Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happens when we continue to give underqualified people positions in management and other specialties that require advanced degrees in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion? What happens when progressives occupy positions in HR nationwide and push this at basically every publicly traded corporation? Should be interesting to watch.
truth. particularly when the skill level is clearly lacking.
It's worse on those minorities that do have the skill and are still stereotyped.
They do not want to be seen as "diversity hires" because their peers shun them as being less skilled.
I worked with one or two that felt that way. I felt that way as a female engineer when travel offers came up.
That was back in the 90's when the push was for more women in technology.
I turned down one promotion and a few travel positions ....I was not qualified. I knew it and they knew it..but corporate wanted more women in higher positions.
Although I did tell my manager I would pull the "girl card" if a trip to Hawaii came up
What happens when we continue to give underqualified people positions in management and other specialties that require advanced degrees in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion? What happens when progressives occupy positions in HR nationwide and push this at basically every publicly traded corporation? Should be interesting to watch.
Doesn't matter. People view minorities in high positions as "diversity hires".
This is what putting skin color ahead of skill has done.
That's the thing though - just because someone is a so-called "diversity hire" doesn't mean they're unqualified. I wonder if there has been any study or data on that topic (research for another day). How many hires are truly "diversity hires", and how many of those people were less qualified than other applicants?
I'm sure anecdotally any of us could throw in our observations to support either position. How much of filling an open position is objective, and how much is subjective? Was I a diversity hire as the first woman to hold a management position in the newsroom, or was I simply the most qualified candidate? Was I making a diversity hire when I added women to the newsroom staff, or was I hiring the best writer or the person with the greatest potential?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TMSRetired
Although I did tell my manager I would pull the "girl card" if a trip to Hawaii came up
I’d say it’s already here. There used to be like a very basic work ethic across the board. Being in (or associated with) the restaurant industry for a long time now, I’ve watched it just tank. The older people who are still working are fine but the younger people are just messy. They missed the memo on the very basic work ethic that used to be displayed by virtually everyone. I’ve talked to managers who are exasperated with staffing bc they have no choice but to hire from this pool of ignorant and irresponsible young folks who require so much handholding that the managers practically have a double load of work despite these warm bodies being present (when they feel like showing up anyway).
I can only imagine this same issue extends to other industries, although perhaps to a lesser extent. Restaurants don’t do as much “diversity hiring” from what I can tell (maybe for management) so I can’t speak to that but of course anytime one is hired and not competent to do the job, every other aspect of the business will suffer.
That's the thing though - just because someone is a so-called "diversity hire" doesn't mean they're unqualified. I wonder if there has been any study or data on that topic (research for another day). How many hires are truly "diversity hires", and how many of those people were less qualified than other applicants?
I'm sure anecdotally any of us could throw in our observations to support either position. How much of filling an open position is objective, and how much is subjective? Was I a diversity hire as the first woman to hold a management position in the newsroom, or was I simply the most qualified candidate? Was I making a diversity hire when I added women to the newsroom staff, or was I hiring the best writer or the person with the greatest potential?
LOL - you go, girl.
You know if you are qualified or not already and whether or not it's a "token" move by the company.
Any promotion or bonus I got ..I know I earned it. You know when you don't.
That's the thing though - just because someone is a so-called "diversity hire" doesn't mean they're unqualified. I wonder if there has been any study or data on that topic (research for another day). How many hires are truly "diversity hires", and how many of those people were less qualified than other applicants?
I'm sure anecdotally any of us could throw in our observations to support either position. How much of filling an open position is objective, and how much is subjective? Was I a diversity hire as the first woman to hold a management position in the newsroom, or was I simply the most qualified candidate? Was I making a diversity hire when I added women to the newsroom staff, or was I hiring the best writer or the person with the greatest potential?
LOL - you go, girl.
If that's the case then why was their skin color so important for that "diversity hire" checkbox ?
The stereotyping is the result of the AA program effect on people's perception...it's neither fair nor equal; it's legal discrimination.
What happens when we continue to give underqualified people positions in management and other specialties that require advanced degrees in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion? What happens when progressives occupy positions in HR nationwide and push this at basically every publicly traded corporation? Should be interesting to watch.
I am not joking, but I foresee a time when all contracts and "consents" and legal agreements will contain clauses saying that neither the company nor anyone employed by that company will be responsible for any mistakes resulting in any harm (legal, financial, medical or personal). Otherwise, the insurance claims for medical malpractice or lawsuits in the case of incompetent engineering (to give two examples) might reach unprecedented levels.
I am sorry, but judging from the university students I have seen featured on various news and social media, I think that university professors and employers are much more concerned with "fairness" than they are with ensuring that people who go into important positions have the necessary knowledge to perform important jobs competently, and that at least as important to them is the fear of losing their positions if they don't hire a certain number of a certain group. Of course, this does not apply to ALL teachers and ALL employers!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
