrimination of protected classes in hiring practices?

You may not understand how America works. In many cases, lawyers (for the plaintiff) work on a contingent basis - if they don't succeed, they don't get paid. And we got a lot of lawyers. That's not a "resource" we lack at all. If there's actual evidence of discrimination, there'll be a big payout. Lawyers don't turn those cases away.

 

[Trausti]

A meritocracy would have a level playing field for all people. What we have in the USA now is not even close.

American is probably the best there is. A person can go from rages to riches with hard work and brains. But the thing about meritocracy is that people are not equal in ability or self-discipline. So "inequality" will always exist. The Little Red Hen.

 

[d4m10n]

i never really thought of qualified as most or least.

In the event of a difficult landing, would you rather have a pilot with loads of landings under her belt or a newly qualified pilot?

 

[dirtywick]

In the event of a difficult landing, would you rather have a pilot with loads of landings under her belt or a newly qualified pilot?

don't they usually fly in teams and help each other out?