Zone1 How corporate America is slashing DEI workers amid backlash to diversity programs

[JoeB131]

There you go again: gloating about the Holocaust. Have you no shame?

None at all... But don't tell me that you are superior when you need someone else to save you.

Just be grateful when you are rescued, and learn something from it.

University administrators who continue to admit unqualified Negroes will open themselves to expensive lawsuits from Orientals and Jews who do not like being being discriminated against,

I'm sure they will. And they'll lose. If you throw out GPA's and SAT's, and legacies and dean's interest, then what counts as qualified?

The only reason affirmative action policies have been adopted in private companies has been government coercion. The Supreme Court can put an end to that.

No, they can't. Because there is no law demanding quotas. There is, however, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1968 and 1991, all of which DO have protections against racial discrimination.

There's a reason why companies collect race, gender, veteran and disability information on job applications, and that's to show how diverse their pool was. When they give that CSR Manager job to the Boss's idiot nephew, they have to show that no qualified minorities, women, disabled people or veterans applied.

Head Start ECLKC

Head Start Program Facts: Fiscal Year 2022​

10 billion for 1.5 Million preschoolers? That's less than $6700 a kid. (Head start applies to ALL preschoolers, not just blacks). It's really just glorified day care, not really an education program.

 

[Hector12]

And you continue to misrepresent my argument. You are a dishonest person Joe apparently without shame. Again have a lovely day.

When JoeB131 is not descending to name calling, insults, and obscene words, he relies on logical fallacies.

Keep hammering away at that repulsive troll.

 

[JoeB131]

And you continue to misrepresent my argument. You are a dishonest person Joe apparently without shame. Again have a lovely day.

Your argument was pretty clear to me... black people need to stop whining because it upsets white people like you.

 

[Hector12]

There's a reason why companies collect race, gender, veteran and disability information on job applications, and that's to show how diverse their pool was. When they give that CSR Manager job to the Boss's idiot nephew, they have to show that no qualified minorities, women, disabled people or veterans applied.

When the Supreme Court rules against affirmative action in hiring that will no longer be necessary.

A company that wants more diversity should hire more Jews and Orientals.

 

[Hector12]

Your argument was pretty clear to me... black people need to stop whining because it upsets white people like you.

Whites are upset by the racial double standard. Several years ago a black criminal with at least one prior felony conviction cut the throat of a white tourist from Europe with a knife. He cut right across the jugular vein, and could have killed the white victim, who had done nothing to provoke the attack.

That story was front page news for several days on the New York Post. The New York Times did not cover it. If a white man did that to an unoffending black man, that would have been national news for weeks.

 

[Foxfyre]

When JoeB131 is not descending to name calling, insults, and obscene words, he relies on logical fallacies.

Keep hammering away at that repulsive troll.

Naw. I've given him all of my time he deserves. I cannot respect those who won't address a person's argument but keeps accusing them of what they didn't say. Such people are too dishonest to merit anything other than contempt.

 

[JoeB131]

When the Supreme Court rules against affirmative action in hiring that will no longer be necessary.

Oh, quite the contrary, anyone can sue anyone for anything.

the first job out of the Army, they fired a supervisor from her $10.00 an hour job. Instead of just being happy to be out of there, she sued for gender discrimination. The company's response was to promote an unqualified woman into a supervisory position. She won her case, but only got a nominal amount.

A company that wants more diversity should hire more Jews and Orientals.

Or they can hire more blacks. The company I currently work for hired two Asians... neither one of them lasted a year. They couldn't manage the work. The lady blurted out when she was fired, "I don't care, my husband's rich!" They hired a black lady, she seems to be doing fine.

Whites are upset by the racial double standard. Several years ago a black criminal with at least one prior felony conviction cut the throat of a white tourist from Europe with a knife. He cut right across the jugular vein, and could have killed the white victim, who had done nothing to provoke the attack.

So a non-fatal attack. We have 25,000 homicides a year. Most of which don't get national play.

That story was front page news for several days on the New York Post. The New York Times did not cover it. If a white man did that to an unoffending black man, that would have been national news for weeks.

Well, yes, the NY Post is very good at scaring white people with NON-Stories.

