SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ford becomes the latest company to scale back its diversity and inclusion policies:
Ford is changing some of its diversity and inclusion policies, joining a growing list of companies altering their approaches amid a changing legal and political environment and online pressure from the right.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in an email to employees Wednesday that the company has changed some of its policies in the past year. It has shifted its employee resource groups' focus and ended participation in external culture surveys by the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group. In 2017, Ford boasted about its recognition from the organization as one of the best places to work for LGBTQ equality.
Right-wing activist Robby Starbuck posted a copy of the email on X and took credit, saying he had told the automaker he was looking into their policies. (Ford confirmed the accuracy of the email to CNN.)
"We are mindful that our employees and customers hold a wide range of beliefs," Farley wrote in the email. "The external and legal environment related to political and social issues continues to evolve."
Farley said that Ford remains committed to creating an "inclusive workspace and building a team that leverages diverse perspectives, backgrounds and thinking styles."
Ford joins Harley-Davidson, Tractor Supply Co., John Deere and other companies in revising or pulling back on their diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI), support for gay Pride marches and LGBTQ events, strategies to slow climate change and other social policies.
Some companies have backtracked more than Ford. Tractor Supply, for example, announced in June that it will withdraw its carbon emission reduction goals and eliminate jobs and goals focused on diversity, equity and inclusion. It will also stop sponsoring LGBTQ+ Pride festivals and voting campaigns
Starbuck, a former Hollywood music video director turned conservative activist, has claimed credit for these moves. But business experts have told CNN that Starbuck's activism alone does not fully explain these decisions, and some companies' commitments to diversity and inclusion were thin to start.
The Human Rights Campaign criticized Ford's announcement, saying the company was "abandoning inclusive employees policies and support" and "cowering" to Starbuck.
"Ford Motor Company's shortsighted decisions will have long-term consequences," Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said in a news release Wednesday. "Ford Motor Company is abandoning its financial duty to recruit and keep top talent from across the full talent pool. In making their purchasing decisions, consumers should take note that Ford Motor Company has abandoned its commitment to our communities."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MadTinfoilHatter on Monday September 02, @04:03AM (6 children)
Probably no-one unless the diversity requires you to scrap meritocracy and hire less qualified people using competency-irrelevant metrics, such as race, gender or sexual orientation in the process.
That depends on what you mean by that word. If you mean equality of opportunity, then the answer is again probably no-one. If you mean equality of outcome, then the answer is anyone with half a brain.
The equality of outcome bullcrap is one of the reasons communism has never worked and never will. If you guarantee that the outcomes will always be equal, you remove any incentives to work hard. If you remove the incentive to work hard, no-one will, because hard work sucks and the only reason anyone does is the hope the it will pay off in the future. If no-one works hard society will bellyflop into poverty where the little resources that actually get produced are (in theory if not in practice) distrubuted equally, and everyone will be equally miserable.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Samantha Wright on Monday September 02, @06:34AM (4 children)
In practice hiring rarely comes down to pure meritocracy. There are many criteria relevant to workplace success that are not purely matters of competency, such as goodness of fit with the rest of the team, asking salary, relocation costs, and, perhaps most important of all, being related to the boss or the boss's family. Only after carefully considering all of these attributes does a good manager make hiring decisions. The majority of jobs do not really need the best possible candidate, and it is entirely possible to waste a good employee on a mediocre position, which is bad for the economy as a whole.
Besides, it's not like anyone else is going to hire the boss's nephew Kyle—certainly not after he crashed his Lambo while doing 85 in a 35 mph zone and drunk as a skunk. Please, consider Kyle's feelings.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by RS3 on Monday September 02, @02:50PM (2 children)
In general I've been underemployed all my life. Many, including co-workers and even higher-ups have commented that, including shaking their heads about the wasted potential. So it's always frustrated me that hiring is based on the many factors you allude to.
I've gone to many jobsearch workshops, including ones that teach about behavioral hiring, testing, etc. I learned a ton, but have never been happy about the situation.
But, more and more I get it. It's much easier to train someone job stuff. Difficult personalities, not so much. At my current job there are some pretty difficult people, and sadly, as is too often the case, the top boss / owner is a very seriously hard mean person. It's not that bad of a place, but a bit too rough for my liking, so I'm back to jobsearch / resumes. And much like the HR person, I'm looking more for a more pleasant work environment- meaning nicer people- and I care less about exactly what I do. So it works both ways, and I'm learning. :)
The only thing I'd like to strongly emphasize to HR people: when I'm on an interview, I'm not myself. I'm nervous, worrying about how the person is perceiving me, my words, trying to read my mind, body language, extrapolate, etc. Even if you give me personality / behavioral tests, I know how to answer them (taken many dozen classes on it), so it's all kind of silly.
My wish: that it would be much less of a monumental decision process. That it would be much easier to move from job to job to find a good fit. Get rid of the phrase "job hopper".
(Score: 2) by Samantha Wright on Monday September 02, @04:32PM (1 child)
There are upsides to being underemployed, as long as you can make ends meet. If you have both free time and mental energy, you can seriously devote some or all of it to a hobby, or even a startup. This is the favoured environment of aspiring writers, for example, while they work on their books, and of many key parts of the open source movement. Sometimes the solution isn't to find a job that fills you up, but rather to find a job where you're allowed to get all your work done in the mornings and then go home to work on the important stuff.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Monday September 02, @04:45PM
Yes, thank you, much agreed. That was the plan when I took my current job 6 months ago. It has turned into stress that leaves me tired outside of work and barely keeping up with chores. Those hobbies, interests, and even some very useful projects / ideas / potentially patent-able or at least sell-able ideas / projects are collecting dust. Yet another undone chore: dusting!
So I'm considering a horizontal move to a simpler job, or just push upward, meaning selling myself into a higher-paying job that would allow me to buy a newer car (less time spent fixing daily driver), pay lawn service, maybe house cleaner, etc.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Monday September 02, @04:44PM
Yes, arguably the worst of it comes from how the jobs are even advertised in the first place where you have to have an internal recommendation to have any real hope of getting employment and certain people just don't have those connections.
In a lot of cases, diverse people don't even see the job openings.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday September 04, @07:59AM
Note at my organisation we have an EDI policy but not positive discrimination. The two are separate concepts and should not be confused. TFA is about the former - EDI policy - but not the latter - positive discrimination.