Amazon
Meta
McDonald’s
Walmart
Molson coors
Ford motor
John Deere
Lowes
Harley Davidson
Brown Forman
Tractor supply
Toyota
Cool, new reply to Amazon & Meta recruiters.
You reply to Amazon recruiters? The last email I got wanted me to move across the country and go to the office. I almost replied hahahahahhaha but decided it was more professional not to reply at all
The most serious discussions I've heard about adjusting comp and benefits have been around hiring and retention, so I figure turning down recruiters may be my best chance to affect practices.
I can't think of another time in history where we got a new president then all of a sudden all these companies come out and change their policies so quickly. It's weird it's over social issues too
It's almost like.... They never cared in the first place. I don't know why so many people are shocked. They only ever cared about money. The millisecond they were no longer at risk of losing capitol for not having a thing of course they were all gonna drop it.
It’s all money. They change their policies to suit their shareholders. The shareholders could not care less that they are discriminating against minority groups.
Fuck all of this. I hope every CEO gets what is coming to them-Painfully, broadcasted live.
It is weird along with the whole tail end of the election and the confidence Trump and Musk displayed knowing they were going to retake control. I wonder if they have something secret in their back pocket that they're using as leverage which we'll all see at some later date.
The Republicans rigged the election!? That entire accusation of the Democrats stealing the 2020 election was just one big confession.
How about we hire and promote people who are correct for the job, regardless of their gender or race?
Because the people who are 'correct' for the job always end up being white guys who are direct relatives of someone in management
As long as you're on board with systemic racism, sure. DEI programs were created to address historic discrimination against minorities.
I would argue that if your goal is to fix systemic racism, a much more effective approach would be to target the pipeline problem early on by focusing on improving education systems in poor/racial minority communities. Their difficulties in competing later on in life stem directly (and I would argue most strenuously) from disadvantages they experience early on. If companies see improvements in the resumes of racial minorities, they will naturally be more likely to hire them; I would argue that their greed for having the best employees will override the racial biases of White CEOs and HR managers.
Better resumes are good, but there are plenty of studies showing bias towards the name alone on a resume and that a white-sounding name gets more bites than names more associated with a minority race.
People have biases, conscious or not. Did you know that women’s positions in orchestras increased greatly after switching to blind auditions? And I can’t find a legit source in 2 min of searching, but there’s also been indication that the sound of high heels affects hiring outcomes even in blind auditions.
Example studies on names and hiring outcomes: 2004, 2023, 2024 (even the “best” companies still showed a 3% bias towards white candidates vs 24% for the worst), 2016
So yeah, there are a fuckton of steps to addressing systemic racism and starting early in the process is a critical step. But the narrative that an equivalent resume is all that’s needed to close the gap is false and dangerous.
Oh, I agree, and I wasn't trying to suggest what I wrote above was all that's needed. I'm a big proponent of racially blind admissions/hiring processes. Exclude any data that could be construed as being race-identifying. The more we can force admissions/hiring to base their choices solely on performance-relative metrics alone, the better.
However, I have to admit that such a goal is a bit unrealistic. Race-identifying information will likely always find a way into admissions/hiring processes, simply because of interviews. I don't claim to know how to create the perfect system, obviously. This is a complex problem that people a lot smarter and more educated than I have been striving to solve for decades.
But I think that raising people up from the very bottom of society is still the best approach, the most efficient way to do that is by focusing on disadvantages experienced early in life. If you can level the playing field during kindergarten, you provide a more equal launch pad for every stage of life thereafter; keep working up from there and we'll eventually wind up with a more equal result in adulthood.
Black people with good education are still more likely to be shot by police or go to jail.
I never said addressing systemic racism was limited to addressing said issues in educational attainment alone. Clearly, it's a multifaceted problem that requires a broad range of fixes.
if your goal is to fix systemic racism, a much more effective approach would be to target the pipeline problem
You really fucking implied it.
You can externalize your assumptions all you want; it doesn't change the fact that interpersonal communication is the responsibility of all involved.
I.e., grow up and stop winging about minor details on internet forums.
You literally said that it's "more effective" to give Black people better resumes than to stop systematic racism at the top.
Yes, but I was referring solely to DEI programs, which have nothing to do with systemic racism in police brutality or judicial prejudice areas.
by focusing on improving education systems
The same people removing DEI legal protections are also gutting the education system.
Fully agree in an ideal world.
But in practice, if men, for example, are the only people hired, they tend to be the only people who get experience, making them always the most qualified for the job.