What I see in the media is that the story that is most likely to get national play is "White women in Peril" stories. Like Gabby Petito, who was killed by her boyfriend last year. We had breathless reporting on that one for weeks until her body was found and her boyfriend offed himself.

 

[Hector12]

Oh, quite the contrary, anyone can sue anyone for anything.

After the Supreme Court rules against affirmative action is hiring it will become much harder to sue a company for not hiring enough, or any, blacks.

 

[JoeB131]

After the Supreme Court rules against affirmative action is hiring it will become much harder to sue a company for not hiring enough, or any, blacks.

No, it really won't.

You see, the reason why Harvard was such a big deal is that Harvard is an E-ticket to the good life.

no one is going to sue because "I didn't get hired for a menial office job".

Since I know you love my testimonials, let me discuss the one time I was passed up for a racial hire. This woman was absolutely less qualified than I was.

But proving that in court would have been difficult. I had more experience, but only by virtue of being older. Education, her College was a bit more on point. I had the advantage of being a Veteran, she had the advantage of being female and a minority.

The thing that SHOULD have worked in my favor was I already had been doing the job as a contractor, but that worked against me because if the company hired a contractor to fill the position, they couldn't hire a new contractor. So it was kind of a head count game.

Companies know if they hire a certain number of disabled people, a certain number of Veterans, and a certain number of minorities and women, that keeps them out of court and keeps the government out of their hair.

 

[Hector12]

Companies know if they hire a certain number of disabled people, a certain number of Veterans, and a certain number of minorities and women, that keeps them out of court and keeps the government out of their hair.

A Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in hiring will keep the government out of hiring decisions.

 

[Hector12]

I would be interested in a study comparing comparable companies, some with few or no Negro employees, others with many Negro employees.

Because of the enormous race gap in average intelligence, I am reasonably confident that companies with few or no Negroes on the payroll perform better than companies with many Negroes on the payroll. The only exception I can think of would be athletic teams.

 

[JoeB131]

A Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action in hiring will keep the government out of hiring decisions.

There you go with the sloganeering again.

Unless you are going to overturn the civil rights acts, ain't gonna happen.

I would be interested in a study comparing comparable companies, some with few or no Negro employees, others with many Negro employees.

I can give you that. My experience, the less diverse a company, the worse of a place it is to work. Usually, because the kind of boss who is a racist, always, always, always, turns out to be an awful human being in most other aspects of his life and management style.

Because of the enormous race gap in average intelligence, I am reasonably confident that companies with few or no Negroes on the payroll perform better than companies with many Negroes on the payroll. The only exception I can think of would be athletic teams.

Well, you'd probably be wrong, for the reasons I stated above.

Not that I care about how successful a company is, but what kind of work environment it has. If a company is going out of its way to not be diverse, to ignore the law, etc., it's more likely to be a toxic work environment with fear based management.

 

[Hector12]

Unless you are going to overturn the civil rights acts, ain't gonna happen.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits hiring discrimination on the basis of race. If whites and Orientals can prove that they are routinely discriminated against on behalf of Negroes who, objectively speaking, are less qualified, a conservative Supreme Court, which is what we have, is likely to find that preferential hiring in order to achieve diversity violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits hiring discrimination on the basis of race. If whites and Orientals can prove that they are routinely discriminated against on behalf of Negroes who, objectively speaking, are less qualified, a conservative Supreme Court, which is what we have, is likely to find that preferential hiring in order to achieve diversity violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment.

Okay, define "less qualified".

First and foremost, most people who don't get jobs NEVER know who did get the job or what criteria were used to select that person.

Now, this is something I know a lot about because I do career coaching and resume writing as a side business.

And I can tell you, the whole system is kind of flawed. DEI (which includes not only race but gender, veteran status, and disability) is just one of many factors that can get you rejected or accepted as a candidate.

Let's start with the advertisements themselves. Many of the postings you see on Indeed or Glassdoor don't represent a real job being offered. Some are put out there for legal purposes before they offer it to either an internal candidate or an H1B they've lined up who they can exploit the shit out of.

