Are DEI hires working for the good?
 

I don't watch the mainstream media. This is the sort of stuff I watch. House and Senate hearings.

Real life, not fantasy.

Real life - for Americans not Hullicans :laugh:

While you're all distracted by some TV Doctor going missing for days. I was watching Dr Fauci getting grilled in front of the committee over Covid.

Here's 3 and half hours worth of what you missed. And what you were supposed to miss by looking the other way and being distracted by the dragging out of the disappearence of some TV Doctor.

Hullensians is the proper term for a person of Hull.

Hullenbacks might make more sense.

DEI is a poor practice imo, because you're hiring people based on box ticking exercises, rather than on one of the more important areas.

Like for example:

1. Is the person actually good at their job?

2. If they're not technically the best at their job, are they still needed because it makes sense for the situation that you're in? Like for example if the Police are investigating a case where a Muslim woman has been assaulted, typically speaking she'll be more likely to open up to an officer that is also a Muslim woman, than she would be towards a guy especially, or towards someone with little in common with her on first impression.

It's not just Muslim women that are like this obviously, but it's just the example that I'm using.

And 3. Obviously like any group of people out there, companies have to take a gamble on youngsters, that are looking for a bit of work experience.

But obviously the hiring should be based on the individuals potential at the job, rather than what order the bosses want off the menu at that given moment.

Any workplace benefits from EDI imo (never heard it called DEI before which I guess is American)

People should get appointed or whatever on merit, but we all know this has never really been the case throughout history for a variety of reasons. It's just never been so blatantly stated previously

Jerry on DEI bullshit