Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI sucks and on January 21, 2021 they were forcing us to declare our pronouns in emails and meetings.

No they weren’t.

We were told that a proper signature block should include pronouns

I have friends at several agencies. Some agencies directed their employees to include pronouns and other agencies did not.

This. Although I have colleagues who put it in their signature block; I did not.

I have it in my signature block because my name is 95% assumed to be male. It clears up a lot of confusion and is better than having Ms. before my first name.

Personally, I’d prefer to have a Ms. before my name. The pronouns seem like virtue signaling more so than gender signaling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reaction to this? Good? Bad?

This is what the voters want.

This is what a bunch of a-holes want.

You considered those roles to be value added to your agency?

Thank bloody hell.

Last few emails from our DEIA office have included Webinar invites on talks for

How to decolonize
Harvesting bison meat and safety implications
Institutional racism
Cultural appropriation
Anti-racism progress: is not being racist enough?

Just whacky, zainy stuff. DEIA is a made up cottage industry that serves zero purpose at making people more productive to meet organizational goals. All it does is foster resentment, division, and workplace toxicity when all people want to do is go to work. None of this stuff is appropriate for work. If you want outside lectures, fine, do whatever. Why are you using professional resources to setup meetings about eating bison meat? It's lunacy.

Anonymous wrote:Not a fed so curious about the leave with pay idea. Is that just a short timeframe until they get fired?

Yes, it’s until they are able to review the job responsibilities of each employee to ensure their primary focus was on DEI. Those who also performed traditional HR or ERO functions will likely not get fired.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI sucks and on January 21, 2021 they were forcing us to declare our pronouns in emails and meetings.

No they weren’t.

We were told that a proper signature block should include pronouns

I have friends at several agencies. Some agencies directed their employees to include pronouns and other agencies did not.

Wow I am surprised about that. Was that in writing?

Our signature templates were updated to include it

That is not “forcing” anything

Ours was also pushed in the leadership courses that are on the path to senior leadership. Sure, some adhered to it more than others, just like some will do with the direction now, but in both cases vocally resisting would likely be career limiting. Maybe that’s not your definition of forcing but it’s a distinction without a difference.

Agree. That's the major problem with so many DEI-related programming. You weren't "forced" to do something but it was also made clear one way or another if you didn't conform, you wouldn't advance or be taken seriously. That's why the groupthink spread so rapidly. The pronouns especially.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI sucks and on January 21, 2021 they were forcing us to declare our pronouns in emails and meetings.

No they weren’t.

We were told that a proper signature block should include pronouns

I have friends at several agencies. Some agencies directed their employees to include pronouns and other agencies did not.

This. Although I have colleagues who put it in their signature block; I did not.

I have it in my signature block because my name is 95% assumed to be male. It clears up a lot of confusion and is better than having Ms. before my first name.

Anonymous wrote:My agency must have had some inside information because last fall they changed the name of the DEI office to EEO.

If that was done after the election, how is that inside info and not just common sense to read the tea leaves? I’ve been amazed how many around our ofc didn’t see this was coming including the announcements about the upcoming promotion cycle which seemed to be steaming ahead without acknowledging that the DEI graded would need to be removed

Anonymous wrote:Look I hate to see anyone's job impacted by this administration, but do people genuinely feel like these sorts of initiatives/programs do anything to actually enhance any aspect of the workplace?

I'm someone who believes racism is a big problem. But I see a ton of hugely problematic "DEI" work. A lot of organizations went all in on this but there is zero evidence behind most of the trainings. It would be fine if they were just piloting them slowly but instead it is hours and hours of berating White people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI sucks and on January 21, 2021 they were forcing us to declare our pronouns in emails and meetings.

No they weren’t.

We were told that a proper signature block should include pronouns

I have friends at several agencies. Some agencies directed their employees to include pronouns and other agencies did not.

Which agencies did? You should be able to say.

Department of Labor was one of them.

Not a fed so curious about the leave with pay idea. Is that just a short timeframe until they get fired?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the reaction to this? Good? Bad?

This is what the voters want.

This is what a bunch of a-holes want.

Anonymous wrote:DEI sucks and on January 21, 2021 they were forcing us to declare our pronouns in emails and meetings.

My Agency never forced us to do this..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering how many people impacted by this are straight white men? I’m guessing not to many.

Guessing not many White men got these jobs in the first place.

Exactly. So this is effectively targeting minorities.

Only because the original hiring was discriminatory.

I'm not a fed, but DEI is part of my organization's work and people volunteer to support it. We have 15 people, 5 are White men. None of them volunteered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI sucks and on January 21, 2021 they were forcing us to declare our pronouns in emails and meetings.

No they weren’t.

We were told that a proper signature block should include pronouns

I have friends at several agencies. Some agencies directed their employees to include pronouns and other agencies did not.

Wow I am surprised about that. Was that in writing?

Our signature templates were updated to include it

That is not “forcing” anything

Ours was also pushed in the leadership courses that are on the path to senior leadership. Sure, some adhered to it more than others, just like some will do with the direction now, but in both cases vocally resisting would likely be career limiting. Maybe that’s not your definition of forcing but it’s a distinction without a difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering how many people impacted by this are straight white men? I’m guessing not to many.

Guessing not many White men got these jobs in the first place.

Exactly. So this is effectively targeting minorities.

Only because the original hiring was discriminatory.

So hiring anyone who isn’t white is discrimination

Anyone? Of course not. But if you ONLY hire people who aren’t white…

Or your last 4 hires for Sr positions have been transgender. (you know who you are defense contractor in NOVA)