Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

tracingwoodgrains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 724 posts

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#351

Post by [deleted] »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #336
flocciput wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there isn't another legal way to do it The least harmful way to improve hiring outcomes for qualified individuals from historically marginalized groups is to increase their representation in your hiring pool. That's fundamentally it. This means making the effort to recruit at e.g. career fairs for Black engineers and conferences for women in STEM in addition to broader venues, and to do outreach at low-income high…

> The least harmful way to improve hiring outcomes for qualified individuals from historically marginalized groups is to increase their representation in your hiring pool. That's fundamentally it. Except that that won't actually improve hiring outcomes, if by "improve hiring outcomes" you mean "hire more individuals from historically marginalized groups". You're saying that hiring is a pipeline problem. And that's tr…

[deleted]

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#352

Post by scott_w »

teractiveodular wrote: post #347
scott_w wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird how I knew performative outrage would be the response, just as night follows day.

It's not performative outrage, it's a statement of fact. You didn't merely widen the net, you spearfished candidates of the right race and ignored those of the wrong ones. Regardless of your intentions, how is that not racist?

> Just for clarity, this was for a publicly posted job position, so non-target candidates were able to, and did, put in applications. They were assessed the same way target candidates were.

Try again.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#353

Post by intended »

aesh2Xa1 wrote: post #296
alcima wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was deeply aware of it at the time - was not really a DEI issue even then - it was pure cronyism.

The source article includes primary material that strongly contradicts your anecdote. The policy change arrived in 2013, and there are materials from that same year indicating DEI. For example, here's an FAA slide from 2013 which explicitly publishes the ambition to place DEI as the core issue ("- How much of a change in jo performance is acceptable to achieve what diversity goals?"): https://archive.ph/Qgjy5 The evi…

I found one thing odd, which was outside of the scope over the zero sum game being fought here.

If you are understaffed, AND you are hiring traditionally, it would make sense that recruiting people would go up. That would mean diverse hires anyway - based on the article, it seems that even increasing diversity was not between undeserving candidates and ideal candidates (the second band section of the article)

Is the third variable at play here a lack of funding from congress for recruitment?

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#354

Post by readthenotes1 »

gadders wrote: post #179

This is so depressing. This is the sort of DEI effort that gives the rest a bad name. It should never, ever be about hard quotas. It absolutely should be about using some contextual information (factoring the person's school environment in) and challenging assumptions about stereotypes so that you are not deciding who is best on assumptions but on evidence.

"This is the sort of DEI effort that gives the rest a bad name."

I'd be interested to read about a DEI effort that gives the rest a good name.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#355

Post by thomastjeffery »

RIMR wrote: post #325
thomastjeffery wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you think communism has been implemented correctly?

China is an economic giant that strongly competes with the the supremacy of the United States. "Correctly" is a hard test to pass, because everyone is going to have a different opinion of what is "correct", but it's impossible to honestly say that China's government hasn't been effective and successful, policy disagreements notwithstanding.

Yes, but is China actually communist? That's the point that needs to be contended with, and you seem rather intent on avoiding it instead.

Everyone does in fact have a different opinion on what communism is or should be. That means that we should not pretend that China has exhaustively implemented the entire subject!

Yes, we can point to China as an example of what can happen when a specific group of people implements their specific idea of what communism means. No more, no less. That is literally the point you brought up.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#356

Post by [deleted] »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #336
flocciput wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there isn't another legal way to do it The least harmful way to improve hiring outcomes for qualified individuals from historically marginalized groups is to increase their representation in your hiring pool. That's fundamentally it. This means making the effort to recruit at e.g. career fairs for Black engineers and conferences for women in STEM in addition to broader venues, and to do outreach at low-income high…

> The least harmful way to improve hiring outcomes for qualified individuals from historically marginalized groups is to increase their representation in your hiring pool. That's fundamentally it. Except that that won't actually improve hiring outcomes, if by "improve hiring outcomes" you mean "hire more individuals from historically marginalized groups". You're saying that hiring is a pipeline problem. And that's tr…

[deleted]

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#357

Post by dmix »

fallingknife wrote: post #291
eastbound wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2021, the Al Jezeera documentary on Boeing’s airframes was commented in Yt as a DEI scandal. Post-reframing consists in telling people it wasn’t introduced as this, which may be true for journalists but clearly understood by the audience as a DEI issue, then claiming the DEI issue is slapped upon an existing problem. Agressive DEI has been uniformly contested since it was introduced, by (practically) everyone who…

Not yet. The SC has ruled it illegal for university admissions but it somehow still remains allowed for corporate hiring. Even then, just because the court has ruled on it doesn't mean it will actually stop. The DEI people are snakes and will continue to find more sneaky ways to implement their illegal racist quotas and more newspeak to describe it in a "legal" way.

