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.
Business wants the credits. So yes those 'voluntary' surveys are necessary to the business. I worked HR, and we were encouraged to review applications that marked veteran,or on state funding programs,or had a handicap. Why pray tell? So we could get them hired,milk them for our business credit and shine brightly in the eyes of the govt for their promotion of hiring for those adults. Our town was ranked high for its veteran hiring stats.. I never wondered why..It had zero to do with patriotism and everything to do with govt kickback. I laughed once when hr came to me and said, hey, can you stop by and fill out that form since we hired you from the back to work program (state funded). I said ,no thanks.
But HR departments are not known for being ethical in general.
If HR can't tell that a candidate is black, white, or asian at the interview without a questionnaire, the interviewers have some serious eye problems that need to be checked out.
If HR can't tell that a candidate is black, white, or asian at the interview without a questionnaire, the interviewers have some serious eye problems that need to be checked out.
Racial and ethnic identity cannot always be discerned visually.
I have fudged those things for years, for that very reason. Currently a federal employee, but self identify as an Alaskan Inuit on my employee profile (Hey, I visited Alaska once). The "self identification" is directly in the verbiage, so at that moment I decide to "self identify". That alone shows the baked in problem with these surveys. I'm not doing anything illegal.
There is exactly zero advantage for an educated white male professional to fill it out as the govt wants. Zero advantage. Those surveys, even if kept and controlled ethically (I have my doubts on that), are only fodder for activist types both in govt and private sector areas, when they quite arbitrarily decide that there are "too few" of a certian demographic, or if even there is "too many" of a certian demographic (they are never honest about openly stating when they feel there is too many though). So why help these folks, if it can only bring you disadvantage?
Well said. Qualified applicants need not apply as you will be screened out of the process at some point.
However, if you just look around at what is happening and what is being taught, ie. hate America, you can see the result of those government programs. For my own personal interest I signed up for a Native American Indian Arts class but the "teacher's" contempt for all things American was vulgar and well known to HR at the time. Today's college admission and hiring is hurting the country. At the university level, they complain that students need to have extensive remedial work before they can take classes, even when those classes have very low standards. It is no wonder we are falling behind the rest of the world when qualified, experienced people are being passed over just to satisfy some government nonsense.
Affirmative Action programs are designed to get quality workers from underrepresented populations. It is not designed to lower the standars, and it doesn't.
Without providing too much identifying information...I had a white male superior who obviously favored those employees like him: those who were the same gender, completed the same programs as him, and hailed from the same state. I mean...blatant preferences. I was more qualified than the people he preferred, but he couldn't "relate" to me. It's not a surprise that I feel way more comfortable and get along much better with his replacement who is a woman who shares other characteristics with me (race not being one of them).
People promote those they feel comfortable with and/or who they see themselves in. Period. If it wasn't for these "government programs" jobs would have little to no diversity. Most places only hire the minimum quota ANYWAY.
Well said. Qualified applicants need not apply as you will be screened out of the process at some point.
However, if you just look around at what is happening and what is being taught, ie. hate America, you can see the result of those government programs. For my own personal interest I signed up for a Native American Indian Arts class but the "teacher's" contempt for all things American was vulgar and well known to HR at the time. Today's college admission and hiring is hurting the country. At the university level, they complain that students need to have extensive remedial work before they can take classes, even when those classes have very low standards. It is no wonder we are falling behind the rest of the world when qualified, experienced people are being passed over just to satisfy some government nonsense.
No part of this rant has anything to do with EEO questions on job applications.
Affirmative Action programs are designed to get quality workers from underrepresented populations. It is not designed to lower the standars, and it doesn't.
Without providing too much identifying information...I had a white male superior who obviously favored those employees like him: those who were the same gender, completed the same programs as him, and hailed from the same state. I mean...blatant preferences. I was more qualified than the people he preferred, but he couldn't "relate" to me. It's not a surprise that I feel way more comfortable and get along much better with his replacement who is a woman who shares other characteristics with me (race not being one of them).
