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.
By the way, if this bothers you, you should realize that large corporations have been using its purse to force the suppliers to become more diverse for at least 20 years. For example, in many cases, law firms have to state in their RFP (request for proposal) how they are going to staff the engagement if they are hired (in terms of diversity of attorneys who will work on the case). Big corporations are taking the initiative to force businesses to diversify - I don't necessarily agree with this approach, but you know about the golden rule.
Don't worry, within the next week or two a white CEO that doesn't donate heavily to the democratic party will say something inappropriate and you can have your soap box back.
Walmart being 88% White, makes sense their based in a Metro that is 90% White the Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers or NW Arkansas metro.
I don't believe she is racist like I don't believe Donald Trump (not a trump fanboy) is racist, They may have said stereotypical things but unless one of them clearly states the "Black/White race is superior to one another" I honestly can't and won't call them a racist.
By the way, if this bothers you, you should realize that large corporations have been using its purse to force the suppliers to become more diverse for at least 20 years. For example, in many cases, law firms have to state in their RFP (request for proposal) how they are going to staff the engagement if they are hired (in terms of diversity of attorneys who will work on the case). Big corporations are taking the initiative to force businesses to diversify - I don't necessarily agree with this approach, but you know about the golden rule.
Mick
Yep, 20 years. I don't even want to hear what this CEO has to say because it's nothing ( okay, I gave it 2 minutes) It's been the diversity talk for at least 10 years which is boring. Who cares?
Ah, and don't forget the green. The green ( love the earth) was another ten years. Let's all be earth-friendly as well! CEO's must think we are all stupid, but in truth, most are incredibly boring.
Don't worry, within the next week or two a white CEO that doesn't donate heavily to the democratic party will say something inappropriate and you can have your soap box back.
There are a number of justifications for affirmative action or diversity initiatives. People can argue all day and all night about the relative merits of such justifications.
But look at it this way. If your company customer base roughly reflects the demographical makeup of this nation overall, let's just say, 53% women, 13% blacks, 7% Hispanics, 5% Asian, 5% LBGT and so on, ask yourselves how best to serve all of your customers. As a straight dude, I can honestly tell you I have no idea how to maximize sales on women customers or LBGT customers. Or black customers.
If you are a white, straight male you don't either, if you are being completely honest. If you open up a branch in Kenya, don't you think it makes total business sense to hire at least some Kenyans to figure out how to maximize your branch's performance with the natives? You can't learn this chit from a book, website or blog. Not even from Breibart.
Thus, while you can (and will) still have personnel made up predominantly of white males, having diversity of viewpoint and expertise within the distinct group culture would be a competitive advantage.
It's unfortunate, but I find that most white males complaining about affirmative action or diversity initiatives are the ones who wouldn't have gotten the position or promotion in question anyway - in other words, other white, Asian or Jewish male/female would have gotten that position instead of the complainer because they are simply more qualified (irony!). Like that plaintiff in the UT affirmative action case - she wouldn't have gotten in anyway even if no diversity consideration came into play, because other more qualified non-underrepresented minority would have taken her spot (as they showed by statistics in their case). Also, why do you (whoever you are) assume that you are more qualified than ANY minority or women? It's rather ignorant and surely not rational or true. I don't care who you are, you are no intellectual match for Thomas Sowell, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku or Ted Cruz (I threw in a couple of conservatives in there for ya). Right? I know I sure ain't.
I have no doubt that all this stuff is extremely frustrating and is an easy scapegoat if you don't get a job or promotion. I understand this human nature, and sometimes you could be absolutely right. But don't delude yourself. Please.
Mick
10-20 years ago that was probably true...But now it has gotten to such ******* PC levels that I have to disagree.....There should only be a slight preferential advantage to Blacks/Hispanics over Whites and Asians, but it should only be slight and ONLY if the candidate meets all the prerequisites for that position.....In 2015 it has gotten way out of hand with preferential hiring for Blacks/Hispanics and hopefully it will be reduced to more sane levels when a conservative is elected back into power.
There should be zero "preferential hiring" based on Gender or Sexual orientation....Women do better than Men in society by nearly all standards (regardless of race) so "giving them an extra helping hand" over Men is literally the reverse of what Affirmative Action is (supposedly) intended to do since they are doing much better as it is....LGBT/Sexual Orientation is irrelevant and shouldn't even be discussed when hiring anyone (if who you are attracted to doesn't matter like *******s always say then why bring it up at every opportunity like you are using your sexual identity to get some lame reward or to feel special??)....
I want to know why blacks make up over 90 percent of pro basketball rosters then. Why is that? How can that be when they only make up 15 percent of the population? I'll tell you why it is..they are best qualified for the job. If we want diversity , maybe Pete who cant touch the net should play because he is white.. Diversity is great until it affects the bottom line.
And no, I am not saying a white basketball player can't be great or a black man can't be a great CEO.
Believe me - corporations don't make money because of the preponderance of intelligence, ingenuity, and business acumen! For the most part execs are quite average in those areas and all the same in their thinking. "Like hires like" and you have to be friends with or know the right people to do well.
No one cares about the bottom line when THOSE staffing decisions are being made! Everyone assumes the company will go along as it always has and the idea is to get as many friends in the executive office as possible!
10-20 years ago that was probably true...But now it has gotten to such ******* PC levels that I have to disagree.....There should only be a slight preferential advantage to Blacks/Hispanics over Whites and Asians, but it should only be slight and ONLY if the candidate meets all the prerequisites for that position.....In 2015 it has gotten way out of hand with preferential hiring for Blacks/Hispanics and hopefully it will be reduced to more sane levels when a conservative is elected back into power.
There should be zero "preferential hiring" based on Gender or Sexual orientation....Women do better than Men in society by nearly all standards (regardless of race) so "giving them an extra helping hand" over Men is literally the reverse of what Affirmative Action is (supposedly) intended to do since they are doing much better as it is....LGBT/Sexual Orientation is irrelevant and shouldn't even be discussed when hiring anyone (if who you are attracted to doesn't matter like *******s always say then why bring it up at every opportunity like you are using your sexual identity to get some lame reward or to feel special??)....
I agree with some of what you're saying but not the bold above.
Why should anyone get any kind of preferential hiring advantage, even "slight" advantage, just because they are of a certain race? To me it should be 100% based on the ability to do that job, how the person conducts themselves in the interview, etc. Personally I'd be embarrassed if I knew I was hired because, even in the slightest, is was because of my race/sex/whatever.
Now, if someone is not hired and it can be proven they weren't hired because of their race, sex, etc., that to me is very wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.
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.
in this thread is something else.
