31–40 of 47 posts
So apparently they're spending from "spot bonuses" rather than the annual one, which is different than what the headline suggests, but still... With that much revenue, I find it hard to believe they couldn't allocate separate funds for this -- funds that (as the employees point out) would be recurring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very hot take. I couldn't disagree more. The ultimate aim of these diversity projects is to help members of disenfranchised communities find meaningful employment at good companies. This both strengthens the product and makes the company more attractive - implemented correctly, it can be come a powerful flywheel of benefits. Implemented incorrectly, and it can sink morale without actually empowering, supporting, or h…
How does increasing the pool of labor not decrease the price of labor? This is economics 101.
People who ignore how large their competition was to begin with tend to develop terminal exceptionalism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>we'd see a proactive push among corporations to create inclusive cultures to invite that situation. But we don't Wait, are you saying there has not been a push among corporations to increase diversity? >In 2003, MIT professor Thomas Kochan noted that companies were spending an estimated $8 billion a year on diversity efforts. But since Trump’s election, and with the emergence of movements like #MeToo and Black Lives…
watch the hands not the mouth - take a gander at the demographics of microsoft/facebook/google and you'll see how much they actually support diversity initiatives
Couldn’t the employees decide what they wanted to do with their money?
Silence is consent. And not a single person at Verily would be foolish enough to voice their disagreement on this issue. I hope yearly bonuses are next. Putting your money where you mouth is, as it were. The hypocrisy of Google with its 4% black workforce seems pretty staggering to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Silence is consent. And not a single person at Verily would be foolish enough to voice their disagreement on this issue. I hope yearly bonuses are next. Putting your money where you mouth is, as it were. The hypocrisy of Google with its 4% black workforce seems pretty staggering to me.
With highly skilled workers they are likely to just leave. I would prefer to help the causes that are close to me
This phrase could doom your entire career in today's corporate America, if uttered publicly.
The ultimate aim of these diversity projects is to lower labor costs - either by psychologically manipulating people into accepting lower wages, by focusing on conflict and alignment along racial lines instead of class lines, or simply to expand the available pool of workers.
Very hot take. I couldn't disagree more. The ultimate aim of these diversity projects is to help members of disenfranchised communities find meaningful employment at good companies. This both strengthens the product and makes the company more attractive - implemented correctly, it can be come a powerful flywheel of benefits. Implemented incorrectly, and it can sink morale without actually empowering, supporting, or h…
* It reduces the number of those moments where you do something stupid and insensitive because a bunch of identical-looking people all nodded and said "Sure, I don't see any problems with that".
* It not only increases the talent pool, but gives that new talent a reason to think that they'll actually be accepted because there are already some faces like theirs.
* You get new perspectives on user needs and potential markets.
As, you say, it's easy to do it wrong. But the self-fulfilling prophecy where people hire those who look like themselves -- and then conclude that people who look like that must be the most successful -- is always going to make certain mistakes over and over. Always with the same shrug and "Well, what are you gonna do?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With highly skilled workers they are likely to just leave. I would prefer to help the causes that are close to me
> I don’t buy into equal outcome, only equal opportunity This phrase could doom your entire career in today's corporate America, if uttered publicly.
There may be something worth discussing here, but there's basically zero chance of reasonable discourse unless the title is changed.
So apparently they're spending from "spot bonuses" rather than the annual one, which is different than what the headline suggests, but still... With that much revenue, I find it hard to believe they couldn't allocate separate funds for this -- funds that (as the employees point out) would be recurring.
Yeah, it's a manufactured controversy tying together unrelated line items in the budget. "We can't afford mustard because we spent all that money on postage".
> “At this time, we think it’s important we put our money where our mouth is, and direct some of our discretionary funds — such as those typically used to fund a spot bonus program (which is separate and distinct of our annual bonus program) — to bolster our efforts to ensure our products and services are accessible to the people who need them,” she said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does increasing the pool of labor not decrease the price of labor? This is economics 101.
A labor pool doesn't increase because a company magically discovered under-served minorities. People who ignore how large their competition was to begin with tend to develop terminal exceptionalism.
This isn't even a strawman in this case, since the company in question is literally cutting pay to its workers for the sake of minorities.
The capitalists are very good at starting a race war to keep workers from uniting.