People promote those they feel comfortable with and/or who they see themselves in. Period. If it wasn't for these "government programs" jobs would have little to no diversity. Most places only hire the minimum quota ANYWAY.
All true.
Look at any workplace, and you will most likely see some sort of racial/ethnic/gender imbalance. That isn’t to say that any given hiring manager or HR screener is biased or bigoted, but it does mean that something is happening to skew hiring results.
In some cases, minorities do not apply because they feel that they have no chance in an all white, predominantly male organization. This results in more white, male hires, simply because nobody ever sees an application from a strong Latina candidate. Sure, this means that the strongest candidate gets hired, but it also means that the organization didnt even see the strongest person.
That is the goal of affirmative action. Give everybody a chance. Not to hire or promote unqualified people at the expense of others.
Nope. Again, none of what you are asserting can happen at the application stage. It's just application data. Not hiring data or data on the current employees.
You claim it cannot happen at the application stage, but it can, and does.
How do I know? I have been involved in the hiring practice, at the application review stage. I have seen it as a screening agent for my specific division department. Despite "protections" supposedly built into the system by having HR independantly screen applications, and then forwarding only "qualified" applicants to the group looking for a new employee (that is were I got to see the applications), there have been obvious exceptions to applications/resumes I know had applied, highly qualified people that did not pass the HR review stage. How do I know they were highly qualified? Because the Fed Govt employs an inside applicant program, looking for known talent inside the departments that desire to work in new positions, so the applicants are often already known, along with their talent/qualifications.
The most aggregious violation of this was somebody internally I knew that had applied for a new position at the White House (yes that White House), and his application was passed over. He had been encouraged to apply for this position by our very competent female division director. I inquired upon the lack of his resume being forwarded via back channel, because I knew this particular person was a very good fit for the new position, and the applications we received were less than stellar experiance wise (four applications, all women, mostly with admin backgrounds, the position needing somebody with a background in engineering/construction quality inspection. None of the applicants met the superior qualifications of this guy. None.). When asking a non- politically savvy HR assistent about this "oversight" she let slip that the HR director had openly stated that the new director of the office this position would be operating under had stated the current work environment was "too white and male". Yes, that director was a woman. And she was blatantly steering the hiring process along identity politics lines. Illegal!
So how exactly did they screen these applications toward women, and not the male applicant?
Since I did not see his resume, I cannot tell if there was oblique gender references in it, but his name (which I did know)was certianly one that could be male or female.
They got that information somehow.
It took all my will power not to tell the male applicant about this chain of events.
My director was told they wanted to fill the position quickly, which meant picking only from the pool of applications that was "screened" and forwarded to us. The one who was hired? She had a background with some proxy affilation in minor construction projects administration from military service over a decade prior, but she ended up resigning after 13 months (just past the probation period!) due to her lack of knowledge and failed QC on these projects. She ended up as an admin assistent, which was really more her experiance bank.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
Also, once again, your statement is built upon the idea that white male candidates are truly the only worthy candidates and that all other candidates are getting their jobs via unfair preferences. If a white person doesn't get the job, then the only plausible explanation is discrimination against white people. Nope.
Sure, you roll with that empty talking point. I would gladly accept any qualified candidate, regardless of gender or race, but certianly want the most qualified.
Last edited by snebarekim; 12-17-2017 at 12:38 PM..
Business wants the credits. So yes those 'voluntary' surveys are necessary to the business. I worked HR, and we were encouraged to review applications that marked veteran,or on state funding programs,or had a handicap. Why pray tell? So we could get them hired,milk them for our business credit and shine brightly in the eyes of the govt for their promotion of hiring for those adults. Our town was ranked high for its veteran hiring stats.. I never wondered why..It had zero to do with patriotism and everything to do with govt kickback. I laughed once when hr came to me and said, hey, can you stop by and fill out that form since we hired you from the back to work program (state funded). I said ,no thanks.
The premise that these stats are not artificially inflated is BS for sure, via steered hiring to meet an abritary goal, or outright fabrication. Private sector wants the stats!
Veterans are a group that has actually done something specific though, vice simply being born (or "self identifying") a certian way.
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.
