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.
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.
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.
You also want companies running towns while we’re at it?
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…
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.
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.
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.
I am talking about hiring policies here. I have opinions about wages as well, but if we keep switching topics, we will get nowhere.
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.
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.
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.