You see, in my view any organisation of significant size that does not have an active equal opportunities policy is part of the problem. No, hear me out. Any business- and crossfit is a business- that has a national, if not global, workforce and does not contain significant numbers of minorities should be looking at ways to redress this balance.
[/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
Because diversity for diversity’s sake that’s why. The irony is that the people who are obsessed with homogenized racial and gender distributions across everything everywhere appear more discriminating to me than people who just don’t give a shit and let the chips fall where they may. By enforcing artificial “equal opportunities” policies you are essentially admitting that people of different ethnicities should be viewed and treated differently simply based on their ethnicity. I for one don’t care. If black people choose not to work for Crossfit why do you feel the need to twist their arms about it?
You see, in my view any organisation of significant size that does not have an active equal opportunities policy is part of the problem. No, hear me out. Any business- and crossfit is a business- that has a national, if not global, workforce and does not contain significant numbers of minorities should be looking at ways to redress this balance.
[/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
Because diversity for diversity’s sake that’s why. The irony is that the people who are obsessed with homogenized racial and gender distributions across everything everywhere appear more discriminating to me than people who just don’t give a shit and let the chips fall where they may. By enforcing artificial “equal opportunities” policies you are essentially admitting that people of different ethnicities should be viewed and treated differently simply based on their ethnicity. I for one don’t care. If black people choose not to work for Crossfit why do you feel the need to twist their arms about it?[/quote]
I agree with this completely. Making policies based on race… is racist.
You see, in my view any organisation of significant size that does not have an active equal opportunities policy is part of the problem. No, hear me out. Any business- and crossfit is a business- that has a national, if not global, workforce and does not contain significant numbers of minorities should be looking at ways to redress this balance.
[/quote]
Why?
[/quote]
Because diversity for diversity’s sake that’s why. The irony is that the people who are obsessed with homogenized racial and gender distributions across everything everywhere appear more discriminating to me than people who just don’t give a shit and let the chips fall where they may. By enforcing artificial “equal opportunities” policies you are essentially admitting that people of different ethnicities should be viewed and treated differently simply based on their ethnicity. I for one don’t care. If black people choose not to work for Crossfit why do you feel the need to twist their arms about it?[/quote]
I agree with this completely. Making policies based on race… is racist.[/quote]
I agree that it shouldn’t matter. It’s not something I even think about until suggestions are implanted. You hire the best candidate, which depends a great deal of the applicant pool. Say you have 20 spots and 2 black guys and 50 white guys apply. One of the black guys is, upon review, one of the top of 20 candidates while the other is awful. His ethnicity/race is completely separate from the decision. It’s merely happenstance that one of the bad candidates was black. Even in this model, 19/50 white men (38%) were allotted the same position as 1/2 black men (50%). Theoretically, one could say that the model actually favored black men over white men.
This is why population distribution must be taken into account when determining if a sample is statistically significant. What statistics often ignores is the hypothetical. Say we flipped the model and reappropriated the scalars. We’d get a direct reflection of the former data. Happenstance in this scope. We’d could go further as this is a simplification, but the point is that the ethnicity/race are not the independent variables (outliers i.e. real racists aside).
This is where we disagree.
You think that employers, in the absence of state regulations, will hire the person most suitable for the job, and the best way for them to do this is in the absence of any reulation whatsover.
To a more limited extent, so do I. Where we disagree is on the question of regulation.
I’m not arguing for state regulation- I’m arguing for large companies and institutions to be held to the same standards as the state. Which, in many ways, they resemble.
This is where we disagree.
You think that employers, in the absence of state regulations, will hire the person most suitable for the job
To a more limited extent, so do I.
I’m not arguing for state regulation- I’m arguing for large companies and institutions to be held to the same standards as the state. Which, in many ways, they resemble. [/quote]
No they dont.
Because there is more than one in any given area and they have no alleged monopoly on using force.
Usually, they use the state to provide that force, so the distinction is irrelevant.
Besides, two companies serving, say, 90% of the population constitutes a virtual monopoly.
My argument is that the state should not promote the interests of one private party over another, unless one private party is guilty of a breach of the peace, and is in clear violation of the law.
Using policemen to stop miners from striking does not fall within that definition.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
This is where we disagree.
You think that employers, in the absence of state regulations, will hire the person most suitable for the job, and the best way for them to do this is in the absence of any reulation whatsover.
To a more limited extent, so do I. Where we disagree is on the question of regulation.
I’m not arguing for state regulation- I’m arguing for large companies and institutions to be held to the same standards as the state. Which, in many ways, they resemble. [/quote]
Why wouldn’t employers make their best attempt to hire the person most suitable for the job without the “help” of the government? If there’s one thing you can count on in the corporate world it’s greed, and greed is colorblind.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Usually, they use the state to provide that force, so the distinction is irrelevant.
Besides, two companies serving, say, 90% of the population constitutes a virtual monopoly.
[/quote]
Ah governments can be bribed by companies.
Interesting.
Also, a virtual monopoly is virtually no monopoly.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
This is where we disagree.
You think that employers, in the absence of state regulations, will hire the person most suitable for the job, and the best way for them to do this is in the absence of any reulation whatsover.
To a more limited extent, so do I. Where we disagree is on the question of regulation.
I’m not arguing for state regulation- I’m arguing for large companies and institutions to be held to the same standards as the state. Which, in many ways, they resemble. [/quote]
Why wouldn’t employers make their best attempt to hire the person most suitable for the job without the “help” of the government? If there’s one thing you can count on in the corporate world it’s greed, and greed is colorblind.[/quote]
Yeah- I’m saying that collaboration between the state and private institutions is unseemly, unless the public interest is served by such collaboration.
The state, incidentally, does not exactly have a ‘monopoly’ on the use of force. Other states can use force within its borders within the limits permitted by international law.
But that’s by the by. The central point is that the use of state force to enforce a private interest, such as preventing unions from acting lawfully to further the interests of their members at the behest of another private interest, such as a company.
From that, we deduce that the use of state force to ensure equal opportunities in the workplace is unseemly.
But so is the use by such a company of hiring policies that would prevent certain minorities from taking perfectly legal employment that they are most competent to perform. Should candidates not prevent themselves, a policy should be pursued whereby they are encouraged to.
You’d think so. I would, too.
The statistics suggest that is not the case. Where a theory is contradicted by evidence, the theory is wrong.
While we’re at it, couldn’t we just have large companies with virtual monopolies encourage minorities to breed more? You know, since it’s apparently their responsibility to encourage racial diversity.
The majority of the people I work with in this building are from India. Being white, I’m actually a minority here. If it was corporate policy to hook me up with random white girls from HR and marketing, I wouldn’t complain.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
While we’re at it, couldn’t we just have large companies with virtual monopolies encourage minorities to breed more? You know, since it’s apparently their responsibility to encourage racial diversity.
The majority of the people I work with in this building are from India. Being white, I’m actually a minority here. If it was corporate policy to hook me up with random white girls from HR and marketing, I wouldn’t complain.[/quote]
lol
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Sorry, is breeding now a part of company policy?[/quote]
I would say yes, because otherwise you have black/white/hispanic hybrids with a dash of undetermined Indian, meaning, dots or feathers ?, and HR staffs do not have the intellectual resources to handle that.
If they could do math, they would do something else.
