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

711–720 of 724 posts

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#711

Post by ConradJarret »

riskable wrote: post #326
ImJamal wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I deliberately hire whites more than other races nobody would deny that is discrimination. If I deliberately hire more minorities than whites, that is not discrimination?

That depends: Are you underpaying them? The question, "why" matters here a lot. "I tend to prefer minorities because I can underpay and get away with more" is a thing that exists in the real world. See: Immigrant farm workers and H1B visa holders. Is that discrimination against white/majorities or is it a kind of discrimination against minorities? It's injustice, for sure but I point it out because DEI policies, disc…

Holy shit.

You can still delete this.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#712

Post by soared »

hyeonwho4 wrote: post #624
soared wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extra resources for schools = free breakfast, lunch, afterschool activities = kids cost less money = parents can work less demanding/normal hour jobs = more parental involvement. That’s a lot of logic, but resources for schools is a lot more than free food, better books, etc. schools are one of the best ways to distribute community resources. The alternative (read: kids who got expelled from normal schools) near me h…

I agree that free healthy food for all kids is a great idea. Unfortunately, I have very little trust in US school administrators and school districts to provide healthy meals which nourish children instead of food industry espoused slop which sets them up with an unhealthy eating habits for life. Here's a comparison of school meals in Korea vs. the US. There are similar comparisons with Japan, France, and Germany. So…

For low income kids, healthy v not doesn’t matter when the alternative is not eating. Ideally yes we provide healthier food, but that shouldn’t stop us from providing free meals even if they’re not amazing.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#713

Post by handoflixue »

lazide wrote: post #706
handoflixue wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Associates. You know like people who literally belong (aka associate) to the same organization? First, the FAA and the NBCFAE are different organizations. Second, "Associate" does not mean "employed at the same massive organization". It means someone you actually know, on a personal level. You and I are not "associates" just because we both post on Hacker News. Third, the question is whether you're associated with…

I’m saying going out of your way to get people from a specific organization that you are also a member of hired where you work, is cronyism. Also, going out of your way to hire people of specific skin color where you work, is racism. Seems like a bunch of folks at the FAA were doing both here, yes?

Totally agreed on this being racist, illegal, and just absurdly unethical. I just think the way you're understanding the word "cronyism" is going to lead to a lot of confusion, because it's not the way most people use it.

I'll offer up the Wikipedia definition, since it is perhaps slightly clearer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism defines it as "friends or trusted colleagues".

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#714

Post by lazide »

brookst wrote: post #707
frugalmail wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Affirmative Action is racisim. If you don't believe it, find the FAA people (or college students, law enforcement, numerous other recent cases) that were more qualified and excluded and ask them.

Affirmative action is racism. So is the lack of affirmative action. Turns out this is a complex topic. Anyone pushing a simplistic viewpoint either doesn’t understand the topic or has ulterior motives.

So what is the answer? Because racism in hiring is illegal.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#715

Post by intended »

lazide wrote: post #606
immibis wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Advertising your jobs to more people (including black ones) might help you find more candidates. If you're not finding enough candidates AND you're only finding white candidates, something is wrong, innit? There are all those people who aren't white who might be candidates who for some reason you're ignoring.

How long do you go before you call it quits, and how many white candidates do you need to pass over before you find ‘enough’ black candidates? What consequences need to happen with all those unfilled roles before it is ‘enough’? Especially since the market of people willing to work the job AND take the pay AND work in the area is not infinite. We’re talking about a group which went out of its way (apparently) already…

Why pass over any white candidates?

You have more spots than you have qualified candidates. Even if you take your second band candidates, its still short the number you need.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#716

Post by thatguy0900 »

apical_dendrite wrote: post #312
Manuel_D wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> he said to answer the question about how many sports you played in high school honestly, but that was one of the questions where some answers would give you more points than others. That's exactly what is alleged: Snow told applicants which answers were worth the most points. This is what Snow himself claimed, too. And the FAA's internal investigation did have witnesses say that they were instructed on how to respo…

Right, my point is that instead of providing the answer that would get the applicant the most points, he told them to answer honestly. That doesn't make sense if his goal was to cheat.

You don't need a perfect score, you just need enough points to pass. There's no reason to cheat on every question, just enough of them

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#717

Post by TraceWoodgrains »

clutchdude wrote: post #693
TraceWoodgrains wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the methods of selection aren’t selective at all (the “qualified” bar on the AT-SAT only eliminated some 5% of candidates), “qualifying citizens” is a bit misleading. Yes, academy attrition. I don’t disagree that the 2013 sequester played some role, but to radically change hiring practices in the wake of the sequester and then blame radically higher washout rates primarily on the sequester doesn’t pass the sniff…

So are we just going to ignore COVID as an impact on the most recent staffing issues?

Of course not. Multiple things can be (and are) factors at the same time. I'm not asking people to ignore COVID, I'm asking them to not ignore this.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#718

Post by clutchdude »

TraceWoodgrains wrote: post #717
clutchdude wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are we just going to ignore COVID as an impact on the most recent staffing issues?

Of course not. Multiple things can be (and are) factors at the same time. I'm not asking people to ignore COVID, I'm asking them to not ignore this.

Ok-but you make a sweeping statement about the impact to safety and ATC numbers in the wake of an air tragedy - do you expect me to weigh this as heavily as COVID?

While I agree with the surface evaluation(you have likely lower quality initial candidates(not necessarily race induced) = more academy failures = more pressure on upstream DEV/CFC training) - you'd need to identify a few things such as why the spike didn't occur in 2014-2016 in such large #s compared to 2017, what safety data tells us about this time and how number of flight actions per controller has changed over time after this hiring change.

I find it somewhat disingenuous to consider safety and tie it back to this as you present it as the only cause while failing to mention other inputs.

This is NOT TO SAY you do not have a very valid discussion here - I just am frustrated to see it tied into modern day without hashing through other modern causes - folks who want to point a finger at "disadvantaged candidate hiring." get all the hay they need when nothing else is mentioned.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#719

Post by fallingknife »

jquery wrote: post #545
fallingknife wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I intend to slur the DEI goons. My opinion of the DEI bureaucracy is such that there is no way to express it politely. 'Contempt' and 'hate' would be such an understatement as to be dishonest.

So what do you think of all the "DEI" hires in the Trump administration? Or do you think a second-rate alcoholic domestic abusing Fox News host is the best individual on the merits to run the DoD?

Not a fan

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#720

Post by smsm42 »

legitster wrote: post #83

This is a fascinating read, but the thing that bugs me about this whole affair is that when this came to light many years ago it was treated as a cheating and recruitment scandal. But only recently has it been reframed as a DEI issue. Taking old, resolved scandals - slapping a coat of culture war paint on it - and then selling it as a new scandal is already a popular MO for state-sponsored propoganda, so we should be…

How it's "resolved"? Just because it happened a while ago (and continued in some different form since then pretty much until now - a lot of "we love DEI" stuff from FAA that I've seen are pretty recent) does not make it "resolved". Also, people still remember and discuss stuff that happened decades ago, including on HN, all the time. I don't see why the exception must be made for this story, so that since it started a while ago, it must never be mentioned again.

Your reference to "state-sponsored propoganda" is very strange too - if you accuse the author of being the agent of some state, say it openly - and bring the receipts to prove it. Otherwise, this kind of innuendo should not have a place anywhere.

Post reply on HN