Tim cook, a gay man, donated a million to trump. Don't let Apple pretend they aren't playing both sides.
Apple may be a terrible company, but their pride logo looks so good
They've had a rainbow logo for a long time.
A terrible company, but some of the best marketing
There is a good chance they will also ditch DEI when it start to cut into their monies more.
Lol
Fuck yeah I love Costco
Well they don't love you.
They can tout DEI and idpol all they want. They're still stiffing union workers.
Companies are not things to love.
Yes they do. I saw it in a documentary. “Welcome to Costco, I love you.”
I don't doubt that all companies push back against unions. They force the company to pay more. The only thing I have to say regarding Costco is that it usually pays its employees a much better wage than most stores.
I've also heard this. Their employees are generally pretty happy about working there.
The least racist is still racist.
lol I am sure as soon as DEI practices are removed everyone will only get hired based on their skillset.and not their "club memberships". what a bunch of dickwads, as if people don't know what you are trying to achieve.
I don't really know what they're trying to achieve lol. I feel like it's probably vaguely racist, like: anti-anti-racist 😕... Or something.
Maybe just an excuse for the plebes to blame someone for life getting generally more difficult?
Tim Cook is really playing both sides of the fence here.
The real fence is capital vs labor, and he doesn’t play both sides of that one
I mean, he did give a generous "personal donation" to the Trump inauguration.
Maybe his interpretation of DEI would be more H1Bs from India?
If I recall he said they were going to remove it and the board said no
IIRC it was a bunch of shareholders who demanded removal.
Oh ok maybe I'm misremembering
Citation needed.
Can someone smarter than me (I know, it’s a low bar) explain how DEI is unconstitutional? Especially when it comes to private enterprises like Apple and Costco?
Edit: okay, I found a decent article that lays it out. While I agree with the basic premise, I know its effect won’t be more equality.
DEI is basically "you know that thing we do where we only hire from the old boys club at our favorite ivy league university? Let's hold off on that."
Companies benefit from DEI policies because they expand their hiring pool, so the company ends up with better talent. They're still aiming to hire the best out of that pool, of course. Companies are motivated by profit, not by reparations.
I know its effect won’t be more equality.
Its effect will be more equality. Unfortunately that is not a good thing for the old boys club, which is what motivates the FUD and disinformation you've heard regarding DEI as a buzzword.
My understanding is it's basically pulling the uno reverse card to suggest it's anti-white behaviour.
"I got passed over for a promotion cause they needed another minority manager instead of a white one" type stuff
I'm not American so no idea what your constitution says.
The constitution say very little, yet people love to interpret it.
"People"
We
More perfect
Welfare
Edit: Idk how many people realize, but “promote the general Welfare” is literally in the preamble; so when conservatives criticize welfare, they’re opposing the constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
the whole DEI inititive generally is to get people who historically underprivileged more positions at work. this however in a few instances, would lead to someone being hired because of their race, rather than skillset. Theres ongoing anti sentiment who fully believe that anything with DEI has made a company gone downhill (with basically 0 evidence, or very anecdotal evidence proving so)
Constitutionally, some claim it to be unconstitutional because of the 14th amendment that states:
“No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
as the idea of affirmative action, or DEI programs bascially give minorities a higher chance of being hired, therefore the idea is that people were not equally protected under law.
basically programs typically put Whites (and Asians in some contexts, tech jobs and universities) at a disadvantage.
personally, i think most of it is hubabaloo, and most companies know(or should know) the minimum requirement they are looking for out of an employee since most of them already want the cheapest person in the building regardless of race. I just think the argument that they wont hire the best person suited for the job a fallacy, as if they were THAT good, then they would never get passed up to fill some racial quota. No one is going around for example passing up on Jim Keller (cpu architecture guru) over a minority designer who has little experience. for the jobs that require the best, a company will look for it regardless.
“No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Republicans have gotten away with breaking this so many times...
