The off topic thread 6.0

[moomba]

Time for the ignore button for you.

 

[Cruyff14]

I wouldn't want to work in a workplace that had attitudes like yours. Appointing someone to a position because of their skin colour and sex rather than their abilities. It's racist and sexist.

But why are we here? Harris came nowhere in the 2020 primaries. Being appointed as VP gave her a massive leg up to be the next presidential candidate. The Democrats then rigged their 2024 primaries process so that Biden was the candidate - until all delegate votes had been cast. Then they dumped him and Harris was appointed. If the Democrats had been honest from the start, with Biden not standing because of his mental impairment - Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Tim Kaine might have beaten Harris by their election process.

There's talk of Harris appointing a 'white man' to be her running mate. It's just as racist and sexist as her appointment as VP. For example, it would exclude Gretchen Whitmer and Corey Brooker.

Erm, haven't posts you've made on here previously shown your disrespect and equality toward women?

 

[Bostonian]

Good. We're both happy then. People shouldn't have to deal with attitudes like yours in the workplace.

Just as far more qualified people shouldn't miss out on jobs in workplaces due to people who are less qualified but tick some wanky diversity quota boxes.

 

[SM]

I wouldn't want to work in a workplace that had attitudes like yours. Appointing someone to a position because of their skin colour and sex rather than their abilities. It's racist and sexist.

But why are we here? Harris came nowhere in the 2020 primaries. Being appointed as VP gave her a massive leg up to be the next presidential candidate. The Democrats then rigged their 2024 primaries process so that Biden was the candidate - until all delegate votes had been cast. Then they dumped him and Harris was appointed. If the Democrats had been honest from the start, with Biden not standing because of his mental impairment - Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders or Tim Kaine might have beaten Harris by their election process.

There's talk of Harris appointing a 'white man' to be her running mate. It's just as racist and sexist as her appointment as VP. For example, it would exclude Gretchen Whitmer and Corey Brooker.

I've already explained why vp appointments to the ticket are done that way but as always you refuse to engage in facts and continue to regurgitate nonsense.

She was still elected to the job ultimately by the people.

 

[moomba]

Just as far more qualified people shouldn't miss out on jobs in workplaces due to people who are less qualified but tick some wanky diversity quota boxes.

They don't. Equity and diversity policies have never been about anything except the best candidate getting the job. There is no E&D/DEI/E&I policy that promotes the idea that an under qualified person of any sex or race should get a position over a better qualified candidate.

Gammons hate it because they're insecure. And can't handle the idea that a woman or a person of a different race might actually be the best qualified candidate.

So they write off any job that a woman or a person with an ethnic minority background earns as a DEI hire or similar. To belittle the idea that a white man wasn't the best person for the job.

 

[Bostonian]

They don't. Equity and diversity policies have never been about anything except the best candidate getting the job.

Gammons hate it because they're insecure about women and people of a different race.

Oh yes they do.

I just witnessed it not 3 months ago in a hiring process I was privy too.

One of the least prepared and qualified applicants got the job in front of better candidates.

Didn't have a resume prepared, so they made one for them.

Coached them up for the interview.

Nobody else was given that treatment.

Middle management didn't select them as the best candidate, nor did the manager they'd be working under.

Head of department though over rode their views and the process to put them into the position because of diversity boxes they ticked.

So don't tell me they don't. They absolutely do.

This person has held multiple decent paid positions but didn't have a resume? Nothing suss about that?

 

[moomba]

Oh yes they do.

I just witnessed it not 3 months ago in a hiring process I was privy too.

One of the least prepared and qualified applicants got the job in front of better candidates.

Didn't have a resume prepared, so they made one for them.

Coached them up for the interview.

Nobody else was given that treatment.

Middle management didn't select them as the best candidate, nor did the manager they'd be working under.

Head of department though over rode their views and the process to put them into the position.

So don't tell me they don't. They absolutely do.

They had a resume prepared. They were coached for an interview.

Why would that happen if it wasn't to prove they were the best person for the job?

If you were middle management or the manager they'd be working under it's no surprise that the head of the department didnt trust you not to just chose the best white male candidate you could find.

 

[Bostonian]

They had a resume prepared. They were coached for an interview.

Why would that happen if it wasn't to prove they were the best person for the job?

Why would it happen?

The best candidates already had their own resumes prepared.

Since when does a fairly ran
organisation go out and have a resume prepared for someone who doesn't at that time work for them and then coach them up for the interview?


You think that's a fair process?

