|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
LibHorizons: Can't decide if I think this is going to fizzle into being nothing or will end up being a pivotal/historic moment. Feels a little like Democrats are checkmated.
|
On March 14 2025 02:36 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 01:50 Sent. wrote:On March 14 2025 00:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 13 2025 23:43 Sent. wrote:On March 13 2025 21:28 EnDeR_ wrote:I wanted to bring this one up, because I hadn't seen it before and maybe others in the thread would like to read it in full. There's a research report on the influence of DEI on profitability of companies world wide www.mckinsey.comA quick excerpt: A strong business case for ethnic diversity is also consistent over time, with a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile. This has persisted even with eight new economies added in our analysis of 2022 financial data.
The penalties for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Both forms of diversity in executive teams appear to show an increased likelihood of above-average profitability. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average 9 percent more likely to outperform their peers. (This gap has closed slightly since our previous report.) Meanwhile, those in the bottom quartile for both are 66 percent less likely to outperform financially on average, up from 27 percent in 2020, indicating that lack of diversity may be getting more expensive. I am not an expert in this field so I cannot comment on the soundness of the methodology, but they've analised 1265 companies across 23 different countries so the information sounds reliable. I'd like to pose this question to those commenters in the thread that argue against DEI initiatives. Assuming the information above is correct, how would you like companies go about diversifying their workforce to be able to remain competitive? Do you want to discuss the research report or the question at the bottom of your post? I too am not an expert in this field, which is why I don't want to discuss that report here. I'm also against using something we don't understand to prove something in a discussion between laymen. You're saying the information sounds reliable. Some guy in the internet said McKinsey's reports aren't reliable. I don't know who's right. If you want to discuss DEI initiatives in general your post might get more answers. I am against some DEI initiatives, especially those that are imposed on the private sector by politicians and their friends without business background. There are also some cases of "positive discrimination" I'm not a fan of. This doesn't mean I'm against every single DEI initiative or want to return to the 19th century. I'm okay with companies trying to diversify their workforce even if it doesn't make them more competitive. If it makes them more competitive then that's even better. I'm against creating rules that force or allow companies to treat people like me worse because of their gender or the color of their skin. So, if you're on board with this, how would you go about diversifying your workforce if you were a hypothetical CEO? What's an acceptable route to achieve this result? If we only assume I'm the hypothetical CEO and nothing else changes: I wouldn't do it on my own but I could be convinced by lower ranked employees to pour some resources into preparing a diversification plan I would later consult with the rest of the company. If (for example) the accounting said the plan isn't very costly to implement and the PR department said it would greatly improve my company's image in the eyes of our target audience, I would recommend following the plan. If we assume I'm the hypothetical CEO, I'm 100% sure diversification will be profitable and it's up to me to find a way to achieve that goal: This is a very hard question to answer because of the multiple unknowns but I would look into soft measures that wouldn't entail making it harder to get or keep a job at my company to people who are currently overrepresented. I would make sure our anti-discrimation policies are working correctly. I would look into our hiring practices and try to make our job adverts more visible to minorities. This includes being open to hiring foreigners even if it means fewer jobs for my countrymen and keeping the local minorities underrepresented btw*. If those soft measures wouldn't work I would just give up instead of making risky moves like promoting worse performing employees purely because they fit the diversity criteria. I'm only a CEO of a single company, I'm not responsible for the whole market. It's not my fault if some field is currently dominated by X kind of people. If I was a CEO of a very big company, I might consider sponsoring schools and universities in the areas with more minorities. * - This is why I think some things should be regulated by the state and we shouldn't leave everything to the mythical invisible hand. I'm not a libertarian. Thanks for engaging! I actually agree with you that positive discrimination is not really a sustainable way forward at that level. Ensuring anti-discrimination policies are in place and working effectively are actually the main goal of most EDI initiatives, so you sound like you are actually on board with the program! The hard part is the implementation, i.e. how do you actually ensure anti-discrimination practices are working? It is very easy to justify that a particular profile just 'fit' the job better than a similar profile.
This is hard to answer without experience. I have no idea how you should approach such things in smaller companies. I don't think straight up copying publicly available policies of bigger companies is a good idea. If you're big enough, I think you should start from analyzing your own data, like exit interviews or the number of worker complaints in given department. If it's legally allowed, and I have some doubts here, as your hypothetical CEO I would collect information about my employees gender, ethnicity, age etc. and then compare it to data regarding things like promotions or dismissals to check if there are any noticeable worrying patterns.
How would you ensure visibility for your job adverts? A strategy that works is to contact people directly in the under-represented group and encourage them to apply.
Yes, I would look into ways to contact people directly in the under-represented group. If I couldn't find any adequate communication channels I would ask the technology wizards if there are any keywords or diversity related slogans I can put into the adverts to make them more visible in search results of people with minority background.
A strategy that works is to contact people directly in the under-represented group and encourage them to apply. Would you consider this a form of discrimination? Would you consider this a form of discrimination?
No, I wouldn't consider that a discrimination as long as the job requirements are the same for everyone. I'm against preferring students with worse grades but in principle I'm not against stronger advertising in under-represented groups.
I might even hesitantly accept some discriminatory PR stunts like promising a job to the best applicant with X background, as long as it's just a PR stunt designed to encourage people to apply for a job at my company, i.e. "We are creating 100 new positions and 1 them is reserved for people from that specific underrepresented group. Apply NOW!".