It’s also still deeply embedded in education. DEI might be less popular in the workforce but in primary and secondary education stuff like lowering standards, ignoring test failures, removing gifted classes, merging special needs classes in mainline, changing classroom conflict resolution to not remove disruptive kids from classrooms, etc are all still going strong and increasing in prevalence. That will have a ripple effect in the workforce for decades after the Overton window has shifted back.

And in the US the federal government can’t stop it as it’s mostly defined in local and state gov (which is many times larger than the federal workforce). Dept of Education would only have limited influence there.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#358

Post by jmye »

throwaway-blaze wrote: post #288
legitster wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI is just a loose label for having less discrimination in the workforce. There's nothing that implies exclusion unless you are intentionally bad faithing the meaning. Imagine the FAA was only attending job fairs in white parts of the country. Then they decide to attend job fairs in more diverse parts of the country. No one would suddenly decide they were prejudiced against white people! There's a difference between…

The problem here is that the notion that "DEI is just a loose label for having less discrimination in the workforce" is always hidden behind by people who want to use it for more forceful discrimination. It would serve those who truly just want to make sure our society all starts from the same starting line to come up with a new term, one that encompasses meritocracy as the goal along with generous helping hands alon…

> The problem here is that the notion that "DEI is just a loose label for having less discrimination in the workforce" is always hidden behind by people who want to use it for more forceful discrimination.

Nah. The problem is dishonest hucksters who want to broadly label everything, regardless of applicability, as bad in an effort to provide their supporters with an easy “anti-X” bumper sticker.

DEI advocates came up with DEI to do precisely what you suggest - the right wing rebranded it as “everyone hates white men” and “be afraid of black pilots”. Almost like they just did the same thing with “woke” and “CRT” before it.

It’s extremely tiring to have people like you waltz into conversations to complain about terms you’re busily redefining, being used in their original context, because you don’t like what your own redefinitions imply.

> _class and income_

Yes, part of my company’s DEI effort was to ensure that a JD didn’t, for instance, specify a college degree if it wasn’t really needed. Thank you, again, for restating things that are already occurring because you’re not a part of those conversations or are unaware of those conversations.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#359

Post by clutchdude »

teractiveodular wrote: post #338
clutchdude wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: > Has this had a long-term impact on aviation safety and air traffic controller shortages? Likely yes. This was a terrible conclusion. Ask any ATC person what's up with staffing and "COVID training and hiring disruptions" will be in the first few sentences they say. The fact this article goes on and on without a single mention of the impact COVID has had gives me all the stock I need to place in it.…

This article is not talking about COVID, it's talking about the absurd changes to the hiring process that disadvantaged qualified candidates in favor of people who said science was their worst subject in high school (15 points). How could this not have an impact on hiring?

Because COVID happened much sooner and has likely had a bigger impact than the hiring practices from a decade ago - notice we don't have a concrete number of "disadvantaged qualified candidates" from this article. Whereas, I can point COVID with actual numbers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42952695

If we're going to say "Did that contribute to a shortage of qualified ATC..?" then you have to considering all inputs into what is a current conversation rather than extrapolate your already asserted points from the article.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#360

Post by stackedinserter »

scott_w wrote: post #304
stackedinserter wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> left software engineering to become a paramedic around 2012 after experiencing misogyny Said who? Maybe she wasn't a good developer or a teammate, how do you know? Did you talk to her ex-coworkers?

You’re exhibiting all the behaviours that push women out of Software Engineering right in this post.

Got it, millennia old "listen to the other side" principle pushes women out of software engineering. Such a pity.
Post reply on HN