OT: Hrricanes Lounge XLVII: The return to obeying Rhules

[Borsig]

Janet is also a major hypocrite:







So I guess either this was all performative, or she jumped to fascism the minute she was given her position by Trump.

Or you have to tow the line to keep your career. There's that.

Am I the only person here who is a fed?

 

[MinJaBen]

I work for the feds. I see this from the inside. If you don't - stay in your lane.

the whole of the country is sick of it. Unless of course youre a beneficiary.

So, if I don't have direct knowledge, I need to shut up right? Unless of course it is you telling us something you actually can't really know anything about, like how everyone else thinks about an issue?

Hypocrisy much?

 

[SlavinAway]

Janet is also a major hypocrite:







So I guess either this was all performative, or she jumped to fascism the minute she was given her position by Trump.

Does that mean someone should report her to [email protected]?

 

[Blueline Bomber]

Does that mean someone should report her to [email protected]?

I'm pretty sure there's a South African man that's wormed his way into a very visible position well above his qualifications...

I'm 100% sure they've set it up to ignore any emails that don't come from a .gov source. At least, that's the logical thing to do, to prevent getting inundated with false reports when the email inevitably gets leaked to the general public.

 

[AD Skinner]

Life begins at the twinkle in your daddy’s eye

 

[Borsig]

lol man this is better than I expected.

 

[LakeLivin]

I can't speak to other industries, but I've done DEI work in tech, and it's 100% about the pipeline. And the pipeline for computer engineers in this country is filled with white dudes. They're not better; there's just more of them. A lot more. Like, 80% as of five years ago when I was still doing the work. (And most of the rest was Asian dudes.)

Is it a company's responsibility to fix the ills of society? Most CEOs will say no, that a company's responsibility is to create value for shareholders. For a while, political and social headwinds created pressure that CEOs couldn't avoid, so they made accommodations. Now those headwinds have changed.

You can mandate DEI hiring, but you can't fix the pipeline just by creating demand. It's an incredibly complicated topic. Some companies do DEI well, by investing in programs that identify and strengthen a diverse base of talent. Most companies don't have the bandwidth for that, or just don't give a shit.

One of my personal definitions of bureaucracy is when rules are created to actualize a desired result and the rules are then enforced even if and when they don't contribute to the desired end. In a previous life I was fortunate enough to get some management and leadership training and one of the most valuable things I took away was recognizing and managing the difference between "ends" and "means". While that might appear to be an obvious concept, in my experience it too often isn't recognized, and it seems that DEI (at least in some places) is a good example.

I think you hit the nail on the head. The focus in many areas should be not on quotas but rather on the benefits of increasing the capacity of the pipeline and how to achieve that. But as you say, that's complicated, and given the state of hyper-partisanship in our country I question our ability to do that rather than ping-ponging between extremes that won't get us to an optimal end.

 

[Joe McGrath]

I work for the feds. I see this from the inside. If you don't - stay in your lane. You have no idea how much the entire HR chain has been taken over by this shit. We passed on a nuke A ganger (submariner) for a position and hired someone who was a AA female airforce vet, who was a truck driver. Why? The hiring manager was an AA airforce vet. That hire failed miserably and firing her was a literal act of congress. So no. Has the hammer swung to far? Maybe. Maybe not. But if it stops that kind of shit? Yeah.

Not sorry 70-75% of the people who come into the pipe in my field are white dudes who came off subs or carriers. I came off a 50 cal and a rifle but I also came with 10 years of experience in the field before here as well.

It IS to the point when new people come in we wonder, based on past experiences.


Well maybe you should still be searching for a job if you haven't learned your lesson then? I mean self immolation is a thing, I get it, but even if after experiencing it, you disagree, well....

You cant just phase this shit out. It needs to go, now - the whole of the country is sick of it. Unless of course youre a beneficiary.

The example you pointed out isn’t what DEI actually is. Its actually an example of that hiring managers unconscious bias to pick someone like him/her which is the opposite of what DEI teaches. Did people who didn’t know what DEI is or what its purpose was install it in the federal government? Probably. Was it being completely misused in some situations? Definitely. Is that a reason to demonize and rid the country of a concept that at its core is hire the most qualified applicant for the job by reducing your unconscious biases?

 

[WreckingCrew]

The intentions probably did start of pure and then you get to the point where it does go so far it's counter productive. and it comes down a lot to probabilities, and fly's in the face best person for the job. Like if your an engineering firm but are required to have 50% of your engineers as female, you are likely over looking many much more competent engineers because the pool of talent is significantly smaller, you could luck out and get the cream of the crop, but the odds are not in your favor. Personally I think diverse work places are great, I just think they need to develop organically, might not happen straight away.