To be clear, while I'm okay with stronger advertising in under-represented groups, I'm against rules that allow offering jobs to only selected groups of people, unless there's some very good reason for that. Catholic schools should be able to limit their job offers to catholic teachers but a furniture manufacturer RACISM Inc. shouldn't be able to hire only white people.
What do you think about "direct to interview" policies? For instance, if you are trying to increase representation from a particular group and you have a new job opening, would you consider automatically shortlisting anyone from that group that fulfills the essential criteria even if that would necessarily mean you have to remove a candidate out from the 'more represented' group from the pool?
Assuming I understood the question correctly, I would consider that the bad kind of discrimination. I wouldn't like it and probably would be fine with the state preventing it from happening. I think there can be some cases where it would acceptable to interview such a person before others but those should be an exception to the rule in my opinion.
|
On March 14 2025 04:31 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 02:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 14 2025 01:50 Sent. wrote:On March 14 2025 00:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 13 2025 23:43 Sent. wrote:On March 13 2025 21:28 EnDeR_ wrote:I wanted to bring this one up, because I hadn't seen it before and maybe others in the thread would like to read it in full. There's a research report on the influence of DEI on profitability of companies world wide www.mckinsey.comA quick excerpt: A strong business case for ethnic diversity is also consistent over time, with a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile. This has persisted even with eight new economies added in our analysis of 2022 financial data.
The penalties for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Both forms of diversity in executive teams appear to show an increased likelihood of above-average profitability. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average 9 percent more likely to outperform their peers. (This gap has closed slightly since our previous report.) Meanwhile, those in the bottom quartile for both are 66 percent less likely to outperform financially on average, up from 27 percent in 2020, indicating that lack of diversity may be getting more expensive. I am not an expert in this field so I cannot comment on the soundness of the methodology, but they've analised 1265 companies across 23 different countries so the information sounds reliable. I'd like to pose this question to those commenters in the thread that argue against DEI initiatives. Assuming the information above is correct, how would you like companies go about diversifying their workforce to be able to remain competitive? Do you want to discuss the research report or the question at the bottom of your post? I too am not an expert in this field, which is why I don't want to discuss that report here. I'm also against using something we don't understand to prove something in a discussion between laymen. You're saying the information sounds reliable. Some guy in the internet said McKinsey's reports aren't reliable. I don't know who's right. If you want to discuss DEI initiatives in general your post might get more answers. I am against some DEI initiatives, especially those that are imposed on the private sector by politicians and their friends without business background. There are also some cases of "positive discrimination" I'm not a fan of. This doesn't mean I'm against every single DEI initiative or want to return to the 19th century. I'm okay with companies trying to diversify their workforce even if it doesn't make them more competitive. If it makes them more competitive then that's even better. I'm against creating rules that force or allow companies to treat people like me worse because of their gender or the color of their skin. So, if you're on board with this, how would you go about diversifying your workforce if you were a hypothetical CEO? What's an acceptable route to achieve this result? If we only assume I'm the hypothetical CEO and nothing else changes: I wouldn't do it on my own but I could be convinced by lower ranked employees to pour some resources into preparing a diversification plan I would later consult with the rest of the company. If (for example) the accounting said the plan isn't very costly to implement and the PR department said it would greatly improve my company's image in the eyes of our target audience, I would recommend following the plan. If we assume I'm the hypothetical CEO, I'm 100% sure diversification will be profitable and it's up to me to find a way to achieve that goal: This is a very hard question to answer because of the multiple unknowns but I would look into soft measures that wouldn't entail making it harder to get or keep a job at my company to people who are currently overrepresented. I would make sure our anti-discrimation policies are working correctly. I would look into our hiring practices and try to make our job adverts more visible to minorities. This includes being open to hiring foreigners even if it means fewer jobs for my countrymen and keeping the local minorities underrepresented btw*. If those soft measures wouldn't work I would just give up instead of making risky moves like promoting worse performing employees purely because they fit the diversity criteria. I'm only a CEO of a single company, I'm not responsible for the whole market. It's not my fault if some field is currently dominated by X kind of people. If I was a CEO of a very big company, I might consider sponsoring schools and universities in the areas with more minorities. * - This is why I think some things should be regulated by the state and we shouldn't leave everything to the mythical invisible hand. I'm not a libertarian. Thanks for engaging! I actually agree with you that positive discrimination is not really a sustainable way forward at that level. Ensuring anti-discrimination policies are in place and working effectively are actually the main goal of most EDI initiatives, so you sound like you are actually on board with the program! The hard part is the implementation, i.e. how do you actually ensure anti-discrimination practices are working? It is very easy to justify that a particular profile just 'fit' the job better than a similar profile. This is hard to answer without experience. I have no idea how you should approach such things in smaller companies. I don't think straight up copying publicly available policies of bigger companies is a good idea. If you're big enough, I think you should start from analyzing your own data, like exit interviews or the number of worker complaints in given department. If it's legally allowed, and I have some doubts here, as your hypothetical CEO I would collect information about my employees gender, ethnicity, age etc. and then compare it to data regarding things like promotions or dismissals to check if there are any noticeable worrying patterns. Show nested quote +How would you ensure visibility for your job adverts? A strategy that works is to contact people directly in the under-represented group and encourage them to apply. Yes, I would look into ways to contact people directly in the under-represented group. If I couldn't find any adequate communication channels I would ask the technology wizards if there are any keywords or diversity related slogans I can put into the adverts to make them more visible in search results of people with minority background. Show nested quote +A strategy that works is to contact people directly in the under-represented group and encourage them to apply. Would you consider this a form of discrimination? Would you consider this a form of discrimination? No, I wouldn't consider that a discrimination as long as the job requirements are the same for everyone. I'm against preferring students with worse grades but in principle I'm not against stronger advertising in under-represented groups. I might even hesitantly accept some discriminatory PR stunts like promising a job to the best applicant with X background, as long as it's just a PR stunt designed to encourage people to apply for a job at my company, i.e. "We are creating 100 new positions and 1 them is reserved for people from that specific underrepresented group. Apply NOW!". To be clear, while I'm okay with stronger advertising in under-represented groups, I'm against rules that allow offering jobs to only selected groups of people, unless there's some very good reason for that. Catholic schools should be able to limit their job offers to catholic teachers but a furniture manufacturer RACISM Inc. shouldn't be able to hire only white people. Show nested quote +What do you think about "direct to interview" policies? For instance, if you are trying to increase representation from a particular group and you have a new job opening, would you consider automatically shortlisting anyone from that group that fulfills the essential criteria even if that would necessarily mean you have to remove a candidate out from the 'more represented' group from the pool? Assuming I understood the question correctly, I would consider that the bad kind of discrimination. I wouldn't like it and probably would be fine with the state preventing it from happening. I think there can be some cases where it would acceptable to interview such a person before others but those should be an exception to the rule in my opinion.