Now, let's move on to the resume. Human beings do not read resumes. They are read by a system known as "Applicant Tracking Software." If your resume has a grammatical error in it, REJECTED. Don't have the educational requirements they asked for? REJECTED. Lacks 4-10 keywords specific to the job? Rejected, or at least put to the bottom of the pile.

Most companies will make you fill out an online application even if you submit a resume. Why? Mostly to see your level of attention to detail and ability to follow instructions. Miss a block, your application is rejected.

When the human does read it, they spend about 30 seconds reading it. They only look at the job titles of your last two jobs and if you have the education. They get it down to about three candidates. I had one company that downsized me in 2001 call me back in 2011 because they didn't bother to read the whole resume to see I worked for them before. Nope. Just had the keywords they liked.

The next step is phone interviews. An HR Drone usually does this, but rarely the person making the hiring decision. If you pass that step, you might get an interview. No one person makes that decision. Why were you rejected? Maybe you wanted too much money. Maybe something about your demeanor turned one of the people interviewing you off.

So, in short, you have no idea who got the job, why they picked that person, or what his qualifications were. But you heard a black guy got the job, so you are going to sue!

Here's another reason why this won't happen. Getting your name attached to a lawsuit against an employer or potential employer is almost always a career killer. I had a very good case for age and medical discrimination against a certain former employer. The boss outright said I was "Too old" to be factored into the reorganization. In front of witnesses. But the last thing I wanted for the rest of my career was my name attached to a lawsuit. People think you are litigation-happy.

 

[Hector12]

Okay, define "less qualified".

Lower test scores, less experience, less quality experience. The ideal candidate is someone who performed well in his present position, but faces limited opportunities, through no fault of his own. In addition, bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with who will work well with with their other subordinates.

A work force where people like each other performs better than a work force divided by internal hostilities.

I would want to test both for IQ, and for specific knowledge the candidate would need to have to perform well in his new job.

 

[JoeB131]

Lower test scores, less experience, less quality experience. The ideal candidate is someone who performed well in his present position, but faces limited opportunities, through no fault of his own. In addition, bosses want to hire people they will enjoy working with who will work well with with their other subordinates.

Okay, I've never taken a test for a job, except that one strange lady who decided to give me a Rorschach test. Given I had no interest in the company, I used descriptions like, "Someone getting their head blown off by a shotgun."

Less experience- very fungible at best. So you have a person with 20 years of experience who demands 100K or a person with 10 years of experience who is willing to work for $50K. Which one are you going to hire? I might hire a person with 10 years of experience. Some people might want to hire the kid right out of College because the older, more experienced worker is set in his or her ways.

It's been my experience, pun intended, that being older doesn't really help you that much. That's why I tell my resume clients only to go back 15 years; anything more than that dates you. As an aside, since 2008, I've dyed my hair whenever I've gone on job interviews. It's been a huge help. (I look about 20 years older if I don't dye my hair.)

Here's the ugly truth about the hiring process. It's a crap shoot. A person would never marry anyone after two dates, but we take on jobs which are almost as intense of relationships after 2 interviews. It's crazy.

And this is why you are always going to see employers do the Diversity thing. Because the last thing they want is the black applicant finding out you hired the idiot nephew and suing.

 

[Hector12]

And this is why you are always going to see employers do the Diversity thing. Because the last thing they want is the black applicant finding out you hired the idiot nephew and suing.

It is not possible to have a diverse workforce without lowering objective criteria of excellence for Negroes. I suspect few employers and managers want to do that.

The only diversity that really matters is diversity of opinion. Partisans of racial diversity try to suppress opinions harmful to their agenda.

 

[Hector12]

Okay, I've never taken a test for a job, except that one strange lady who decided to give me a Rorschach test. Given I had no interest in the company, I used descriptions like, "Someone getting their head blown off by a shotgun."

Whenever I had to pass a test to get a job I got the job. OK, it only happened with three jobs. Nevertheless, I liked knowing that there was writing on paper that proved I could do the work.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that IQ tests could not be used, because they had what was termed "a disparate effect" against Negroes. Employers should have the right to make that decision themselves. I hope the present conservative Supreme Court overturns that unjust ruling about "disparate effect."