This person is in their mid 20s held two previous positions that should require certain qualifications but their resume held none of those.

The fact that someone of that age didn't have a resume doesn't sound suss to you?

Already held positions in the workplace but no resume?

I don't know anyone who has managed to get multiple jobs with organisations that didn't have a resume.

 

[Planet14]

Yep, those poor straight, whites males sure do it tough these days, don’t they?

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Pro diversity laws have made the world a better place and haven't affected me as a white male negatively at all.

I do work with a female indian migrant with a kindergarten aged child. She has about 3-4 factors that'd have people like Frank not hiring her, and she's a wonderful worker.

 

[SM]

I'm regularly on calls at work where I'm the only man on the call, with a large number of women of various backgrounds holding qualified roles in my workplace. I don't sit there thinking "Bloody diversity hires" I just think of them as my colleagues. The notion that people who don't look like me getting roles is not an outrageous one, and nor should it be, but there seems an inclination from the usual suspects above to claim that the only reason people from demographics other than their own getting a role must be because they got a leg up. Ignoring of course the leg up that white men have traditionally benefitted from for hundreds of years. But I suppose when that happened it was different.

Amazingly, of the three managers I've had in my time in the business, my current manager - a woman - is the most intelligent and hard working of the three. But again I'm sure that's just because she was handed the role and is being coached by a white man behind the scenes.

 

[moomba]

Why would it happen?

The best candidates already had their own resumes prepared.

Since when does a fairly ran
organisation go out and have a resume prepared for someone who doesn't at that time work for them and then coach them up for the interview?


You think that's a fair process?

This person is in their mid 20s held two previous positions that should require certain qualifications but their resume held none of those.

The fact that someone of that age didn't have a resume doesn't sound suss to you?

Already held positions in the workplace but no resume?

I don't know anyone who has managed to get multiple jobs with organisations that didn't have a resume.

Yeah I do think it's a fair process. I also think if a white male candidate wants help putting together a cv and being coached for an interview that he should get that support. I'd certainly give that to any of my team that asks.


Many won't ask though because it's easier to complain that the poor white male is being disadvantaged in life.

 

[Bostonian]

Yeah I do think it's a fair process. I also think if a white male candidate wants help putting together a cv and being coached for an interview that he should get that support. I'd certainly give that to any of my team that asks.


Many won't ask though because it's easier to complain that the poor white male is being disadvantaged in life.

Once again, this person wasn't an employee of this organisation.

They didn't offer these things to internal applicants or any other applicants for that matter.

So why would you offer to make a complete strangers resume up for them and then coach them up for the interview?

 

[Planet14]

Back when I did the graduate recruitment, we had an issue for a couple of years running because the female grads were coming across significantly stronger both on resume and interview. Had broader work experience through university, more varied extra-curricular activities, and were much more mature in the interview.

At the same time, the males often came across less mature and articulate. Based solely on CV and interview, we would have employed probably 80-20 in favour of the females some years. But culturally, we like a 50/50 balance. Never going to be perfect, but a roughly even split is preferred. We also understood guys mature slower, but generally come good after a year or two in a professional environment.

As a result, we would take some of the guys ahead of “better’ women, because we valued the cultural benefits, and we were betting on the guys to come good with experience and exposure to a professional environment.

Was that discriminatory? No, just making a business decision. Sometimes there is more nuance to these things that are not apparent from the outside.

 

[Bostonian]

Back when I did the graduate recruitment, we had an issue for a couple of years running because the female grads were coming across significantly stronger both on resume and interview. Had broader work experience through university, more varied extra-curricular activities, and were much more mature in the interview.

At the same time, the males often came across less mature and articulate. Based solely on CV and interview, we would have employed probably 80-20 in favour of the females some years. But culturally, we like a 50/50 balance. Never going to be perfect, but a roughly even split is preferred. We also understood guys mature slower, but generally come good after a year or two in a professional environment.

As a result, we would take some of the guys ahead of “better’ women, because we valued the cultural benefits, and we were betting on the guys to come good with experience and exposure to a professional environment.

Was that discriminatory? No, just making a business decision. Sometimes there is more nuance to these things that are not apparent from the outside.

Sounds like a rubbish business practice to me.

"Betting on the guys to come good".

Wasting time and resources on a vibe.

 

[Planet14]

Wasting time and resources on a vibe.

No, using experience to make a decision. Given a lot of those guys are in senior positions with us or other large organisations right now, I back my judgement.

