diversity hires, when is this ever been proven the best course of action.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

" I can't argue with him using what he said, so i'll just pretend he said something completely different and argue with that".

After having you seen you do this so many times I thought it might make it easier talking to you on your own level.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

After having you seen you do this so many times I thought it might make it easier talking to you on your own level.

LOL - point to one  

No? Nothing? Nothing at all

Sure kid  

[eyeball]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

point to one

No.  You point.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

No.  You point.

I am - i'm pointing at you and laughing  

[eyeball]

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I am - i'm pointing at you and laughing  

No you mean crying. It's common knowledge around here that emoticons only confuse you. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

No you mean crying. It's common knowledge around here that emoticons only confuse you. 

ROFLMAO!!!!  Well it's true sometimes you make me laugh so hard i cry a little   LOL

Seriously - i'm sure you realize how sad these comments make you look, take a few seconds and try harder.  You're doing an even better job than me of making yourself look stupid  and that's saying something  

[impartialobserver]

On 12/15/2023 at 2:45 PM, Army Guy said:

Just a question,  when the government placed their job opening ad,  the diversity requirements is the qualifications to get the job...How is it bias or racist to call someone a diversity hire when the job add clearly spells it out thats what they were looking for...And it does not have to be a person of color it can be anyone from a disadvantage back ground, such as a one legged, green women, with purple warts on her chest...The government also went out of it's way to clearly say it is not reverse racism....My opinion is we would not be having this entire conversation if we hired the best qualified person for the job...be it black, blue, or white... 

But with todays rules how does someone know that person is or is not a diversity hire ? you don't really, and the same could be said for any white person hired that does it mean there was no diversity person available at the time... and it is not just for Federal employees anymore it includes contractors that the government hires as well...

Federal job listing do infact spell it all out diversity hires will be given preferential treatment. And as they are sorted by computer, if you don't meet the diversity requirements your file is dumped...if their are no diversity files then the rest will be vetted again.

I think your company went about it the right way...of course you don't get political points or votes while running a business...Only the government can do that, which is why our civil service is the way it is now...

 

I work for a state government in the US. Anyways, its just a matter of bias getting in the way. When we did make the hire, the gentleman was hispanic. If this was 1960, he would have been excluded from the beginning when someone read the name. As it turns out, this person has shown himself to be a bit overqualified. Easily the most adept person in the office when it comes to programming and that is saying a lot. But.. but.. he was a diversity hire says garden variety Id10t who has no idea what we do..

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

I work for a state government in the US. Anyways, its just a matter of bias getting in the way. When we did make the hire, the gentleman was hispanic. If this was 1960, he would have been excluded from the beginning when someone read the name. As it turns out, this person has shown himself to be a bit overqualified. Easily the most adept person in the office when it comes to programming and that is saying a lot. But.. but.. he was a diversity hire says garden variety Id10t who has no idea what we do..

If the recruitment and assessment of candidates was on merit alone why are you even mentioning it? That's what most people want. Why is the Left determined to return to the days of racist hiring laws and rules that only serve to create resentment and to divide us?

Edited December 22, 2023 by I am Groot

[impartialobserver]

20 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

If the recruitment and assessment of candidates was on merit alone why are you even mentioning it? That's what most people want. Why is the Left determined to return to the days of racist hiring laws and rules that only serve to create resentment and to divide us?

It was on merit alone but certain Conservative types (online and in real life) can't accept that it was. It must be a diversity hire. the fact that we had 19 applicants and only 5 were white must mean that we are looking for non-white candidates. It can't possibly because the white candidates do not apply and are going elsewhere. 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

It was on merit alone but certain Conservative types (online and in real life) can't accept that it was. It must be a diversity hire. the fact that we had 19 applicants and only 5 were white must mean that we are looking for non-white candidates. It can't possibly because the white candidates do not apply and are going elsewhere. 

I suspect that's your own bias at work. I suspect you're seeing what your mind expects to see. Which is slighlty ironic as that's what you're saying others see.

As a conservative - i really woudn't notice how many were one way or another unless it was specifically ponited out.  If you come to me and say 'recently we hired 10 mexicans and 4 white people what do you think of that",  then i'm going to consider it in the context of why you might be asking, and assume you're putting some important on the race for a specific purpose.

Having said that - if there IS a diversity program in place and i see someone of that race/gender that the diversity program is supposed to hire then i'm going to assume that the reason they were hired was their race/gender and not their skills, and that on average their skills will be lower than the other genders/sexes.  IF that wasn't true - why would they need a diversity program in the first place.

Don't like that? don' have diversity programs, they're racist and bigoted and spread racism and bigotry in society.

[Army Guy]

On 12/22/2023 at 6:58 PM, impartialobserver said:

It was on merit alone but certain Conservative types (online and in real life) can't accept that it was. It must be a diversity hire. the fact that we had 19 applicants and only 5 were white must mean that we are looking for non-white candidates. It can't possibly because the white candidates do not apply and are going elsewhere. 

