politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Interesting. I was recently told I have to hire a woman in a replacement role to balance it out. We have a bit over 70% female workforce, 64% women in senior positions, but the team I'm hiring for has 2 female, 3 male.
It felt very wrong, being put into a position where the best person for the job may not get it because of their gender. Just thought it was ironic, like humanity had gotten no where in the last 20 years despite appearances.
I've been hiring in a male dominated field for a while, and realistically, in those scenarios, you're actually being asked to make sure you interview women at all, and if you go with a man, you need to be able to explain why the man was more qualified than the women you interviewed.
Anyone who has said they were forced to hire a woman, in my experience, has been disingenuous, and upset at the layer of accountability
Or more simply, they're a shit manager who doesn't know how to properly hire candidates and manage a team. I suppose there's also the possibility that they are a shit manager incapable of defending their actions to their management because of incompetence. The embodiment of the Peter Principle.
The type of manager that throws their employees under the bus instead of taking responsibility, managing, and coaching effectively. Which seems to be about 80% of managers, and 95% of middle management.
If that's true, which I doubt, that's lazy DEI. Quotas in hiring were illegal since the 70s. Rather than forcing some magic diversity number you should be looking at what your demographics already are and take a critical look to see if your culture or product is driving a bias of some kind.
It’s easy to have the merit when the system is favoured towards men.
America != Humanity.
Some real sovcit stuff right here. You really understand the system don't you?
What?... The what?
Are to responding to the wrong comment or is it just self-projection. I have no idea how you formed such a link.
You never have to hire anyone because of affirmative action. Simply hire the best people for the job without regard to gender and your fine. That's how it's always worked.
The only difference between a woman and a man is they are in a protected class. So them suing when you hire chet from the country club even though he has less experience, is easier.
If you don't see the connection to sov cits, I'm lost
@saltesc@lemmy.world, don't hire this guy.
Okay. I'll hire based on what genitals a person was lotteried with. Seems fair, I guess?
We live in a progressive world that hires for boobies and pee-pees! The starving so-and-so that grew up poor, uneducated, and trodden on, but garnered the skills and experienc in defiance can get fucked. Oh, unless coincidentally they meet the quota. That'd be nice.
You don't read good. Quotas are quite illegal. That's the disingenuous argument of someone who doesn't like having to answer why they thought the most qualified candidate was most qualified in had talked about.
Also, you responded this to a joke about not picking the guy throwing around random sovcit accusations? Man, you two deserve each other
It's been a hectic 24 hours and I'm confused.
Sorry if I came off as a twat, I need sleep.