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

721–724 of 724 posts

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#721

Post by lazide »

intended wrote: post #715
lazide wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because if your hiring numbers (and workforce composition) don’t line up with what the gov’t expects (applies even more to the gov’t itself) then as a hiring manager you’re in deep shit.

Straight from the president up until Trump (for many administrations), affirmative action is required.

And what the gov’t expects is that your workforce composition aligns with the population as a whole, percentage wise.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#722

Post by intended »

lazide wrote: post #721
intended wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because if your hiring numbers (and workforce composition) don’t line up with what the gov’t expects (applies even more to the gov’t itself) then as a hiring manager you’re in deep shit. Straight from the president up until Trump (for many administrations), affirmative action is required. And what the gov’t expects is that your workforce composition aligns with the population as a whole, percentage wise.

Again that doesnt make sense.

You have 100 open positions.

You filled 50.

You left the other 50 spots open so that you could have the right composition amongst HALF of the required workforce?

Heck, if you hire everyone, you solve this problem completely.

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#723

Post by threeseed »

cyberax wrote: post #408
aikinai wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DEI quotas have been around for decades. We just used to call it affirmative action and it was far less aggressive and blatant.

Affirmative action is strictly _better_ than some of the DEI nonsense. With affirmative action, you just reserve a bunch of positions for minorities, and then give them out based on merit. With most of DEI, you either tweak the criteria to make job positions easier to get for minorities, or you lower your standards.

> With most of DEI, you either tweak the criteria to make job positions easier to get for minorities, or you lower your standards

Do you have a source for this.

I have worked for dozens of enterprise companies with DEI policies and not a single one dropped standards to attract "minorities".

Re: The FAA’s Hiring Scandal

#724

Post by frugalmail »

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.

What I said is based on the 14th amendment, as part of the highest law of the land.

Perhaps anyone pushing doubt with ZERO substance behind their claim has ulterior motives.

Post reply on HN