It sounds like you're broadly pro-DEI, but anti affirmative action as is commonly understood. Not much to disagree with to be honest!
At the uni I worked in the UK, disabled people had a right to interview without going through shortlisting process. Not sure if this is UK law or just university policy. I kind of feel like it's not discrimination, in the sense that they're not guaranteed the post, just a fair hearing.
|
On March 14 2025 05:48 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 04:31 Sent. wrote:On March 14 2025 02:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 14 2025 01:50 Sent. wrote:On March 14 2025 00:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 13 2025 23:43 Sent. wrote:On March 13 2025 21:28 EnDeR_ wrote:I wanted to bring this one up, because I hadn't seen it before and maybe others in the thread would like to read it in full. There's a research report on the influence of DEI on profitability of companies world wide www.mckinsey.comA quick excerpt: A strong business case for ethnic diversity is also consistent over time, with a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile. This has persisted even with eight new economies added in our analysis of 2022 financial data.
The penalties for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Both forms of diversity in executive teams appear to show an increased likelihood of above-average profitability. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average 9 percent more likely to outperform their peers. (This gap has closed slightly since our previous report.) Meanwhile, those in the bottom quartile for both are 66 percent less likely to outperform financially on average, up from 27 percent in 2020, indicating that lack of diversity may be getting more expensive. I am not an expert in this field so I cannot comment on the soundness of the methodology, but they've analised 1265 companies across 23 different countries so the information sounds reliable. I'd like to pose this question to those commenters in the thread that argue against DEI initiatives. Assuming the information above is correct, how would you like companies go about diversifying their workforce to be able to remain competitive? Do you want to discuss the research report or the question at the bottom of your post? I too am not an expert in this field, which is why I don't want to discuss that report here. I'm also against using something we don't understand to prove something in a discussion between laymen. You're saying the information sounds reliable. Some guy in the internet said McKinsey's reports aren't reliable. I don't know who's right. If you want to discuss DEI initiatives in general your post might get more answers. I am against some DEI initiatives, especially those that are imposed on the private sector by politicians and their friends without business background. There are also some cases of "positive discrimination" I'm not a fan of. This doesn't mean I'm against every single DEI initiative or want to return to the 19th century. I'm okay with companies trying to diversify their workforce even if it doesn't make them more competitive. If it makes them more competitive then that's even better. I'm against creating rules that force or allow companies to treat people like me worse because of their gender or the color of their skin. So, if you're on board with this, how would you go about diversifying your workforce if you were a hypothetical CEO? What's an acceptable route to achieve this result? If we only assume I'm the hypothetical CEO and nothing else changes: I wouldn't do it on my own but I could be convinced by lower ranked employees to pour some resources into preparing a diversification plan I would later consult with the rest of the company. If (for example) the accounting said the plan isn't very costly to implement and the PR department said it would greatly improve my company's image in the eyes of our target audience, I would recommend following the plan. If we assume I'm the hypothetical CEO, I'm 100% sure diversification will be profitable and it's up to me to find a way to achieve that goal: This is a very hard question to answer because of the multiple unknowns but I would look into soft measures that wouldn't entail making it harder to get or keep a job at my company to people who are currently overrepresented. I would make sure our anti-discrimation policies are working correctly. I would look into our hiring practices and try to make our job adverts more visible to minorities. This includes being open to hiring foreigners even if it means fewer jobs for my countrymen and keeping the local minorities underrepresented btw*. If those soft measures wouldn't work I would just give up instead of making risky moves like promoting worse performing employees purely because they fit the diversity criteria. I'm only a CEO of a single company, I'm not responsible for the whole market. It's not my fault if some field is currently dominated by X kind of people. If I was a CEO of a very big company, I might consider sponsoring schools and universities in the areas with more minorities. * - This is why I think some things should be regulated by the state and we shouldn't leave everything to the mythical invisible hand. I'm not a libertarian. Thanks for engaging! I actually agree with you that positive discrimination is not really a sustainable way forward at that level. Ensuring anti-discrimination policies are in place and working effectively are actually the main goal of most EDI initiatives, so you sound like you are actually on board with the program! The hard part is the implementation, i.e. how do you actually ensure anti-discrimination practices are working? It is very easy to justify that a particular profile just 'fit' the job better than a similar profile. This is hard to answer without experience. I have no idea how you should approach such things in smaller companies. I don't think straight up copying publicly available policies of bigger companies is a good idea. If you're big enough, I think you should start from analyzing your own data, like exit interviews or the number of worker complaints in given department. If it's legally allowed, and I have some doubts here, as your hypothetical CEO I would collect information about my employees gender, ethnicity, age etc. and then compare it to data regarding things like promotions or dismissals to check if there are any noticeable worrying patterns. How would you ensure visibility for your job adverts? A strategy that works is to contact people directly in the under-represented group and encourage them to apply. Yes, I would look into ways to contact people directly in the under-represented group. If I couldn't find any adequate communication channels I would ask the technology