If we today we hired the best qualified person for the job, as we should....we would not be answering questions from the right that diversity hiring is NOT the best possible answer to hiring practices...Instead we would have the left saying those practices favor the white side of the augment...maybe HR should be a diverse office, that can pick the best candidate or like the federal government here is all done by computer...it automatically screens out candidates based on what has been  programed into it's selection process, take out race/ religion/ gender/ and concentrate on merit and experience...and would would have a system free of perceived racism.. from right and left...

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

.maybe HR should be a diverse office, that can pick the best candidate or like the federal government here is all done by computer

Actually - a policy like that was tried in Austrailia to overcome prejudices against women in various jobs. The candidates info was scrubbed of anything that would tip off race or sex including names etc.  It was all based only on qualifications.

They cancelled it a short time later when the system resulted in mostly white men being hired, slightly more than previously, despite a large number of females who applied. Turned out the people hiring already had been giving women applicants a bit of an edge up, basically going with the women if it was close.

The left does NOT like 'blind' hiring, it does NOT produce the results they want it to.

 

[impartialobserver]

On 12/22/2023 at 6:30 PM, CdnFox said:

I suspect that's your own bias at work. I suspect you're seeing what your mind expects to see. Which is slighlty ironic as that's what you're saying others see.

As a conservative - i really woudn't notice how many were one way or another unless it was specifically ponited out.  If you come to me and say 'recently we hired 10 mexicans and 4 white people what do you think of that",  then i'm going to consider it in the context of why you might be asking, and assume you're putting some important on the race for a specific purpose.

Having said that - if there IS a diversity program in place and i see someone of that race/gender that the diversity program is supposed to hire then i'm going to assume that the reason they were hired was their race/gender and not their skills, and that on average their skills will be lower than the other genders/sexes.  IF that wasn't true - why would they need a diversity program in the first place.

Don't like that? don' have diversity programs, they're racist and bigoted and spread racism and bigotry in society.

Then how do you explain why we are getting so few white candidates. Race is not even a field on the application form. All that is required is that the candidate has a Bachelors in Economics and is a resident of the state of nevada. We have no explicit diversity programs here. 

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

Then how do you explain why we are getting so few white candidates. Race is not even a field on the application form. All that is required is that the candidate has a Bachelors in Economics and is a resident of the state of nevada. We have no explicit diversity programs here. 

there's a million possible reasons, i would have to know a  lot more before i could even speculate. For all i know the only place you advertise the job is in Mexican magazines .   Or the already large percent of non white workers tend to let their non white friends and family know about job openings first - its' common for companies to ask employees if they know someone assuming that if they are good workers their friends and family probably are too.

Maybe white people consider that job beneath them ?     i don't really know what you do.

in any case i don't see it changing what i said.

[impartialobserver]

8 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

there's a million possible reasons, i would have to know a  lot more before i could even speculate. For all i know the only place you advertise the job is in Mexican magazines .   Or the already large percent of non white workers tend to let their non white friends and family know about job openings first - its' common for companies to ask employees if they know someone assuming that if they are good workers their friends and family probably are too.

Maybe white people consider that job beneath them ?     i don't really know what you do.

in any case i don't see it changing what i said.

We only advertise the opening on the state of nevada's HR site.. so not a mexican magazine by any means. 

My theory is that the white candidates leave the state after graduation. They want to move up in the world and so move to the usual SF, LA, Sacramento, or Seattle. The job title is Economist. It demands that they come to an office in Carson City (population 53,000). The relatively low salary combined with almost certainly a 35 to 50 mile commute one way deter a lot of candidates. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

We only advertise the opening on the state of nevada's HR site.. so not a mexican magazine by any means. 

My theory is that the white candidates leave the state after graduation. They want to move up in the world and so move to the usual SF, LA, Sacramento, or Seattle. The job title is Economist. It demands that they come to an office in Carson City (population 53,000). The relatively low salary combined with almost certainly a 35 to 50 mile commute one way deter a lot of candidates. 

Well.... kinda sounds like we may have identified the issue  

I forget why we were talking about this again'?

Edited December 29, 2023 by CdnFox

[impartialobserver]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well.... kinda sounds like we may have identified the issue  

I forget why we were talking about this again'?

Folks try to claim that our recent hiring of non-whites is them being diversity hires and that we only hire them because they are hispanic, Indian (subcontinent), or female. This assumption is not founded in any actual data. Recently, started recruiting for another new hire and what do you know... very low number of candidates. Most likely not a lot of whites just from looking at the names. Have had the recruitment out for 9 days and so far 2 applicants.

[taxme]

On 12/13/2023 at 10:33 AM, Army Guy said:

Diversity hires, what is it that they do exactly, other than make the white board charts look pretty. Being top candidate, or best qualified means nothing today, what gives you the inside track on getting a job, is color of your skin, sexual preference, disabilities...with all this going on this could be one reason why government employees are of low quality...this practice has been ongoing for years now, we all have seen the results and it is scary....why anyone would think this was the best route to drive civil servants is just another example of this woke liberal government. 

