Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sounds like what you actually need is what my company called a "business analyst"--the tech-savvy, non-developer bridge between the two.
No, it's not wrong. That's not the same thing. In Australia its quite normal for people to add a language qualification to required skills. The way things are going, Mandarin will be mandatory. About the only way to be bilingual here is to be born into a migrant family. The education system does not even teach English. Business needs to be free to go about it the way it chooses. If they get it wrong, they will pay.Is it wrong for someone to say "I would like a diverse workforce to reach a diverse world?" Economics is a global game now.
I read your post, you did not refer to the article, you said typical business practice.
My post does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in the thread of all my other posts.
I had colleagues who had two passports to allow travel to countries that objected to each other. A second passport is useful if you apply for visa but still need to travel to other countries while waiting.I worked for an Israeli company. We could sell the US version to the Muslim countries, but our team had to get new passports if they had been in Israel so they could travel to some ME countries. That got interesting for them.
I can still see the mans face on TV saying one day .. his hope " I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Thank and PRAISE GOD allot of company's don't go by how the color of your skin. Not all are haha woke
All of a sudden a lot of people want to quote that one line but studiously ignore everything else he had to say.
It's what is classified as systemic racism rather than blatant racism, the person doing it isn't necessarily racist, and they aren't doing it in order to benefit or repress a certain race. But the end result is that the white male demographic ultimately benefits and the non white male demographics are ultimately left out in the cold.
People don't consider, is what I am doing fair based on demographics or is it disadvantaging some?
Instead they innocently conclude, well this person came highly recommended, they have the necessary skills, the person that referred them said they are honest and great to work with, so I'd be a fool not to hire them and so yet another white gets a job where other people from other demographics weren't even considered.
It's insane. Reverse discrimination is still racist.
That is the problem with a voting system, you will mostly get majority rules.@stevil we've never had an openly atheist president.
That is the problem with a voting system, you will mostly get majority rules.
I don't accept that a society should be based on majority rules.
They should instead have to prove that something is dangerous to society otherwise they should not be able to stop consenting adults from doing things that don't harm others or society.
It's the basis of an idea known as "colorblind". It's not literal of course, but it is an aspiration of treating people the same way regardless of race. That's to say that we should not treat race as a factor in the way we treat people.
The only other real option is called "race essentialism" and that's where we look at race, make assumptions about it, and factor those assumptions into the way we treat people.
Race essentialism doesn't have a good track record. It's a big part of slavery, Jim Crow, the Chinese exclusion act, Japanese internment, eugenics, realistically every racial hate group, and it's not unique to the US. The Rwandan genocide included the idea that certain physical characteristics could differentiate between Hutu and Tutsi.
Every group that has ever insisted upon race essentialism believed they could correctly describe characteristics of race....and used that belief to justify injustice.
It's taken several hundred years to get to the point where a majority could understand how wrong this was an at least begin aspirations to a colorblind society and it's pretty odd to see that thrown aside so quickly.
That is the problem with a voting system, you will mostly get majority rules.
I don't accept that a society should be based on majority rules.
For example, I don't consider gay marriage to be something that the people should vote on.
Government should have some limits.
They shouldn't be able to outlaw something, just because the majority wants it outlawed.
They should instead have to prove that something is dangerous to society otherwise they should not be able to stop consenting adults from doing things that don't harm others or society.
Colleges and universities do this already with their hiring practices.One of world's largest investment firms will need permission to hire White men
Leaders at one of the largest investment firms in the world, State Street Global Advisors, will need to ask permission to hire White men as it rolls out a diversity hiring initiative.
Literal double standards for white men and monetary incentives to not hire them.
The firm will still hire White men, McNicholas said, but recruiters are required to show that women and minority applicants were interviewed by the panels.
Does anyone actually see this as a good way to improve upon the days when racial discrimination was the norm? By making racial discrimination the norm?
Sometimes, white males don't get the jobs solely because they didn't tick that diversity checkbox.
Society will never be "colorblind." Of course they see it. They're going to see it as a point of aesthetics, like hair and eye color, if nothing else.
The issue is how they consider it, what they with it, how they allow it to affect their judgment.
I'll raise an eyebrow at anyone who claims he is. That's like someone saying they don't see beauty. Saying that he doesn't see it only means he has not given any consideration to how it's affecting his judgment.
Colleges and universities do this already with their hiring practices.
What happened when I was working in that environment was, our department needed a new administrator, and my boss who was part of that process was talking about how we'd had a good candidate, but they had to keep the position open since not enough women and minorities were applying. And it was kept open for months, and they didn't get enough interest from minorities and women in that position, and so they eventually went with the candidate from before, who turned out to be a great fit. With a greater backlog from that time we had to wait. Sitting on this for months benefited no one, and it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been a white male.
This of course is for those that get the jobs. Sometimes, white males don't get the jobs solely because they didn't tick that diversity checkbox. Now, they might not end up on the street, but they will often be embittered against this kind of hiring policy. The most angry and vocal opponents of affirmative action that I have come across have been such people.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?