wizards if there are any keywords or diversity related slogans I can put into the adverts to make them more visible in search results of people with minority background. A strategy that works is to contact people directly in the under-represented group and encourage them to apply. Would you consider this a form of discrimination? Would you consider this a form of discrimination? No, I wouldn't consider that a discrimination as long as the job requirements are the same for everyone. I'm against preferring students with worse grades but in principle I'm not against stronger advertising in under-represented groups. I might even hesitantly accept some discriminatory PR stunts like promising a job to the best applicant with X background, as long as it's just a PR stunt designed to encourage people to apply for a job at my company, i.e. "We are creating 100 new positions and 1 them is reserved for people from that specific underrepresented group. Apply NOW!". To be clear, while I'm okay with stronger advertising in under-represented groups, I'm against rules that allow offering jobs to only selected groups of people, unless there's some very good reason for that. Catholic schools should be able to limit their job offers to catholic teachers but a furniture manufacturer RACISM Inc. shouldn't be able to hire only white people. What do you think about "direct to interview" policies? For instance, if you are trying to increase representation from a particular group and you have a new job opening, would you consider automatically shortlisting anyone from that group that fulfills the essential criteria even if that would necessarily mean you have to remove a candidate out from the 'more represented' group from the pool? Assuming I understood the question correctly, I would consider that the bad kind of discrimination. I wouldn't like it and probably would be fine with the state preventing it from happening. I think there can be some cases where it would acceptable to interview such a person before others but those should be an exception to the rule in my opinion. It sounds like you're broadly pro-DEI, but anti affirmative action as is commonly understood. Not much to disagree with to be honest! At the uni I worked in the UK, disabled people had a right to interview without going through shortlisting process. Not sure if this is UK law or just university policy. I kind of feel like it's not discrimination, in the sense that they're not guaranteed the post, just a fair hearing.
I think its probably encouraged by UK governments to get people off the disabled benefits bill.
|
Northern Ireland25261 Posts
On March 14 2025 06:37 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 05:48 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 14 2025 04:31 Sent. wrote:On March 14 2025 02:36 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 14 2025 01:50 Sent. wrote:On March 14 2025 00:50 EnDeR_ wrote:On March 13 2025 23:43 Sent. wrote:On March 13 2025 21:28 EnDeR_ wrote:I wanted to bring this one up, because I hadn't seen it before and maybe others in the thread would like to read it in full. There's a research report on the influence of DEI on profitability of companies world wide www.mckinsey.comA quick excerpt: A strong business case for ethnic diversity is also consistent over time, with a 39 percent increased likelihood of outperformance for those in the top quartile of ethnic representation versus the bottom quartile. This has persisted even with eight new economies added in our analysis of 2022 financial data.
The penalties for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Both forms of diversity in executive teams appear to show an increased likelihood of above-average profitability. Companies in the top quartile for both gender and ethnic diversity in executive teams are on average 9 percent more likely to outperform their peers. (This gap has closed slightly since our previous report.) Meanwhile, those in the bottom quartile for both are 66 percent less likely to outperform financially on average, up from 27 percent in 2020, indicating that lack of diversity may be getting more expensive. I am not an expert in this field so I cannot comment on the soundness of the methodology, but they've analised 1265 companies across 23 different countries so the information sounds reliable. I'd like to pose this question to those commenters in the thread that argue against DEI initiatives. Assuming the information above is correct, how would you like companies go about diversifying their workforce to be able to remain competitive? Do you want to discuss the research report or the question at the bottom of your post? I too am not an expert in this field, which is why I don't want to discuss that report here. I'm also against using something we don't understand to prove something in a discussion between laymen. You're saying the information sounds reliable. Some guy in the internet said McKinsey's reports aren't reliable. I don't know who's right. If you want to discuss DEI initiatives in general your post might get more answers. I am against some DEI initiatives, especially those that are imposed on the private sector by politicians and their friends without business background. There are also some cases of "positive discrimination" I'm not a fan of. This doesn't mean I'm against every single DEI initiative or want to return to the 19th century. I'm okay with companies trying to diversify their workforce even if it doesn't make them more competitive. If it makes them more competitive then that's even better. I'm against creating rules that force or allow companies to treat people like me worse because of their gender or the color of their skin. So, if you're on board with this, how would you go about diversifying your workforce if you were a hypothetical CEO? What's an acceptable route to achieve this result? If we only assume I'm the hypothetical CEO and nothing else changes: I wouldn't do it on my own but I could be convinced by lower ranked employees to pour some resources into preparing a diversification plan I would later consult with the rest of the company. If (for example) the accounting said the plan isn't very costly to implement and the PR department said it would greatly improve my company's image in the eyes of our target audience, I would recommend following the plan. If we assume I'm the hypothetical CEO, I'm 100% sure diversification will be profitable and it's up to me to find a way to achieve that goal: This is a very hard question to answer because of the multiple unknowns but I would look into soft measures that wouldn't entail making it harder to get or keep a job at my company to people who are currently overrepresented. I would make sure our anti-discrimation policies are working correctly. I would look into our