Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Who is mandating this?

For non government agencies - Usually the Board or owner because DEI is now a measurement that is disclosed for investing purposes, the CEO because the board have mandated to have a better DEI score, the senior managers down to the hiring managers because the CEO has told them it is important, and finally the hiring manager to HR, because they have a KPI/goal to ensure they have X% whatever DEI target demographic the company is going for.

And because it is almost impossible - especially in the short and medium term to measure whether someone is hiring the best people - the KPI that can be measured is a very simple binary one. How many X demographic are employed here/what % of employees are demographic X.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

"educate yourself and be self sufficient" isn't winning rhetoric. I am a life long socialist and environmentalist, but I am not dumb enough to think that left wing rhetoric does anything to win over the hearts and minds of young men. Not the last 10 years.

Okay, but you can at least realize the irony in the same crowd that calls everyone "snowflakes" and tells people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" getting their fee-fees hurt because society is catering to them slightly less these days, right?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

For non government agencies - Usually the Board or owner because DEI is now a measurement that is disclosed for investing purposes, the CEO because the board have mandated to have a better DEI score, the senior managers down to the hiring managers because the CEO has told them it is important, and finally the hiring manager to HR, because they have a KPI/goal to ensure they have X% whatever DEI target demographic the company is going for.

And because it is almost impossible - especially in the short and medium term to measure whether someone is hiring the best people - the KPI that can be measured is a very simple binary one. How many X demographic are employed here/what % of employees are demographic X.

Okay, and do you think they're just doing that for ####s and giggles, or is it maybe because they have some analytics that demonstrate that these policies improve their revenues?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, but you can at least realize the irony in the same crowd that calls everyone "snowflakes" and tells people to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" getting their fee-fees hurt because society is catering to them slightly less these days, right?

No one group is above toxic rhetoric. Not on the internet at least.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Who is "mandating" that private corporations have DEI programs and hire x% minority candidates? There's no law in place that forces this. As I wrote above, my company voluntarily has DEI initiatives solely for profit-motivated reasons to make sure that hiring managers aren't choosing lesser qualified white men over more qualified minority candidates, and there is no corporate policy dictating that any individual team must have a certain number of non-white male employees.

As i asked - How do they measure people are adhering to this policy?

Saying "Hire the best person" isn't a DEI policy in itself

What's the policy and how is success measured

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Now imagine that statement being expressed by an Indigenous or Black man who pulled himself up by his bootstraps.

A lot of Indigenous and Black men have no trouble getting university degrees, secure employment, and stable families. Why can’t those who fail to achieve those things just get their #### together?

Cliff, you and I have had this discussion before. If capitalists want to engage in more class-based discourse, most actual leftists are here for it. However, every time we try to move in that direction, it's generally liberals and conservatives who don't want to go there and upset the applecart.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I work for one of the Top 5 largest publicly-traded companies in the world. My organization's DEI policies are in place solely as part of a ruthless pursuit of profit. They are not about altruistically improving society for minorities; they're there to make sure that as a company we seek out, find, and hire the best candidates regardless of their gender/race/sexual orientation/etc.

This should be the case for every organization. But if the company ends up hiring the best candidates and they all share the same characteristics people end up coming after you about not having any diversity.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TheIronMaiden

No one group is above toxic rhetoric. Not on the internet at least.

Is it unreasonable to expect people to live by the ethos they espouse?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, and do you think they're just doing that for ####s and giggles, or is it maybe because they have some analytics that demonstrate that these policies improve their revenues?

Again - The DEI policies /goal themselves aren't the issue - Which I have tried to explain in detail. Hire the best person isn't something that is /should be debatable. Companies that don't will go bankrupt

It's HOW you measure it's actually getting done. And this almost always comes down to a binary measure of X% of Y.

These DEI scores are now part of annual reports and investment packages for mutual funds, ETF's, etc

So because these scores became very important/popular companies started to pander to the criteria of the score. They know if their score isn't "good" - Even if they have hired all the best candidates - investment in their company - especially institutional investors - will suffer.

There's a reason companies are ditching their DEI policies now. It isn't because they don't want to hire the best person, it's because these scores required them to not hire the best candidates in some cases. If not why would companies be ditching these programs and mandates that helped them hire better and make more $$........

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

This should be the case for every organization. But if the company ends up hiring the best candidates and they all share the same characteristics people end up coming after you about not having any diversity.

Statistically speaking, it's highly unlikely that every best candidate would be a white male, wouldn't it? Even in highly-dominated male fields, like STEM, there's still enough women and minorities that your company should at least have a couple.

If you're below that threshold, what is the most likely answer as to why?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

There's a reason companies are ditching their DEI policies. It isn't because they don't want to hire the best person, it's because these scores required them to not hire the best candidates in some cases.

Source?

EDIT: It's also wild to me that people are more concerned about DEI hires not producing the best candidate, when nepo hires are usually a much bigger problem in that area.