Extra Facts: For jobs behind the camera, there are something like, only 13% of women employed in the film industry. Not all industries are equal so your through fits really well in some places and less so in others.
Ok. Not sure it matters. Those programs were largely symbolic anyway.
Is there any real data suggesting they had any positive effect on anything?
As a trans person, I can tell you that it's generally pretty huge to see it in the mission statement, but followthrough and clearly outlined internal policy is priceless.
While not exactly the same thing as DEI programs, affirmative action programs have a history of efficacy studies that demonstrate positive (if only moderately so) results. However, there’s also solid research that points to backlash effects and criticisms of “positive discrimination.” In other words, while affirmative action programs do somewhat accomplish their goals of helping minority groups achieve, they come at the cost of intentionally discriminating against majority groups (mainly Whites), which understandably creates antipathy towards them from the majority groups. Also, despite some people’s claims that these programs don’t give slots to minority candidates with weaker test scores, resumes, etc, actual examinations of them have shown that this is not actually the case in practice, and that companies and schools have given preference for weaker scoring minority candidates in order to create the public image of being more diverse.
Basically, affirmative action is a mixed bag and I suspect DEI programs are similarly so. The overall net effect may still be positive though, if only slightly.
Personally, I think a better strategy would be to improve education systems for poor communities. Instead of focusing on race directly, focus on improving outcomes for the poor. Due to overlaps in racial and economic variables, you’ll wind up helping racial minorities while avoiding the criticism of engaging in “positive discrimination.” Plus, fixing the pipeline problem early on is a more efficient approach, since it focuses on preventing people from failing early on rather than trying to fix their failures later on.
Pussies.
Oh look on the picture: the first one is corporate scum, the second one is also corporate scum and somehow the third one is also corporate scum
You know who hasn’t abolished DEI efforts yet and asked shareholders to vote against abandoning them? Apple. And historically Apple tends to beat the market. So imma go ahead and make a the wild statement that these companies will eat a bag of dicks in 10 years and end up adopting DEI under another name while Apple stays the course.
I do think that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI and many orgs implemented it badly so this could be a net positive in the end.
Tim Apple donated to the guy who wants to make DEI illegal though, so if Apple does stay the course, I just hope it ends up being under someone else's leadership.
Research clearly shows most corporate entities (and their figureheads) donate to both sides of the political game. They want to have friends in power no matter who wins the election.
Yes, but Apple has also built their empire on horrible practices in China and by exploiting tax loopholes to the point where they regularly pay zero taxes. I'm not trying to be a purist here—I have an iPhone and an Apple Watch—but I don't think their retainment of DEI programs should be construed as a moral choice; Apple products are largely purchased by liberals, so they have a public image to mind if they're going to avoid reducing sales by pissing off their main customer market.
I wish where I work would abolish it too.
Why?
A minority got promoted instead of him and he can't admit that they deserved it.
I'm a manager who's tired of wasting my time interviewing candidates that were picked because they are a minority but actually not qualified for the job
It's a waste of time for me just as much as it is the candidate
Also the last unix admin I hired was black who didn't indicate on their application that they are a minority. He got the interview and then the job because he knew how unix worked. Not because he is black. Do you follow me?
As a manager I have the ability to screen resumes and not interview people who aren't qualified so as to not waste everyone's time.
You need to work on your hiring process.
Do you follow me?
Because choosing people based on skin colour is racist
That's true but that's not what DEI is for. It's aim is to simply be inclusive and not exclusive. DEI was never intended to be a quota or to hire someone less qualified simply because of race. That is actually racism.
Yet that’s how many orgs implemented it which is why so many people are against it. It’s not that DEI is bad, it’s that badly implemented DEI is worse than no DEI at all. But the pendulum ever swings and always with more momentum towards progress.
Utter trash. Please show me the organization that hired more women and minorities than white males.
The DEI pendelum allowed a few woman and even fewer minorities the chance at a job they could never get and now it is time to swing back to all white males again.
It is an extreme sexist and racist overreaction, end of story.
They didn't cave, the scum running them can openly be monsters now
well damn. I was considering a Ford Maverick because my car is old and is having problems. guess I'll look elsewhere. No new Toyota either.
Get a Mazda, they arent perfect (they dmca'd the Homeassistant integration), but at least they have immediately started to help Californias and as far as I was able to find out, they didn't crawl in to Trump's pocket...at least, until now... Only downside is, the CX-50 is made in the same plant as the Toyota Corolla Cross.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.