hiring practices and try to make our job adverts more visible to minorities. This includes being open to hiring foreigners even if it means fewer jobs for my countrymen and keeping the local minorities underrepresented btw*. If those soft measures wouldn't work I would just give up instead of making risky moves like promoting worse performing employees purely because they fit the diversity criteria. I'm only a CEO of a single company, I'm not responsible for the whole market. It's not my fault if some field is currently dominated by X kind of people. If I was a CEO of a very big company, I might consider sponsoring schools and universities in the areas with more minorities. * - This is why I think some things should be regulated by the state and we shouldn't leave everything to the mythical invisible hand. I'm not a libertarian. Thanks for engaging! I actually agree with you that positive discrimination is not really a sustainable way forward at that level. Ensuring anti-discrimination policies are in place and working effectively are actually the main goal of most EDI initiatives, so you sound like you are actually on board with the program! The hard part is the implementation, i.e. how do you actually ensure anti-discrimination practices are working? It is very easy to justify that a particular profile just 'fit' the job better than a similar profile. This is hard to answer without experience. I have no idea how you should approach such things in smaller companies. I don't think straight up copying publicly available policies of bigger companies is a good idea. If you're big enough, I think you should start from analyzing your own data, like exit interviews or the number of worker complaints in given department. If it's legally allowed, and I have some doubts here, as your hypothetical CEO I would collect information about my employees gender, ethnicity, age etc. and then compare it to data regarding things like promotions or dismissals to check if there are any noticeable worrying patterns. How would you ensure visibility for your job adverts? A strategy that works is to contact people directly in the under-represented group and encourage them to apply. Yes, I would look into ways to contact people directly in the under-represented group. If I couldn't find any adequate communication channels I would ask the technology wizards if there are any keywords or diversity related slogans I can put into the adverts to make them more visible in search results of people with minority background. A strategy that works is to contact people directly in the under-represented group and encourage them to apply. Would you consider this a form of discrimination? Would you consider this a form of discrimination? No, I wouldn't consider that a discrimination as long as the job requirements are the same for everyone. I'm against preferring students with worse grades but in principle I'm not against stronger advertising in under-represented groups. I might even hesitantly accept some discriminatory PR stunts like promising a job to the best applicant with X background, as long as it's just a PR stunt designed to encourage people to apply for a job at my company, i.e. "We are creating 100 new positions and 1 them is reserved for people from that specific underrepresented group. Apply NOW!". To be clear, while I'm okay with stronger advertising in under-represented groups, I'm against rules that allow offering jobs to only selected groups of people, unless there's some very good reason for that. Catholic schools should be able to limit their job offers to catholic teachers but a furniture manufacturer RACISM Inc. shouldn't be able to hire only white people. What do you think about "direct to interview" policies? For instance, if you are trying to increase representation from a particular group and you have a new job opening, would you consider automatically shortlisting anyone from that group that fulfills the essential criteria even if that would necessarily mean you have to remove a candidate out from the 'more represented' group from the pool? Assuming I understood the question correctly, I would consider that the bad kind of discrimination. I wouldn't like it and probably would be fine with the state preventing it from happening. I think there can be some cases where it would acceptable to interview such a person before others but those should be an exception to the rule in my opinion. It sounds like you're broadly pro-DEI, but anti affirmative action as is commonly understood. Not much to disagree with to be honest! At the uni I worked in the UK, disabled people had a right to interview without going through shortlisting process. Not sure if this is UK law or just university policy. I kind of feel like it's not discrimination, in the sense that they're not guaranteed the post, just a fair hearing. I think its probably encouraged by UK governments to get people off the disabled benefits bill.
I’ve definitely seen it in relatively high-paying jobs too. Oddly enough the one time I actually invoked the ‘right to interview’ I didn’t get one. Maybe shoulda followed that one up!
Interviews themselves have limitations as well, I’ve heard of companies in particular fields doing alternative assessments that are more purely technical. Helps to recruit neurodivergent folks who may be incredible at the gig, but not present well in an interview kind of setting.
Also, cheers to the thread denizens, interesting discussion on this
|
United States24678 Posts
On March 14 2025 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: Can't decide if I think this is going to fizzle into being nothing or will end up being a pivotal/historic moment. Feels a little like Democrats are checkmated.
Latest news is Democrats capitulating. Disappointing since most feds were totally onboard with not getting paid.
|
On March 14 2025 08:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: Can't decide if I think this is going to fizzle into being nothing or will end up being a pivotal/historic moment. Feels a little like Democrats are checkmated. Latest news is Democrats capitulating. Disappointing since most feds were totally onboard with not getting paid.
ThirdHorizons: Someone has to be the adults. It's a simple lesser evil calculation and "capitulating" to Trump is the lesser evil afaict. Should probably be thankful for their maturity and determination to ignore the progressive screechers, instead of disappointed.
|
On March 14 2025 08:21 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: Can't decide if I think this is going to fizzle into being nothing or will end up being a pivotal/historic moment. Feels a little like Democrats are checkmated. Latest news is Democrats capitulating. Disappointing since most feds were totally onboard with not getting paid.
