DEI RIFs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

Reflects pro-social, teamwork, resilience, discipline, all of which are good qualities for jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

Reflects pro-social, teamwork, resilience, discipline, all of which are good qualities for jobs.

Sorry but simply being a vet does guarantee that you will have those characteristics. I'll also point out that those are soft skills, not hard skills, that anyone can have - whether they served or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

Plenty of non-DEI things that reflect merit are still lawful to consider for non-veterans too you know. It’s just not formalized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

Reflects pro-social, teamwork, resilience, discipline, all of which are good qualities for jobs.

Sorry but simply being a vet does guarantee that you will have those characteristics. I'll also point out that those are soft skills, not hard skills, that anyone can have - whether they served or not.

So what? It’s lawful to systematically credit them based on veterans service. It’s not lawful to give people credit for their race or gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

If you don’t like preferential hiring, then you don’t like preferential hiring. No exceptions. Period. The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

Nobody is hating on veterans any more than they are hating on women and POC. This is a discussion about preferential hiring. I’ve had Feds complain to me that they’ve had to hire veterans who are unqualified. See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

If you don’t like preferential hiring, then you don’t like preferential hiring. No exceptions. Period. The end.

You’re generalizing to the point of absurdity. The basis for the preference matters obviously. Are you against “preferences” for higher versus lower GPA? Of course not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

Nobody is hating on veterans any more than they are hating on women and POC. This is a discussion about preferential hiring. I’ve had Feds complain to me that they’ve had to hire veterans who are unqualified. See how that works?

See how Feds don’t understand that racial and gender discrimination are prohibited while the Constitution didn’t prohibit preferences people who serve our country in the armed forces? Yeah, I see that you all need to go to law school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

Nobody is hating on veterans any more than they are hating on women and POC. This is a discussion about preferential hiring. I’ve had Feds complain to me that they’ve had to hire veterans who are unqualified. See how that works?

See how Feds don’t understand that racial and gender discrimination are prohibited while the Constitution didn’t prohibit preferences people who serve our country in the armed forces? Yeah, I see that you all need to go to law school.

The constitution doesn’t say anything about gay people. Are we allowed to get preference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

But how does it make the person better able to do the job?

Reflects pro-social, teamwork, resilience, discipline, all of which are good qualities for jobs.

Getting a heart condition after serving makes you more pro-social, resilient and disciplined than someone who didn’t develop one after serving? How?

[Anonymous]

Can we get back to the topic at hand? What are the next steps for these DEI employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:lol @ the super dumb poster who thinks veterans preference isn’t part of DEI. It absolutely is. And it particularly falls under the “i.” Damn the American education system is really failing people.

Veterans preference is based on a particular type of work experience that reflects virtue and self-sacrifice - it’s WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DO (serve in the military) versus DEI, which is based on characteristics that are not in your control. Normal people can see the difference.

It’s not based on work experience. It’s literally based on how disabled the veteran is. You can argue the merits of “rewarding” people in that situation, but ceases to be about merit (i.e., innate ability) or any type of work experience if that is the main criteria by which the preference is applied.

Getting blown up at work is work experience. Shove it.

Why should the veteran who didn’t get blown up get less preference?

So your point is that you want veterans to get equal preference? Argue away. Still in a different category than DEI.

No I want you to explain why one type of veteran deserves a higher preference than the other. Your argument is that veterans preference is not DEI because the service experience is work that provides them unique skills that make them more qualified. But how is a disabled veteran MORE qualified than one who isn’t? What additional skill do they have because they developed a service-connected cardiac condition?

Because the literal self-sacrifice of your body at work is different.

What extra skill does the veteran who developed a heart condition have compared to the one who didn’t?

Skill is your word. It doesn’t have to confer a skill to be a work experience. Hating on veterans is a really ugly look, so keep doing it because it’s a great red flag for you to carry.

NP. This is your emotion speaking. You believe that veterans have served their country honorably and should get a leg up in hiring for the federal govt. So you think this is a good thing that the govt favor these folk. For other DEI programs, you don’t think these people are worthy of getting any sort of leg up (which is except for veterans is illegal in hiring in govt) and everything should be based on “merit”. So you celebrate the end of “DEI”. But if you were intellectually honest, you would agree that it’s just a matter of who you think is worthy rather than “merit”.

BTW, despite the fact that I get resumes of tons of unqualified veterans that I had to choose from in hiring, I was ok with the process. If they really were not qualified (didn’t have the type of education or skills), I could look at other candidates. But having to read through the vet resumes to see if they could work was a good exercise and I hired one veteran who is hard working and great.

I consider choosing to serve to be a meritorious decision. I don’t think being a certain race or gender is meritorious.

Sorry no it’s like affirmative action or DEI. It’s special treatment.

[Anonymous]

This would be illegal and perhaps unethical for federal employees, but an interesting hypothetical for any else:

Publicly leaked classified documents do not automatically become unclassified just because they've been broadly disseminated by media years ago. Should an unclassified system, say, an email alias or Chief of Staff email address, receive a classified document, security staff would need to take control of system or device until it could be properly sanitized of classified material. Agency security staff that are informed of classified documents inadvertently sent to an agency system would be obligated to act on that notification even if the document's recipient failed to report it.

Just a random thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we get back to the topic at hand? What are the next steps for these DEI employees?

They obviously need to find employment in a different field. No different than people whose jobs are being replaced through automation, or off-shoring, or other advances in technology or social evolution.