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: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?

+1

If vets were the best qualified candidates then they wouldn't need special treatment in the first place.

That is, if we really wanted a "meritocracy"...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our DEI head resigned before the inauguration. It’s hard to imagine any staying on give how anti-diversity and exclusionary the incoming administration is.

Ha ha - being against DEI initiatives (which are now being shown to increase racism) does not equal "exclusionary".

[Anonymous]

The organization I work for does some federal contracting and they announced this morning they are halting all DEI programs.

[Anonymous]

will they be offered laterals? is it legal to just fire them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have an idea. They can take the jobs that will now be available due to ICE deportations.

All of their extensive degrees and studies in gender studies, etc., will show its true worth when they try to get real jobs. Might as well pick berries or slaughter chickens for a few years.

Our country will be much better off when Big Food is forced to automate for these jobs. You never hear people in Europe saying "who will carve our sides of beef if we don't let in the Syrians?"

https://howtorobot.com/expert-insight/meat-production-robots-cutting-edge-tech-sustainable-meat-industry

https://www.automate.org/robotics/cobots/collaborative-robots-fruit-picking#:~:text=Guided%20by%20sensors%20and%203D,than%2025%2C000%20raspberries%20a%20day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:will they be offered laterals? is it legal to just fire them?

It would save money, probably. Then they wouldn't have to pay severance.

[Anonymous]

The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

Except for veterans, there has never been affirmative action in government hiring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The moving of DEI people to EEO offices in some agencies won't last. The executive orders made that explicitly clear, so those people will most likely be made redundant soon enough. Any agency that attempts to maintain some kind of DEI undercover will be ruthlessly reformed. Best is to accept that DEI is over and done with and move on. It's a brave new world.

I'll have to admit if the Biden administration hadn't gone so overboard with DEI and just kept the standard generations old affirmative action approach, all of this probably wouldn't be happening.

That's some stasi language, man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DEI head resigned before the inauguration. It’s hard to imagine any staying on give how anti-diversity and exclusionary the incoming administration is.

Ha ha - being against DEI initiatives (which are now being shown to increase racism) does not equal "exclusionary".

Yes, let’s not anger the racists with more diversity or inclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DEI head resigned before the inauguration. It’s hard to imagine any staying on give how anti-diversity and exclusionary the incoming administration is.

Ha ha - being against DEI initiatives (which are now being shown to increase racism) does not equal "exclusionary".

Yes, let’s not anger the racists with more diversity or inclusion.

You should embrace the differences since you claim to want diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DEI head resigned before the inauguration. It’s hard to imagine any staying on give how anti-diversity and exclusionary the incoming administration is.

Ha ha - being against DEI initiatives (which are now being shown to increase racism) does not equal "exclusionary".

Yes, let’s not anger the racists with more diversity or inclusion.

You should embrace the differences since you claim to want diversity.

Fck the racists.

[Anonymous]

My question moving forward is how is it decided if an activity or initiative is DEI and thus forbidden or not. Is the fact that a woman, minority, or disabled person is involved in the activity or is a subject of a course or part of a course equal to it being a DEI activity?

My agency has already panicked and "overcomplied" (yes that word was said to me) so I don't hold out much hope I guess, but, for example, can the Department of Labor include a segment on Frances Perkins as part of its training or is that too woke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DEI head resigned before the inauguration. It’s hard to imagine any staying on give how anti-diversity and exclusionary the incoming administration is.

Ha ha - being against DEI initiatives (which are now being shown to increase racism) does not equal "exclusionary".

Yes, let’s not anger the racists with more diversity or inclusion.

You should embrace the differences since you claim to want diversity.

Fck the racists.

So you don't actually like diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our DEI head resigned before the inauguration. It’s hard to imagine any staying on give how anti-diversity and exclusionary the incoming administration is.

Ha ha - being against DEI initiatives (which are now being shown to increase racism) does not equal "exclusionary".

Yes, let’s not anger the racists with more diversity or inclusion.

You should embrace the differences since you claim to want diversity.

Fck the racists.

So you don't actually like diversity.

I don’t like intentionally obtuse a-holes.

Racism, misogyny, and political a$$battery are not immutable traits.