Chuck Schumer in particular is capitulating.
Need to remember who these guys are, and they are always senior members of the party that should have been primaried out ages ago.
|
On March 14 2025 14:30 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 08:21 micronesia wrote:On March 14 2025 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: Can't decide if I think this is going to fizzle into being nothing or will end up being a pivotal/historic moment. Feels a little like Democrats are checkmated. Latest news is Democrats capitulating. Disappointing since most feds were totally onboard with not getting paid. Chuck Schumer in particular is capitulating. Need to remember who these guys are, and they are always senior members of the party that should have been primaried out ages ago.
LibHorizons: Even the centrists are ready to primary him I guess
Privately, House Democrats are so infuriated with Schumer’s decision that some have begun encouraging her to run against Schumer in a primary, according to a Democratic member who directly spoke with Ocasio-Cortez about running at the caucus’ policy retreat. Multiple Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others directly encouraged Ocasio-Cortez to run on Thursday night after Schumer’s announcement, this member said.
The member said that Democrats in Leesburg were “so mad” that even centrist Democrats were “ready to write checks for AOC for Senate,” adding that they have “never seen people so mad.” www.cnn.com
AOC should do it and it should be part of The Progressive Plan imo
|
On March 14 2025 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 14:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On March 14 2025 08:21 micronesia wrote:On March 14 2025 03:56 GreenHorizons wrote:LibHorizons: Can't decide if I think this is going to fizzle into being nothing or will end up being a pivotal/historic moment. Feels a little like Democrats are checkmated. Latest news is Democrats capitulating. Disappointing since most feds were totally onboard with not getting paid. Chuck Schumer in particular is capitulating. Need to remember who these guys are, and they are always senior members of the party that should have been primaried out ages ago. LibHorizons: Even the centrists are ready to primary him I guess Show nested quote +Privately, House Democrats are so infuriated with Schumer’s decision that some have begun encouraging her to run against Schumer in a primary, according to a Democratic member who directly spoke with Ocasio-Cortez about running at the caucus’ policy retreat. Multiple Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others directly encouraged Ocasio-Cortez to run on Thursday night after Schumer’s announcement, this member said.
The member said that Democrats in Leesburg were “so mad” that even centrist Democrats were “ready to write checks for AOC for Senate,” adding that they have “never seen people so mad.” www.cnn.comAOC should do it and it should be part of The Progressive Plan imo
Yea too little too late.
Democrats needed to clean house after 2016. If they had we might not be in this position in the first place. I guess the house actually HAS to burn down for them to get out of their corrupt comfort zones and do what needs to be done.
|
Democrats have had myriad opportunities to change and move in a new direction and they spat in the faces of the people who wanted to go in that direction and kept their right wing blow job strategy instead, they’re not gonna change now, they’re not gonna change until every Democrat who was and is in leadership through the Clinton years through now is dead and gone.
They’re too lazy/stupid/bought to change.
|
Their strategy is not being a roadblock in Trumps self destruction.
What they don't account for, is that Trump never ever in his life, owned his mistakes. He is the absolute King in pointing fingers and playing victim.
Block the budget and make Trump say out loud what's next to be cut.
|
They just don't want to be the party that caused the first proper government shutdown and set the precedent. They're still playing by the old rules where they still expect the other side of the aisle to stick to conventions.
I think KwarK's post a couple of pages back hits it straight on the nail when he said that the democratic party just hasn't caught up with what's happening.
Full quote here:
On March 07 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's part of the broader Trump societal sickness. The cultural taboos have been so utterly destroyed that the social contract has been discredited.
It doesn't make sense to engage in non violent protest or performative resistance anymore but the Democrats haven't caught up yet. The Democrats represent the older consensus where you might disagree with your neighbour on politics but you could still respect each other, you could still be friends. You'd get a turn in power and they'd get a turn in power but you'd be arguing about tax rates or whatever.
Trump destroyed it. It's why we see such support for finding people like Luigi not guilty. Everyone, even those on the right, know that Trump committed his crimes. He's on tape confessing. But he appointed highly partisan judges and those highly partisan judges killed the cases. When that happens the result isn't just that he gets away with criminality, the entire idea of equality under the law is broken. The entire idea that the justice system is nonpartisan and that laws are something that we all agree upon is broken. Society relies upon people being willing to say that "I don't personally agree with X but it's the agreed upon result of a system I believe in and therefore I will accept it". So why not find Luigi not guilty, laws don't matter, justice isn't real. Why not vandalize shit belonging to Trump supporters. Why not try to remove Trump from office, it's certainly worth a shot.
Democrats are a legacy of the before times. They believe it's possible to go back. It's not. They're going to say shit like "obviously it's wrong to shoot Nazis, we've all got to get along" or "let's wait for a proper internal police inquiry into why they shot another unarmed man in the back".
|
I want to disagree with the idea that some sort of "old sports thinking" is holding back today's democrats.
