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

#378
#378
Smokey123 said:
I’m not quoting the lawsuit. It’s a known fact they changed their hiring process, look it up.

Now you’re making stuff up. They all passed the test (which before the rules changes graduates went on to get hired over 95% of the time) and had 200+ hours of training.
Click to expand...
What test? What was changed?
 
#379
#379
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...

Lol. Thats simply absurd. There is no control over diversity in an actual applicant pool but you can increase it if you broadcast it’s a top priority instead of merit. Not even sure what the “belonging and engagement” bs is. Proper compensation should be based solely on merit even if it means there’s a huge disparity in the same job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YankeeVol
#380
#380
YankeeVol said:
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.
Click to expand...
Every hire I made was merit-based. There is not the first thing wrong with making sure the applicant pool is diverse. That is a GOOD thing. Do you really think I only received CVs from minorities? Seriously? I will repeat that I was never asked or pressured to hire from any specific group in my 25 years there.

And of course I'll disagree with you. I'm what's right with America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, TN Ribs and NashVol11
#382
#382
gcbvol said:
Every hire I made was merit-based. There is not the first thing wrong with making sure the applicant pool is diverse. That is a GOOD thing. Do you really think I only received CVs from minorities? Seriously? I will repeat that I was never asked or pressured to hire from any specific group in my 25 years there.

And of course I'll disagree with you. I'm what's right with America.
Click to expand...
If it's merit based (which you yourself said EVERY HIRE you made was), then why should that matter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr, OL SMOKEY and InVOLuntary
#384
#384
C-south said:
Because it really isn’t.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: OL SMOKEY, InVOLuntary and C-south
#386
#386
C-south said:
Lol. Thats simply absurd. There is no control over diversity in an actual applicant pool but you can increase it if you broadcast it’s a top priority instead of merit. Not even sure what the “belonging and engagement” bs is. Proper compensation should be based solely on merit even if it means there’s a huge disparity in the same job.
Click to expand...
Do you really think companies are actively and intentionally hiring unqualified candidates? Now that's absurd. It's an accepted fact that happy emloyees are more engaged and more productive. A sense of belonging is part of that. Compensation is more than that. It also includes industry-wide analysis to ensure compensation is at the right levels. Of course a new manager is not going to make the same as a manager in the role for 5, 10 years, etc. but there should be established minimums that are in line with industry standard.
 
#387
#387
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...
What you’re talking about broadly is Diversity & Inclusion, which has been around for decades - it’s about creating opportunity.

Which can be good, if leveraged effectively and responsibly.

The ‘Equity’ in DEI is about driving outcomes, though. When you tie executive compensation to achieving “diversity targets” (i.e., quotas) - you’ll get your desired outcome.

Many corporate boards have seen the folly in that, and are de-coupling pay from hitting those targets.
For every Costco or Apple, there are a dozen more like Amazon & Wal-Mart rolling back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85, InVOLuntary and VOLS INC.
#390
#390
gcbvol said:
Do you really think companies are actively and intentionally hiring unqualified candidates? Now that's absurd. It's an accepted fact that happy emloyees are more engaged and more productive. A sense of belonging is part of that. Compensation is more than that. It also includes industry-wide analysis to ensure compensation is at the right levels. Of course a new manager is not going to make the same as a manager in the role for 5, 10 years, etc. but there should be established minimums that are in line with industry standard.
Click to expand...

Absolutely they are. Some companies will take that hit knowing they’re going to have success regardless. The rest is typical nonsense. It’s in line with Barry’s mantra if we’re nice to terrorists they’ll be nice to us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YankeeVol
#392
#392
YankeeVol said:
If it's merit based (which you yourself said EVERY HIRE you made was), then why should that matter?
Click to expand...
I worked for a massive company which received hundreds of thousands of CVs, many which never make it through due to sheer volume. The biggest part of it was HR/Recruiting trying to make sure they got a diverse pool of qualified applicants. That's it. If I didn't get any qualified fits, I asked for more. There was never any pressure. I don't know why you think I (or anyone) would hire an unqualified person simply because of their sex, race, religion, or military service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#393
#393
C-south said:
Absolutely they are. Some companies will take that hit knowing they’re going to have success regardless. The rest is typical nonsense. It’s in line with Barry’s mantra if we’re nice to terrorists they’ll be nice to us.
Click to expand...
We didn't, and if so that's stupid. And it's not nonsense, it's fact about employee engagement and productivity.
 
#394
#394
gcbvol said:
I worked for a massive company which received hundreds of thousands of CVs, many which never make it through due to sheer volume. The biggest part of it was HR/Recruiting trying to make sure they got a diverse pool of qualified applicants. That's it. If I didn't get any qualified fits, I asked for more. There was never any pressure. I don't know why you think I (or anyone) would hire an unqualified person simply because of their sex, race, religion, or military service.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


Also, when has "military service" been DEI? GTFO
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#399
#399
n_huffhines said:
Because diversity is attractive to customers and also when prospecting for future employees.

I prefer diversity, personally.
Click to expand...
This is another good point. Young talent specifically looked for inclusion when being recruited. I know that will get crap here, but it's true. But in the end that's another way DEI is used to get talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top