Well y’see there’s this one weird trick where you can declare people not people anymore
Thank you. That was easy to understand.
I want to add that while I agree that in most companies "most of it is hubabaloo" and the companies just hire qualified people, there are some loud and visible examples of blatantly unqualified people getting a position with only apparent qualification being pronouns in their bio. For example a game developers spokesperson not realizing calling all gamers "insufferable bigoted incels" on social media is not a reasonable way to market a videogame.
So while most companies just call countering biases in hiring DEI, the term DEI for many people is now associated with hiring unqualified people, largely because those rare examples I mentioned being amplified and presented as the norm by right-wingers.
If you ask me, companies should drop the term DEI from their hiring policies and just write them neutrally. Sure, most of the perception of unfairness is probably unfounded, but not all of it. And whether true or not, the perception that the hiring process was not fair by people rejected by the hiring process just builds resentment and builds support for morons like Trump that speak against such policies.
I'm not familiar with the example you're referencing. Was it stated this person was only hired for their pronouns or just due to a diversity initiative?
There are people who reveal themselves to be unqualified and incompetent through all types of hiring practices all the time. That does not invalidate the methodology entirely because none is perfect. If it was doing so consistently in a way that can be documented, that'd be different. But if that were the case, for profit companies would drop it on their own without external pressure.
The problem is it doesn't matter what you call it. Affirmative action, DEI, whatever. The people who complain about DEI will complain about that new term. I'm not sure there's a neutral way to describe that if two candidates are about equal, you'll pick the one from a disadvantaged/underrepresented background. Even if you said you're looking for unique perspectives, if it's not a white man who ends up making the mistake, some people will complain that unique perspectives are anti white and racist and hurting the country.
you'll pick the one from a disadvantaged/underrepresented background.
So is having that policy even worth it? I would argue doing blind remote interviews without knowing the persons race and background would be almost as effective without giving ammunition to hate-mongers.
It's not like you have roughly equal candidates for a position often in the first place. And it could also help against nepotism and other unfair practices.
The problem is the size of the gulf. If we were talking about, for instance, there only being 5% more white male executives compared to their share of the population, then compete blindness would more or less erase the problem given time.
When the gulf is large, the time period to erase that even with completely background-agnostic selection in any direction is many generations. It doesn't sound fair to say, "OK, the racist stuff was wrong. We stopped (we didn't totally). Your great-great-great grandchildren will see parity! Stop complaining." You're basically saying nobody alive will ever see something approaching equity.
Part of DEI is reassessing the metrics used to evaluate candidates. People often unconsciously will be more forgiving of shortcomings in people they identify with. So they can certainly write candidate evaluations that make one candidate seem clearly better than the other. But jobs are rarely so simple that you can list out and check boxes on every possible pro or con, and it's easy to miss the pros if you aren't looking for them.
Also, I will say having been on the hiring side for many positions, there are definitely plenty of cases where a couple candidates are roughly equal. That literally happened in the last position we filled. Maybe we're outliers.
When the gulf is large, the time period to erase that even with completely background-agnostic selection in any direction is many generations.
Why? Am I missing something? I would expect it to be completely gone in a generation, once every non-blind hire was replaced.
Part of the problem with the hypothetical is not everyone in one of these positions is truly hired. I mean if we completely got rid of inherited wealth so nobody could pass on their company to their kids, that'd certainly accelerate the timeline.
Background-agnostic will also still miss the knock-on effects. If someone goes to a high quality college with a name because their rich parents can afford it that leads to an attractive internship that lands them a career job, on paper they got their current job because they had good qualifications.
Or, if the company has a history of only white men in positions of power and goes background-agnostic with zero outreach to marginalized communities, you're not going to get a lot of applicants from there. They may not even know the company exists, while every kid of those powerful white men sure do, and they know which skills are most necessary to look good in a job interview.