To me as a broader party, they sit back and do nothing, even secretly applauding the shut down of a VA hospital in the middle of nowhere red-state that would be on their budget.. but not helping them at all to power.
|
On March 14 2025 17:57 EnDeR_ wrote:They just don't want to be the party that caused the first proper government shutdown and set the precedent. They're still playing by the old rules where they still expect the other side of the aisle to stick to conventions. I think KwarK's post a couple of pages back hits it straight on the nail when he said that the democratic party just hasn't caught up with what's happening. Full quote here: Show nested quote +On March 07 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's part of the broader Trump societal sickness. The cultural taboos have been so utterly destroyed that the social contract has been discredited.
It doesn't make sense to engage in non violent protest or performative resistance anymore but the Democrats haven't caught up yet. The Democrats represent the older consensus where you might disagree with your neighbour on politics but you could still respect each other, you could still be friends. You'd get a turn in power and they'd get a turn in power but you'd be arguing about tax rates or whatever.
Trump destroyed it. It's why we see such support for finding people like Luigi not guilty. Everyone, even those on the right, know that Trump committed his crimes. He's on tape confessing. But he appointed highly partisan judges and those highly partisan judges killed the cases. When that happens the result isn't just that he gets away with criminality, the entire idea of equality under the law is broken. The entire idea that the justice system is nonpartisan and that laws are something that we all agree upon is broken. Society relies upon people being willing to say that "I don't personally agree with X but it's the agreed upon result of a system I believe in and therefore I will accept it". So why not find Luigi not guilty, laws don't matter, justice isn't real. Why not vandalize shit belonging to Trump supporters. Why not try to remove Trump from office, it's certainly worth a shot.
Democrats are a legacy of the before times. They believe it's possible to go back. It's not. They're going to say shit like "obviously it's wrong to shoot Nazis, we've all got to get along" or "let's wait for a proper internal police inquiry into why they shot another unarmed man in the back".
The Republicans control every branch. If they can't get the votes together for it, that's a them issue.
|
On March 14 2025 17:57 EnDeR_ wrote:They just don't want to be the party that caused the first proper government shutdown and set the precedent. They're still playing by the old rules where they still expect the other side of the aisle to stick to conventions. I think KwarK's post a couple of pages back hits it straight on the nail when he said that the democratic party just hasn't caught up with what's happening. Full quote here: Show nested quote +On March 07 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's part of the broader Trump societal sickness. The cultural taboos have been so utterly destroyed that the social contract has been discredited.
It doesn't make sense to engage in non violent protest or performative resistance anymore but the Democrats haven't caught up yet. The Democrats represent the older consensus where you might disagree with your neighbour on politics but you could still respect each other, you could still be friends. You'd get a turn in power and they'd get a turn in power but you'd be arguing about tax rates or whatever.
Trump destroyed it. It's why we see such support for finding people like Luigi not guilty. Everyone, even those on the right, know that Trump committed his crimes. He's on tape confessing. But he appointed highly partisan judges and those highly partisan judges killed the cases. When that happens the result isn't just that he gets away with criminality, the entire idea of equality under the law is broken. The entire idea that the justice system is nonpartisan and that laws are something that we all agree upon is broken. Society relies upon people being willing to say that "I don't personally agree with X but it's the agreed upon result of a system I believe in and therefore I will accept it". So why not find Luigi not guilty, laws don't matter, justice isn't real. Why not vandalize shit belonging to Trump supporters. Why not try to remove Trump from office, it's certainly worth a shot.
Democrats are a legacy of the before times. They believe it's possible to go back. It's not. They're going to say shit like "obviously it's wrong to shoot Nazis, we've all got to get along" or "let's wait for a proper internal police inquiry into why they shot another unarmed man in the back".
That post was overwrought at best. What's happening here is very simple. Dems have painted themselves into a corner on government shutdowns generally, always giving horror stories about what would happen. They were betting that the GOP House wouldn't be able to get a bill through so they could talk tough. But they miscalculated and now have to sheepishly take the loss. One house jamming the other is not unusual.
However I am amused reading all the people disappointed. I remember some years ago when I was either warned or maybe even temp banned for saying shutdowns happen regularly and that most federal workers should probably have a plan. This was considered a very mean thing to say! For those same people to now lament the lack of Democratic spin is good for a laugh at least.
This is part of the danger of overhyping things though. When everyone is going around with their hair on fire about Trump again you can twist yourself into knots. Dems being against a "clean" CR is a sign of this. Normally roles are reversed.
|
On March 14 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 17:57 EnDeR_ wrote:They just don't want to be the party that caused the first proper government shutdown and set the precedent. They're still playing by the old rules where they still expect the other side of the aisle to stick to conventions. I think KwarK's post a couple of pages back hits it straight on the nail when he said that the democratic party just hasn't caught up with what's happening. Full quote here: On March 07 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's part of the broader Trump societal sickness. The cultural taboos have been so utterly destroyed that the social contract has been discredited.
It doesn't make sense to engage in non violent protest or performative resistance anymore but the Democrats haven't caught up yet. The Democrats represent the older consensus where you might disagree with your neighbour on politics but you could still respect each other, you could still be friends. You'd get a turn in power and they'd get a turn in power but you'd be arguing about tax rates or whatever.
Trump destroyed it. It's why we see such support for finding people like Luigi not guilty. Everyone, even those on the right, know that Trump committed his crimes. He's on tape confessing. But he appointed highly partisan judges and those highly partisan judges killed the cases. When that happens the result isn't just that he gets away with criminality, the entire idea of equality under the law is broken. The entire idea that the justice system is nonpartisan and that laws are something that we all agree upon is broken. Society relies upon people being willing to say that "I don't personally agree with X but it's the agreed upon result of a system I believe in and therefore I will accept it". So why not find Luigi not guilty, laws don't matter, justice isn't real. Why not vandalize shit belonging to Trump supporters. Why not try to remove Trump from office, it's certainly worth a shot.