Few employers will have an irrational selection process. There are employers who dislike Jews. Most hire Jews anyway because they know that Jews tend to be more intelligent than Gentiles.

 

[JoeB131]

It is not possible to have a diverse workforce without lowering objective criteria of excellence for Negroes. I suspect few employers and managers want to do that.

The only diversity that really matters is diversity of opinion. Partisans of racial diversity try to suppress opinions harmful to their agenda.

Sure, it's possible. I've worked with far more unqualified white folks who were idiot nephews and boss's fuckbuddies than I have affirmative action hires. Most of the black folks I've worked for have been more than qualified at their jobs. It's been my experience that when employees don't work out, it's usually bad management, not bad employees. Good managers keep teams together. Bad managers have a high turnover rate because people actually WELCOME getting fired.

Whenever I had to pass a test to get a job I got the job. OK, it only happened with three jobs. Nevertheless, I liked knowing that there was writing on paper that proved I could do the work.

I guess if you need a test to feel "validated", that's just a reflection of your own insecurities. I would actually feel insulted if an employer made me take a test, because I've been doing what I've been doing since I was in the Army back in the 1980s. (Involved in some form of procurement/inventory/supply chain).

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that IQ tests could not be used, because they had what was termed "a disparate effect" against Negroes. Employers should have the right to make that decision themselves. I hope the present conservative Supreme Court overturns that unjust ruling about "disparate effect."

This sounded like bullshit, and of course, it was. The case (Griggs vs. Duke Power) actually went back to 1971, when the effects of segregated schools were still very much in effect, especially in the South. The court found - rightfully - that the IQ tests had very little to do with job performance and were just being used as an excuse to discriminate against black people.. A subsequent decision, Wards Cove vs. Atonio, found a company COULD administer RELEVANT aptitude tests. That was further clarified by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

So, um, no, SCOTUS is not going to overturn AA in the workplace because it would involve a whole web of relevant laws and precedents.

Few employers will have an irrational selection process. There are employers who dislike Jews. Most hire Jews anyway because they know that Jews tend to be more intelligent than Gentiles.

This is where I start to suspect you have very little real-world experience.

First and foremost, how do you know if you are hiring a Jew or not? Do you have them drop trou and see if they are circumcized, because even that doesn't work in the US? This is why I take whining from Lisa and others with a grain of salt because the Jews can mix in with the other white people. (I also never worked with a Jew who terribly impressed me. Some were adequate at their jobs; some were truly awful, like the weaselly manager who ran his branch into the ground.) I guess names COULD be a giveaway if your name is something like Moshe Goldstein.

I did have a Jewish client who wondered if she should put her volunteer activity with a Jewish Women's organization on her resume because that might be a source of discrimination. I told her that first, she probably wouldn't want to work for someone like that, and second, her last name was a dead giveaway.

On the other hand, a survey of resumes in 2005 showed something interesting. They created two sets of resumes. They had the exact same levels of experience and education. Half of them had white names like "Greg" and "Emily"; the other half had black names like "Jamal" and "Lakeisha". Not surprisingly, Jamal and LaKeisha got half the callbacks that Greg and Emily got. This is with IDENTICAL qualifications.

Hiring managers pass over 'names associated with Black people' in their rush to review resumes, according to study of all 50 U.S. states

But beyond a rush to hire, the behavioral economists' study found the most important factor was a participant’s view on affirmative action.

fortune.com

 

[Hector12]

This sounded like bullshit, and of course, it was. The case (Griggs vs. Duke Power) actually went back to 1971, when the effects of segregated schools were still very much in effect, especially in the South. The court found - rightfully - that the IQ tests had very little to do with job performance and were just being used as an excuse to discriminate against black people.. A subsequent decision, Wards Cove vs. Atonio, found a company COULD administer RELEVANT aptitude tests. That was further clarified by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Even if IQ tests only measure the quality of one's education and upbringing - which I do not believe - they measure competence. Being hired for a job is an achievement, not an entitlement.

Someone who had trouble doing her homework because her mother's boy friends sexually abused her, and who went to crummy public schools is not likely to make a good employee. Employers have no obligation to compensate her for bad things others did to her in the past.