That said we seem to be going backwards as a society. Sex, Race, Sexual Identity seem to be three things everyone is always making a big deal, they are the three least important parts about it. There are times where some of those factors have their time and place, but by and large I could care less if someone is a Black Asian Hermaphrodite Polymerous furry. I care much more if they a nice person, an asshole, or just completely insufferable.

This is very much my company, they want their aerospace/mechanical engineering to be 50% female over the years despite the fact that still <10% of graduates in those Engineering fields. We're getting some great women hired which is awesome for them, but there's also no back-filling some vacated positions because they're determined to meet the quotas they've set. My boss was nearly forced a couple years back to hire an unqualified candidate over a well-qualified internal candidate for DEI purposes.

EOP was started for noble cause, but DEI has largely bastardized it. Granted it's being swung entirely too far the other way to get rid of "suspected DEI hires". That said, even with EOP in place, at the end of the day someone can come up with any reason they don't want to hire you, protected class or not. And in a right-to-work state they can fire you for any reason...it'd be very hard to PROVE there was discrimination behind it without someone coming and publicly saying it.

Want true EOP? exclude names, race, sex, etc from applications that go to those doing hirings (stays with HR) and candidates should be chosen strictly on the information there. I think there absolutely needs to be training for those hiring on checking implicit bias, and certainly protections for prospective employees from as much pre-bias as possible, but the current bastardized DEI can go. Plus you take away racist excuse of "they're just a DEI hire" which may or may not be true, but without a DEI push they're just racists then because there's no basis to prop upon.

 

[LakeLivin]

In other news

I had to look this up as I thought it must be a piece from The Onion. It's an actual bill introduced by a Democratic Mississippi state senator to highlight the hypocrisy of laws created by male legislators that regulate women's health.

 

[Joe McGrath]

Want true EOP? exclude names, race, sex, etc from applications that go to those doing hirings (stays with HR) and candidates should be chosen strictly on the information there.

This is exactly what my company does. I was the hiring manager and didn’t get names or gender until I narrowed down my field to 5 or 6 candidates. Because that what actual DEI principles tell you do.

 

[WreckingCrew]

I had to look this up as I thought it must be a piece from The Onion. It's an actual bill introduced by a Democratic Mississippi state senator to highlight the hypocrisy of laws created by male legislators that regulate women's health.

So I've aborted millions upon millions of babies...but I also know some women who are cannibals? Oh dear lol

This is exactly what my company does. I was the hiring manager and didn’t get names or gender until I narrowed down my field to 5 or 6 candidates. Because that what actual DEI principles tell you do.

Exactly what they should do! But probably less than 5% do it that way...I know my company the managers get the full resume names and all. Sometimes a resume MIGHT tip you off like if they went to an HBCU or were in a sorority or something, but usually those aren't the focus (work experience/degree type) not can you assume too much these days

 

[LakeLivin]

So I've aborted millions upon millions of babies...but I also know some women who are cannibals? Oh dear lol

What does that say about me if I'm particularly fond of those women, lol?

 

[Svechhammer]

Want true EOP? exclude names, race, sex, etc from applications that go to those doing hirings (stays with HR) and candidates should be chosen strictly on the information there.

And even that breaks down the moment you get to a phone or video screening, where they get to check the boxes on whatever demographic you fit into.

Can't tell you how many times I got to that spot last year only to be ghosted to be met with a 'we went with other candidates who better met our business needs at the time'. Which is industry code for 'you didn't check the right box'.

And of course this is on top of being in an industry that is being overrun with cheap H1B contractors from India, so it's been aggressively hard for people to get a job if you aren't in a protected class. The door swung way too far in the opposite direction, and of course with a vindictive regime coming in it was going to end up like this now.

There was a middle ground that could have worked, but that isn't going to happen for decades at this point.

 

[hangman005]

This is very much my company, they want their aerospace/mechanical engineering to be 50% female over the years despite the fact that still <10% of graduates in those Engineering fields. We're getting some great women hired which is awesome for them, but there's also no back-filling some vacated positions because they're determined to meet the quotas they've set. My boss was nearly forced a couple years back to hire an unqualified candidate over a well-qualified internal candidate for DEI purposes.

EOP was started for noble cause, but DEI has largely bastardized it. Granted it's being swung entirely too far the other way to get rid of "suspected DEI hires". That said, even with EOP in place, at the end of the day someone can come up with any reason they don't want to hire you, protected class or not. And in a right-to-work state they can fire you for any reason...it'd be very hard to PROVE there was discrimination behind it without someone coming and publicly saying it.

