DC Black Hawk vs Plane crash, Philly Crash. Malicious, or incompotence?

#351
#351
NashVol11 said:
Yes and every time you change a testing procedure or hiring process, people who think they are disadvantaged by the change are going to sue you, which is why you don't just take their word for everything via a lawsuit
Click to expand...
So with the DEI changes I expect you to defend the companies that turn down qualified minorities when they have staff shortages. After all it’s just changes in the hiring process right?
 
#352
#352
Smokey123 said:
So just to get this straight. If a company states they want to diversify the workforce and prioritize hiring minorities and more people with disabilities, and changes the hiring process to reflect that. Said field has a serious worker shortage problem for years and then goes and rejects 1000 qualified applicants that are all the same race. You don’t think that’s proof? Ok lol

I expect you to hold that same standard and defend when qualified and even over qualified Minorities are rejected and discriminated in the work force over the next 4 years for straight while males
Click to expand...
There's some heavy projecting going on here. I'm not sure I articulated my post well enough for you
 
#353
#353
Smokey123 said:
So with the DEI changes I expect you to defend the companies that turn down qualified minorities when they have staff shortages. After all it’s just changes in the hiring process right?
Click to expand...
I certainly wouldn't be taking everything said in a lawsuit (where the entire point is to paint things as favorably as possible) as fact or "evidence," regardless of who filed it
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeMojo
#355
#355
NashVol11 said:
I certainly wouldn't be taking everything said in a lawsuit (where the entire point is to paint things as favorably as possible) as fact or "evidence," regardless of who filed it
Click to expand...
It’s not about the “lawsuit”. It’s about changing hiring process, then rejected 1000 QUALIFIED graduates in a field that has a shortage of workers. I don’t care if they were black and trans. That’s pathetic and malpractice. To not admit that shows a clear agenda
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#358
#358
Smokey123 said:
It’s not about the “lawsuit”. It’s about changing hiring process, then rejected 1000 QUALIFIED graduates in a field that has a shortage of workers. I don’t care if they were black and trans. That’s pathetic and malpractice. To not admit that shows a clear agenda
Click to expand...
The "agenda" is the same agenda that's in every lawsuit, to heavily skew things in favor of the person filing it, and for someone claiming to notice agendas you are completely falling for it.

Again, "qualified" is how they are describing themselves because they passed the old test, setting aside the fact that they failed the new one. They didn't get hired and other people got hired instead, with intermittent hiring freezes during that time. The idea that there would just be 1,000 more air traffic controllers if these people didn't fail the new test is classic misleading lawsuit framing
 
#359
#359
NashVol11 said:
The "agenda" is the same agenda that's in every lawsuit, to heavily skew things in favor of the person filing it, and for someone claiming to notice agendas you are completely falling for it.

Again, "qualified" is how they are describing themselves because they passed the old test, setting aside the fact that they failed the new one. They didn't get hired and other people got hired instead, with intermittent hiring freezes during that time. The idea that there would just be 1,000 more air traffic controllers if these people didn't fail the new test is classic misleading lawsuit framing
Click to expand...
Again. It’s not about the lawsuit. This has been an issued and people have raised concern about this exact thing before the lawsuit was ever a thing.
 
#360
#360
NashVol11 said:
The "agenda" is the same agenda that's in every lawsuit, to heavily skew things in favor of the person filing it, and for someone claiming to notice agendas you are completely falling for it.

Again, "qualified" is how they are describing themselves because they passed the old test, setting aside the fact that they failed the new one. They didn't get hired and other people got hired instead, with intermittent hiring freezes during that time. The idea that there would just be 1,000 more air traffic controllers if these people didn't fail the new test is classic misleading lawsuit framing
Click to expand...
Btw this test change you’re defending values playing multiple sports more than they value you having a pilots license. They value your favorite subject being History more than they value you having ATC experience in the military. Go ahead and keep defending incompetence
 
#363
#363
gcbvol said:
I think either someone is qualified for a position or they're not.

My thoughts on DEI are it came from a good place, and is great when implemented and managed properly. It can also be terrible when those things don't happen and/or bad actors are involved. DEI positioned as inherently wrong/the boogeyman/evil is a mistake and lazy. It's a scapegoat.

My last employer had a robust DEI program, and I was never pressured or forced to hire someone with specific traits. What I did receive was a variety of (mostly) qualified applicants to review and move forward if I desired. If not, I got more applicants. It was done well.

I think people believe DEI is only about hiring certain people to meet quotas, whether or not they're qualified. Now, some bad DEI implementations may do that, but certainly not all or even most. DEI is more than hiring practices, though. It's employee resource groups, and community outreach, and fostering a sense of belonging. It is true that happy employees are typically more engaged and productive employees. DEI can support this when done properly.

I'm all for going after bad DEI programs, but framing the whole thing as some horrible monster is wrong, imo.
Click to expand...
NO
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, OL SMOKEY and C-south
#374
#374
YankeeVol said:
AA and DEI is straight BS. PERIOD
Click to expand...
Again, you're looking only at examples of hiring quotas. I agree that's not a good thing. In the corporate world I'm from it was more about making sure there was diversity in the applicant pool. We never had mandates to hire specific types of people. Then there are the equity and inclusion which work to ensure employee belonging and engagement, along with proper compensation.

Of course there are bad examples, but there are plenty of successes, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#375
#375
gcbvol said:
Again, you're looking only at examples of hiring quotas. I agree that's not a good thing. In the corporate world I'm from it was more about making sure there was diversity in the applicant pool. We never had mandates to hire specific types of people. Then there are the equity and inclusion which work to ensure employee belonging and engagement, along with proper compensation.

Of course there are bad examples, but there are plenty of successes, too.
Click to expand...
Merit. Based. Hiring.

I don't GAF if you're from Jupiter, if you're the best qualified than so be it.

Race, color, sex, etc. should not give you an "advantage" in a hiring process. PERIOD

You are exactly what is wrong with America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, tbh, hjeagle1vol and 5 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top