DEI is not just handing out roles to unqualified people because they're not white men. It's about access, outreach, thinking differently, being welcoming. It's complex. It's certainly easy to rabble rouse over because dumb people don't want to take the time to understand complicated things. I don't believe we should abandon nuance because some people refuse to attempt to understand it. They'll just do that with the next thing until everything is dumb and simple.
I fully agree with your second point, it's so easy to blame minorities (be it racial or gender or sexual identity) that those situations are what gets talked abkut. The number of unqualified people who are hired/have been hired based on who they know vs what they know probably far outweighs mishandled DEI policies.
The number of unqualified people who are hired/have been hired based on who they know vs what they know probably far outweighs mishandled DEI policies.
I agree, but as I said, making it obvious and giving it a name (DEI) creates an easy target to point at when assholes rouse hate against minorities. So as I said, I don't think it is worth it in the long term.
Plus, it probably also helps create/reinforce the subconscious notion that minorities need help to qualify for jobs, rather than being equal.
I just first want to say kudos for having a well reasoned point that you're defending with logic, patiently and consistently, with respect for all.
That's rare on the Internet, and Lemmy in particular, which is severely prone to the group generally deciding on one "right" position and mercilessly punishing dissent.
All that said, I think I broadly agree with you, and further, think that all of this DEI stuff is essentially "affirmative action for a new generation".
It's so hard to nail it down and defend it because (it seems) proponents don't like to explain so much of how it works (and how it works differently from not incorporating it), and rather tend to answer with what it accomplishes. In theory at least.
The problem, of course, being that this subtly shifts the criticism and defense from DEI itself to its goals.
You can say "DEI means that the company is better by getting the best employees and also helps historically disadvantaged demographics get better jobs" without at all describing how that happens, and suddenly disagreeing on the merits of DEI gets misconstrued as "companies should only hire white guys and maintain the status quo", at which point they're more easily targeted with ad hominem and lumped together with true bigots and racists.
Regarding the issue itself, from everything I've seen, DEI should be less "this is an initiative we're doing and have a team on it and track it's metrics" and more just, "We'll hire the best person for the job."
Because ultimately, anything other than "We'll hire the best person for the job." means, by definition, "We'll pass on the best person based on their, or the other candidates' race, gender, religion, etc."
If that means an overwhelmingly white male workplace, that's a social indicator, not a problem for the company to fix. Also, hypothetically, what's the desired end goal in terms of workplace diversity? To match the local area as closely as possible? If so, what happens when the most qualified candidates happen to be overwhelmingly from a minority? Are they going to start hiring less qualified white guys to balance it out? They shouldn't. But they also shouldn't hire a less qualified woman just because they only have one other woman in the whole building.
Ultimately, the only extent I could see a DEI policy actually having merit and being worth talking about would be something sort of like the Rooney Rule. A company saying, "For any position we post, we're committed to interviewing at least X candidates from historically underrepresented minority demographics. We may still end up hiring a white guy...but this will ensure that we don't get so used to seeing nothing but white guys that we forget to look elsewhere."
Thank you. What a nice comment :)
Ultimately, the only extent I could see a DEI policy actually having merit and being worth talking about would be something sort of like the Rooney Rule. A company saying, "For any position we post, we're committed to interviewing at least X candidates from historically underrepresented minority demographics. We may still end up hiring a white guy...but this will ensure that we don't get so used to seeing nothing but white guys that we forget to look elsewhere."
Yes, I believe this would make sense if done correctly. I also like what company I work for does, that is sponsor a programming courses for women to help them become good candidates.
Because ultimately, anything other than "We'll hire the best person for the job." means, by definition, "We'll pass on the best person based on their, or the other candidates' race, gender, religion, etc."
Yes, we should strive to remove biases from the hiring process in general. It's not like recognized minorities are the only ones disadvantaged by biases.
And why are we comparing Apple to Costco?
Because they're both standing behind their DEI programs when much of Corporate America is rushing to dismantle theirs.
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.