[indes]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'd also like to know how many people here work for a company they believe hired a woman or minority over a more qualified white male candidate, and what their proof of this is.

The only studies I've seen on this topic have suggested that resumes with traditionally black, hispanic, or other foreign names tend to receive less callbacks and interviews than traditionally white, western-European names.

For an oil major. At the end of the interview I was told they were at 75% DEI hire right now but they'll keep my resume on hand. I ended up getting the job ~8 months later after another white guy on the team resigned. The person who got the original position I applied for with less than half the experience I have, in much lower positions, is still here, doing much less than I am, with much lower expectations. Probably why I have such a grudge against DEI because it doesn't work the way it's supposed to, especially for those of us in industries that are overrepresented by white males.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Statistically speaking, it's highly unlikely that every best candidate would be a white male, wouldn't it? Even in highly-dominated male fields, like STEM, there's still enough women and minorities that your company should at least have a couple.

If you're below that threshold, what is the most likely answer as to why?

Sure, statistically speaking that might be correct but it doesn't work out in practice because a company can only hire from their applicant pool. If at any time the applicant pool is skewed the hiring could be impacted by that.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Cliff, you and I have had this discussion before. If capitalists want to engage in more class-based discourse, most actual leftists are here for it. However, every time we try to move in that direction, it's generally liberals and conservatives who don't want to go there and upset the applecart.

Or we could make a genuine effort to understand issues regardless of who’s bringing them up.

If you don’t want to talk about issues faced by boys and young men because it’s something conservatives talk about, or because some people who talk it don’t want to talk about racism of sexism, then okay, don’t talk about it. But the point raised in this thread is that conceding young men to the populist right is bad and stupid politics. And beyond that, failing men are bad for society in general - for their parents, their employers, and for women.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, it's not the left that's "doing/mandating DEI." It's capitalism. Companies are doing it because it benefits their bottom line to do so. Once that no longer applies, they will stop doing it.

EDIT: Sorry for the triple-post.

It's both. When a group (any groups) drums up enough support for a movement companies will jump in as well in order to cater to that market. When DEI was really picking up there were movements to shift buying habits towards certain companies who were seen as being better. Companies didn't want to lose business so they jumped on the train. Now that support has shifted companies are dropping those policies. It cycles through different movements like DEI or nationalism or health related causes or green initiatives etc.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Source?

EDIT: It's also wild to me that people are more concerned about DEI hires not producing the best candidate, when nepo hires are usually a much bigger problem in that area.

Who said they are more concerned ?

Every publically traded company has hiring policies to mitigate nepo hiring as well . Like anything involving humans it isn’t perfect and obviously these types of hires still happen.

However - Would you want a no family member / friends hiring policy ? A lot of the time these people are highly qualified

Seems a little discriminatory doesn’t it?

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

It's both. When a group (any groups) drums up enough support for a movement companies will jump in as well in order to cater to that market. When DEI was really picking up there were movements to shift buying habits towards certain companies who were seen as being better. Companies didn't want to lose business so they jumped on the train. Now that support has shifted companies are dropping those policies. It cycles through different movements like DEI or nationalism or health related causes or green initiatives etc.

Also mutual funds / institutional investors started being pressured by the fund holders to invest in DEI companies so they catered to get their scores up to keep stock price up

And the second investors stoped caring (because the market isn’t white hot and there are more important things for comapny value now) they are ditching these policies . If they worked to get a superior workforce they wouldnt be ditching them

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Who said they are more concerned ?

Well the amount airtime and online discourse dedicated to each topic would indicate that DEI is a bigger concern. Agree or disagree?

Like anything involving humans it isn’t perfect.

Would that also not apply to DEI policies?

However - Would you want a no family member / friends hiring policy ? A lot of the time these people are highly qualified

Seems a little discriminatory doesn’t it?

That's a strawman, so I'm not going to bother with it.

Still waiting on the source/evidence of your previously claim, btw.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

But the point raised in this thread is that conceding young men to the populist right is bad and stupid politics. And beyond that, failing men are bad for society in general - for their parents, their employers, and for women.

No one is saying that failing men isn't bad for society. We're saying that blaming DEI for these failures is nonsense.

We know from previous fascist movements where the problem lies, but again, liberals and conservatives have shown no appetite to address those issues at a systemic level.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by indes

For an oil major. At the end of the interview I was told they were at 75% DEI hire right now but they'll keep my resume on hand. I ended up getting the job ~8 months later after another white guy on the team resigned. The person who got the original position I applied for with less than half the experience I have, in much lower positions, is still here, doing much less than I am, with much lower expectations. Probably why I have such a grudge against DEI because it doesn't work the way it's supposed to, especially for those of us in industries that are overrepresented by white males.

That sounds like a ####ty management issue more than a DEI issue.