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.
So you’re ready to wait centuries before making the hiring process fair to non white CIS gender hereto men because that’s how long it’s gonna take to fix all socioeconomic inequalities that need to be fixed in order to guarantee that no matter who you’re born at, you have access to the same opportunities to build your CV in order to apply for a job for a blind process that only tries to determine who is the most qualified candidate. Sounds like a white person wanting to protect their white privilege they don’t realize they have.
I’ll give you an example, white vs white. Quebec families don’t have as much wealth accumulated in general compared to Ontario families because until the 1960s the Catholic Church was omnipresent in people’s lives and forced them to have more kids and to pay to build churches and to keep doing manual labor under English management. To this day it still has an impact on their average level of education and on the kind of life they can afford to live.
Sounds like a white person wanting to protect their white privilege they don’t realize they have.
Yeah, this right here is why so many people don’t take these issues seriously. Because surprise, people don’t tend to listen to people insulting them, if not outright lash out against what they are saying.
So you’re ready to wait centuries before making the hiring process fair to non white CIS gender hereto men because that’s how long it’s gonna take to fix all socioeconomic inequalities that need to be fixed in order to guarantee that no matter who you’re born at, you have access to the same opportunities to build your CV in order to apply for a job for a blind process that only tries to determine who is the most qualified candidate.
I don’t believe it would take more than 40 years to fix most of them, if there was enough political will to fix them. And my whole point is that the bad perceptions around DEI sap away the political will for solving the systemic issues in exchange for short term relief with little long term benefit.
I’ll give you an example, white vs white. Quebec families don’t have as much wealth accumulated in general compared to Ontario families because until the 1960s the Catholic Church was omnipresent in people’s lives and forced them to have more kids and to pay to build churches and to keep doing manual labor under English management. To this day it still has an impact on their average level of education and on the kind of life they can afford to live.
An amazing example of one of the many inequalities, that pretty much every DEI policy I have ever seen completely ignores.
DEI policies wouldn’t ignore it because DEI policies would make it so employers would have to take into consideration that there might be a reason why the Quebecois got their bachelor’s from a provincial university instead of McGill and it doesn’t make them less competent even though their paper isn’t as prestigious.
Than maybe the issue is that people need to communicate properly what they mean by DEI exactly, because I never heard a DEI policy like that, neither online, nor in the news, nor at my job.
PS: Besides, hiring a competent guy from McGill sounds to me like hiring on merit. Hiring based on paper diploma is not hiring on merit.
DEI policies is anything that can be done to compensate for systemic (not systematic) discrimination in the workplace, may it be during the hiring process or after, the goal being to have a workforce representative of society and that is treated equitably and inclusively no matter who they are. It can take many shape or form.
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.
So you’re ready to wait centuries before making the hiring process fair to non white CIS gender hereto men because that’s how long it’s gonna take to fix all socioeconomic inequalities that need to be fixed in order to guarantee that no matter who you’re born at, you have access to the same opportunities to build your CV in order to apply for a job for a blind process that only tries to determine who is the most qualified candidate. Sounds like a white person wanting to protect their white privilege they don’t realize they have.
I’ll give you an example, white vs white. Quebec families don’t have as much wealth accumulated in general compared to Ontario families because until the 1960s the Catholic Church was omnipresent in people’s lives and forced them to have more kids and to pay to build churches and to keep doing manual labor under English management. To this day it still has an impact on their average level of education and on the kind of life they can afford to live.
Yeah, this right here is why so many people don’t take these issues seriously. Because surprise, people don’t tend to listen to people insulting them, if not outright lash out against what they are saying.
I don’t believe it would take more than 40 years to fix most of them, if there was enough political will to fix them. And my whole point is that the bad perceptions around DEI sap away the political will for solving the systemic issues in exchange for short term relief with little long term benefit.
An amazing example of one of the many inequalities, that pretty much every DEI policy I have ever seen completely ignores.
DEI policies wouldn’t ignore it because DEI policies would make it so employers would have to take into consideration that there might be a reason why the Quebecois got their bachelor’s from a provincial university instead of McGill and it doesn’t make them less competent even though their paper isn’t as prestigious.
Than maybe the issue is that people need to communicate properly what they mean by DEI exactly, because I never heard a DEI policy like that, neither online, nor in the news, nor at my job.
PS: Besides, hiring a competent guy from McGill sounds to me like hiring on merit. Hiring based on paper diploma is not hiring on merit.
DEI policies is anything that can be done to compensate for systemic (not systematic) discrimination in the workplace, may it be during the hiring process or after, the goal being to have a workforce representative of society and that is treated equitably and inclusively no matter who they are. It can take many shape or form.