To top it off they have removed the term reverse decimation, apparently it does not exist with this new bill...It is really time the liberal party take a walk in the snow...and not just into the sunset, but into the depths of woke hell. 

There is no more common sense in Canada, this is just one more example of that...

Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals to mandate reverse discrimination with job quotas for Black, LGBT people (msn.com)

 

You want multiculturalism and diversity? Well, you got it, baby. If one is white, there will be a good chance that white person will be set aside for the job and the job will be given to some new immigrant people of color. It really means racism against white people and it has been going on for decades now. It would appear to me that there is a conspiracy going on in order to try and make white people in their own white homeland, become a minority, and second class. What else can it be when Canada brings in approx, 80% of it's new immigrants from non white countries. And this has been happening for over 40 years now. Our immigration policy today favors non-white people. 

Racism is alive and well in Canada, and that racism going on in Canada today, is racism against people of the white color variety. There has been pretty much an elimination of commons sense and logic ever since old man and young punk Marxist Trudeau's came on the scene and have been allowed to destroy this once great white British/European country. 

This present day immigration policy in Canada needs to end now before white people do truly become a minority in their own white homeland and who will surely be treated by those non-whites when they become the majority in Canada. All those black people that we now see on commercials on TV today is just the beginning. The warning is there. Heed the warning. Just my opinion. 😇

[herbie]

When has it been the best course of action? Ask any manager in a large customer service organization.

Easy to meet requirements. Hire all those ESL and 'diverse' personal into the lowest paid front line positions.
Phone ins will vent their frustrations over language issues and will be exhausted and placated when and if they ever get passed on to you. Then you can berate the employee for "referring too many calls to management instead of dealing with it like they're paid to do over the last year, fire them and hire a new 'minority' at the starting wage.
Walk ins will see a person of colour, or of questionable sexuality, or 'dressed funny' and be triggered to vent their rage at that instead of the defective P.O.S. or fraudulent service you sold them.

The stress and corporate abuse or indifference will stop almost all of them from being promoted to the Office and you getting to know any.
 

[I am Groot]

Nothing so epitomizes the politically correct gullibility of our times as the magic word “diversity.” The wonders of diversity are proclaimed from the media, extolled in the academy and confirmed in the august chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States. But have you ever seen one speck of hard evidence to support the lofty claims? 

What are the alleged “compelling” benefits of “diversity“? They are as invisible as the proverbial emperor’s new clothes. Yet everyone has to pretend to believe in those benefits, as they pretended to admire the naked emperor’s wardrobe.  Thomas Sowell

Edited December 29, 2023 by I am Groot

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Folks try to claim that our recent hiring of non-whites is them being diversity hires and that we only hire them because they are hispanic, Indian (subcontinent), or female. This assumption is not founded in any actual data. Recently, started recruiting for another new hire and what do you know... very low number of candidates. Most likely not a lot of whites just from looking at the names. Have had the recruitment out for 9 days and so far 2 applicants.

Yeah but two things can be true.   It can be true that for some alternate reason fewer white candidates apply at your firm but it can also be true that a number of places have discriminatory practices that seek to specifically improve the chances of a 'diversity hire' being hired over a white male.   I think we can agree not all places are that way and not all places where the workforce is not predominantly white or are 'ethnic' are a result of diversity hiring programs but woudln't it be fair to assume if some program were in place giving preference to diversity hires that its not unreasonable to say they didn't win based entirely on their competance? I mean - that's the point isn't it'?

[impartialobserver]

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Yeah but two things can be true.   It can be true that for some alternate reason fewer white candidates apply at your firm but it can also be true that a number of places have discriminatory practices that seek to specifically improve the chances of a 'diversity hire' being hired over a white male.   I think we can agree not all places are that way and not all places where the workforce is not predominantly white or are 'ethnic' are a result of diversity hiring programs but woudln't it be fair to assume if some program were in place giving preference to diversity hires that its not unreasonable to say they didn't win based entirely on their competance? I mean - that's the point isn't it'?

My point is that it is a case-by-case situation. There are some instances where even in the absence of an explicit policy, you can tell that they only hire based on race. 

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

My point is that it is a case-by-case situation. There are some instances where even in the absence of an explicit policy, you can tell that they only hire based on race. 

True - can't argue with that, it's obviously at the very least institution by institution.   I would say that if they hire based on race then it's reasonable to assume the people are less qualified for their job than a free hiring process would achieve (whether formal or informal)  and in a place where the hiring practice is more or less free and fair then even  if the workers favor one race or another it wouldn't be reasonable to think they're anything but qualified.

[Nefarious Banana]

The  Honourable Steven Guilbeault  . . .  Minister of Environment and Climate Change of Canada

Qualifications :   ?

Experience :   ?

He's the ultimate 'diversity hire' . . . 

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

The  Honourable Steven Guilbeault  . . .  Minister of Environment and Climate Change of Canada

Qualifications :   ?

Experience :   ?

He's the ultimate 'diversity hire' . . . 

Yes he was hired for what he is rather than his skills,  which is odd because you would have thought the liberals had already met their rat-fink quota at that point.