Want true EOP? exclude names, race, sex, etc from applications that go to those doing hirings (stays with HR) and candidates should be chosen strictly on the information there.

Sadly the moment race and gender at such enter a conversation the ability to have reasonable discussions even intellectually honest discussions becomes challenging. Right now in NZ there have been several things going on that sort of broach on this. Right now there is a bill in parliament that seeks to define the principles of treaty of waitangi, I think the definition they have come up with flawed and needs to be better, but I think he needs to be defined and ratified by referendum. The media coverage, both locally and internationally has been garbage. "The govt is trying to get rid of the ToW...." no they aren't I think they should especially as we try to use it as some sort of constitutional document. It's not fit for that purpose, that said our current constitution is also not fit for purpose as it draws 100% of it's authority from the Parliament of the UK. but thats a different kettle of fish. "The govt seeks to reinterpret the ToW" it doesn't do that either, in fact that bill doesn't touch the treaty at all. It does seek to define the Principles of the Treaty, the principles themself are an attempt to rewrite the treaty, the concept was invented in the 70's and pretty much tried to make all this other stuff part of the treaty without saying what it was and meant.... and that's not how treaties work.

They recently reverted the law back that the previous govt changed regarding Maori only seats on council, this used to be subject to referendum, which were routinely defeated (even in councils where 75% of the population was Maori) so previous government changed the law so councils could ignore their constituents and many many of them did. Right now at the next local elections all councils that created Maori Wards, have to pass them via referendum again, and councils are whining about democracy... it's quite ironic. But the whole thing is how no other wards councils create are subject to referendum. Yes that is correct, but no other wards sole criteria is race. Tensions rise and backs get up when these things are involved, it's so hard to talk things through.

On another note circling back to our piss poor constitution, it was highly amusing to hear our Foreign Minister telling the Cook Islands (a dependency of NZ) would have to alter their constitutional arrangements and become a fully independent nation if they are wanting to issue their own passports ect. I mean this is exactly what the UK government was telling us following WW1 and then all through the 20's and we still haven't f***en done it.

 

[WreckingCrew]

And even that breaks down the moment you get to a phone or video screening, where they get to check the boxes on whatever demographic you fit into.

Can't tell you how many times I got to that spot last year only to be ghosted to be met with a 'we went with other candidates who better met our business needs at the time'. Which is industry code for 'you didn't check the right box'.

And of course this is on top of being in an industry that is being overrun with cheap H1B contractors from India, so it's been aggressively hard for people to get a job if you aren't in a protected class. The door swung way too far in the opposite direction, and of course with a vindictive regime coming in it was going to end up like this now.

There was a middle ground that could have worked, but that isn't going to happen for decades at this point.

That's been my fear the past 15 or so years seeing how things are progressing...we swing things too far one way, so the other side aggressively and needlessly overswings the other way, back and forth, further and further from an ACTUAL solution because people want black & white, right & wrong, them vs us, i want to play the victim card,

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

The example you pointed out isn’t what DEI actually is. Its actually an example of that hiring managers unconscious bias to pick someone like him/her which is the opposite of what DEI teaches. Did people who didn’t know what DEI is or what its purpose was install it in the federal government? Probably. Was it being completely misused in some situations? Definitely. Is that a reason to demonize and rid the country of a concept that at its core is hire the most qualified applicant for the job by reducing your unconscious biases?

Yeah, I was about to say, an airforce vet hiring another airforce vet is the kind of thing DEI nominally wants to stop. Even its detractors, good and bad faith, wouldn't use that as an example.

 

[Svechhammer]

That's been my fear the past 15 or so years seeing how things are progressing...we swing things too far one way, so the other side aggressively and needlessly overswings the other way, back and forth, further and further from an ACTUAL solution because people want black & white, right & wrong, them vs us, i want to play the victim card,

As soon as you put quotas and percentages that companies need to hit, that is all they care about and they'll cut off their own dicks if it means getting that precious incentive.

My company just had an all hands today where the CEO reaffirmed that we are still going to be operating with a diverse mindset because they understand that we have to exist beyond this administration. They also know that in the current age, doing so will very much become a competitive advantage in the marketplace, which they are looking to exploit. But they aren't going to make it a policy and they aren't going to quota. Which, just seems like the way it should be everywhere.

 

[Svechhammer]

Here we go, changing the constitution via Executive Order and pushed by the DoJ