A hiring decision isn’t a binary decision based on “best” CV or most experience. It is about considering the potential of the person, your ability to train then, how they fit with the current culture, how they will contribute to the culture you are trying to build, how they will liaise with your customers and clients.

 

[DBAH0]

 

[SM]

Sounds like a rubbish business practice to me.

"Betting on the guys to come good".

Wasting time and resources on a vibe.

You strike me as someone who has never had experience or understanding of hiring practices or building business cultures. You think having a homogenous work force generates best practice ideas and ways of working?

 

[Bostonian]

No, using experience to make a decision. Given a lot of those guys are in senior positions with us or other large organisations right now, I back my judgement.

A hiring decision isn’t a binary decision based on “best” CV or most experience. It is about considering the potential of the person, your ability to train then, how they fit with the current culture, how they will contribute to the culture you are trying to build, how they will liaise with your customers and clients.

You must have had a lot of time and money to throw about then for them to be given the time to "come good".

In my experience average or unqualified workers bring down the quality and productivity of the work place.

I started, built up and then sold my own business for a decent amount of money.

Without a doubt it was the hiring of the best people for the job that lead to that outcome.

Without the people I hired that outcome would not have come to be.

I saw in other acquaintances business what happened when the hiring process didn't deliver.

 

[Bostonian]

You strike me as someone who has never had experience or understanding of hiring practices or building business cultures. You think having a homogenous work force generates best practice ideas and ways of working?

Started my own company, built it up then sold it for a lot.

You?

Have you seen the garbage hiring practices of our own Government even?

Seen first hand the hiring practices of something like the ABS and it was the biggest clown show ever.

Large organisations churn through employees left right and centre.

 

[SM]

Started my own company, built it up then sold it for a lot.

You?

Have you seen the garbage hiring practices of our own Government even?

Seen first hand the hiring practices of something like the ABS and it was the biggest clown show ever.

Large organisations churn through employees left right and centre.

That's strange, the business I work for has a very low turnover rate with the majority of moves done internally on the back of strong and diverse hiring practices meaning in almost all instances there's someone already in the organisation with the skills and knowledge for a role.

 

[Bostonian]

I'm regularly on calls at work where I'm the only man on the call, with a large number of women of various backgrounds holding qualified roles in my workplace. I don't sit there thinking "Bloody diversity hires" I just think of them as my colleagues. The notion that people who don't look like me getting roles is not an outrageous one, and nor should it be, but there seems an inclination from the usual suspects above to claim that the only reason people from demographics other than their own getting a role must be because they got a leg up. Ignoring of course the leg up that white men have traditionally benefitted from for hundreds of years. But I suppose when that happened it was different.

Amazingly, of the three managers I've had in my time in the business, my current manager - a woman - is the most intelligent and hard working of the three. But again I'm sure that's just because she was handed the role and is being coached by a white man behind the scenes.

Amazingly none of what you just said supports hiring people who are less qualified over people who are more qualified.

So the women you work with are highly qualified.

Sounds a perfect standard to hire someone for.

It's not a diversity hire if the best person for the job gets it. You get that right?

 

[Bostonian]

That's strange, the business I work for has a very low turnover rate with the majority of moves done internally on the back of strong and diverse hiring practices meaning in almost all instances there's someone already in the organisation with the skills and knowledge for a role.

The ABS let's highly skilled and experienced people go to replace them with fresh out of uni clueless types all the time.

They override team managers wanting to keep amazing workers to replace them with untried and inexperienced workers who generally last a few months then they are gone .

What's also gone from the organisation is the lost skills and knowledge of the older workers they ditched.

Any wonder the country is seen as being run by clowns.

 

[SM]

Amazingly none of what you just said supports hiring people who are less qualified over people who are more qualified.

So the women you work with are highly qualified.

Sounds a perfect standard to hire someone for.

It's not a diversity hire if the best person for the job gets it. You get that right?

As I was not on the hiring panels for each and every employee in my organisation I have no idea what the specific criteria was for each hire, but what I do know is the organisation has ended up having a very diverse and rich pool of candidates for internal moves. You get that having a diverse workforce is actually a strength, right?

 

[SM]

The ABS let's highly skilled and experienced people go to replace them with fresh out of uni clueless types all the time.

They override team managers wanting to keep amazing workers to replace them with untried and inexperienced workers who generally last a few months then they are gone .

What's also gone from the organisation is the lost skills and knowledge of the older workers they ditched.

Any wonder the country is seen as being run by clowns.

Why are you so fixated on the ABS - do you work there? And if so, why not leave and join another organisation if you're so dissatisfied with their hiring standards?