Democrats are a legacy of the before times. They believe it's possible to go back. It's not. They're going to say shit like "obviously it's wrong to shoot Nazis, we've all got to get along" or "let's wait for a proper internal police inquiry into why they shot another unarmed man in the back". That post was overwrought at best. What's happening here is very simple. Dems have painted themselves into a corner on government shutdowns generally, always giving horror stories about what would happen. They were betting that the GOP House wouldn't be able to get a bill through so they could talk tough. But they miscalculated and now have to sheepishly take the loss. One house jamming the other is not unusual. However I am amused reading all the people disappointed. I remember some years ago when I was either warned or maybe even temp banned for saying shutdowns happen regularly and that most federal workers should probably have a plan. This was considered a very mean thing to say! For those same people to now lament the lack of Democratic spin is good for a laugh at least. This is part of the danger of overhyping things though. When everyone is going around with their hair on fire about Trump again you can twist yourself into knots. Dems being against a "clean" CR is a sign of this. Normally roles are reversed.
Is your assessment then that we are not living through a bit of a horror story? Maybe I'm looking at all of this with European eyes; things look pretty grim now that the US is no longer considered a good ally around the world. Does the fact that now Europe is going to spend so much money arming themselves give you any pause? It is only a matter of months that new nuclear weapons programmes will come online, in my opinion.
In your view, is the Trump presidency delivering on the things you wanted (and what were those things?)?
|
Obviously a global arms race has never turned out in any way horribly in the past. How can it? Can't they see the vast amount of greatness and power each country/region is projecting!? Obviously that's enough of a deterrent to do something foolish like.. oh I don't know, kill someone high profile or something.
|
Northern Ireland25261 Posts
On March 14 2025 22:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2025 17:57 EnDeR_ wrote:They just don't want to be the party that caused the first proper government shutdown and set the precedent. They're still playing by the old rules where they still expect the other side of the aisle to stick to conventions. I think KwarK's post a couple of pages back hits it straight on the nail when he said that the democratic party just hasn't caught up with what's happening. Full quote here: On March 07 2025 05:14 KwarK wrote:
It's part of the broader Trump societal sickness. The cultural taboos have been so utterly destroyed that the social contract has been discredited.
It doesn't make sense to engage in non violent protest or performative resistance anymore but the Democrats haven't caught up yet. The Democrats represent the older consensus where you might disagree with your neighbour on politics but you could still respect each other, you could still be friends. You'd get a turn in power and they'd get a turn in power but you'd be arguing about tax rates or whatever.
Trump destroyed it. It's why we see such support for finding people like Luigi not guilty. Everyone, even those on the right, know that Trump committed his crimes. He's on tape confessing. But he appointed highly partisan judges and those highly partisan judges killed the cases. When that happens the result isn't just that he gets away with criminality, the entire idea of equality under the law is broken. The entire idea that the justice system is nonpartisan and that laws are something that we all agree upon is broken. Society relies upon people being willing to say that "I don't personally agree with X but it's the agreed upon result of a system I believe in and therefore I will accept it". So why not find Luigi not guilty, laws don't matter, justice isn't real. Why not vandalize shit belonging to Trump supporters. Why not try to remove Trump from office, it's certainly worth a shot.
Democrats are a legacy of the before times. They believe it's possible to go back. It's not. They're going to say shit like "obviously it's wrong to shoot Nazis, we've all got to get along" or "let's wait for a proper internal police inquiry into why they shot another unarmed man in the back". That post was overwrought at best. What's happening here is very simple. Dems have painted themselves into a corner on government shutdowns generally, always giving horror stories about what would happen. They were betting that the GOP House wouldn't be able to get a bill through so they could talk tough. But they miscalculated and now have to sheepishly take the loss. One house jamming the other is not unusual. However I am amused reading all the people disappointed. I remember some years ago when I was either warned or maybe even temp banned for saying shutdowns happen regularly and that most federal workers should probably have a plan. This was considered a very mean thing to say! For those same people to now lament the lack of Democratic spin is good for a laugh at least. This is part of the danger of overhyping things though. When everyone is going around with their hair on fire about Trump again you can twist yourself into knots. Dems being against a "clean" CR is a sign of this. Normally roles are reversed.
From this side of the Atlantic and this particular brain, institutions I think are actually a good idea on paper, are increasingly dysfunctional in actuality.
Do you march across the Rubicon yourself, or not? I think is the kind of dilemma folks are grappling with. Both now and historically.
Is there some hype and hyperbole? I mean sure. Equally that bar just frequently gets raised, and a smaller and smaller subset of the hyperbolic has to be highlighted to make the claim things are overblown. Rather a lot of things people were warning about have come to pass, so the bar gets raised and we do this dance again.
Ultimately it’ll end up at ‘look there aren’t brown shirts running around the streets, typical Trump Derangement Syndrome’.
|
Well, negotiations about the budget are normal.
What's rather dissapointing is that Democrats don't seem to be fighting for ..something.. anymore.. they will just nod and agree to the cuts in spending - as they are very happy to not own this cuts themselves.
In germany the green party got 100 billion Eurosfor climate stuff from the conservatives for a "yes" in a budget dispute (constitution must be changed for higher deficit, new gov needs 2/3s majority)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
