Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Today's office debate


Hawk

Recommended Posts

or maybe this is just Hawk's vent...not sure yet!

I'm all for equality etc when it comes to hiring and promotions etc, but if a company that prides itself on being a leader in diversity etc starts publishing targets, isn't that a little backwards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are talking about the company that you work for then....

yes, that does seem a bit contradictory but you need to further elaborate

yes...the place I currently am. They pride themselves on being an equal opportunity company and they spend loads of money on diversity training and say they are a world leader in equal rights etc.

but, then they go ahead on publish new targets on hiring saying they will hire X amount of females, X amount of minorities and set guidelines for promotions of same etc. They actually also have a Rooney Rule in place now as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes...the place I currently am. They pride themselves on being an equal opportunity company and they spend loads of money on diversity training and say they are a world leader in equal rights etc.

but, then they go ahead on publish new targets on hiring saying they will hire X amount of females, X amount of minorities and set guidelines for promotions of same etc. They actually also have a Rooney Rule in place now as well.

Here's something worse. A co-worker of mine in a previous position, was responsible for doing a lot of firing. And the way it worked out is corporate would pass down an order, like "your department needs to cut 5 people." He actually had to do a racial breakdown to make sure the layoffs didn't seem discriminatory. If the least qualified people were all of the same race, he had to lay off a more qualified person (and often a much more qualified person) of a different race just so he could make sure the company couldn't be sued for discrimination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any company that 'prides' itself on being diverse is full of poo. Do it because you're not a racist pos, not so you have a new marketing angle. IMO if a company has a good track record then they shouldn't feel threatened by discrimination lawsuits. The burden of proof is on the employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes...the place I currently am. They pride themselves on being an equal opportunity company and they spend loads of money on diversity training and say they are a world leader in equal rights etc.

but, then they go ahead on publish new targets on hiring saying they will hire X amount of females, X amount of minorities and set guidelines for promotions of same etc. They actually also have a Rooney Rule in place now as well.

I saw a special on Wal Mart and they never mentioned this....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hawk don't get me started. this is easily one of my biggest pet peeves.

the insanity that goes on because of trying to me quota's. i'm seeing entire business channels suffer all because of this.

the irony is there are certainly better qualified minorities(non white male) in a company but mgmt doesn't see them or that group is cool with where they are at.

so they literally will plug someone off the street into a role, to simply say hey look, we are diverse yo.

STUPID

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I mean it's not even like this was his worst game of the season... I'm not done with him by any means but this feels more the norm for him than the exception:/
    • I'd give it a C mainly because of Brooks.  If we just didn't have a 2nd I'd argue B to B+ tbh. Brooks was a bad gamble, tho one that could still pay off long term. Yes XL only has 400 yards but... Look who is throwing him the ball. And I think he isn't a "true #1" but he's been able to consistently get open. Hands definitely need to be cleaned up.  But he should end the year with 500-600 yards. Like you said - Sanders looks great.  Get him a better QB / more time with a QB and I think he's gonna impress. We added a couple rotational players on D that have both made plays and show promise for the future from later rounds. So I'd say, Brooks really hurts this drafts grade. It'll be interesting to see how it progresses over the next 3 years. I've overall really liked Morgan's FA acquisitions, so...
    • Oh he would absolutely flourish. It’s the panthers way. It’s no different with coaches. Sometimes they reach their expiration date, go somewhere else, and find new success.  Similarly to Burns, how long to wait for the light to finally turn on?  Market forces will demand a salary that the panthers can not responsibly match. Sliding him to guard will fit his skill set better, but he has played LT for 3 years. He will receive offers from other teams wanting to pay him LT money.  At guard, he won’t start with what they have paid Hunt and Lewis. Center then?? Dunno. Maybe? He will become a backup by default once they draft their stud LT. I doubt Dan just stands pat. That’s not his MO.  So where does this put him? Can you match what other teams will offer for a backup LT/guard? Do you dish out franchise LT $ on a guy who still needs significant improvement in pass protection. This team will be DOA in the playoffs with the very first team who has a formidable speed rusher. What if he has hit his ceiling in pass protection already and they sign him long term? It’s a big gamble either way. 
×
×
  • Create New...