Submitted 4 days ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to workreform@lemmy.world
https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/osec/osec20250124
For anyone who, like me, didn’t know:
Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, prohibits discrimination in employment by federal contractors based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and requires affirmative action to ensure equal opportunity in hiring. It aims to promote non-discriminatory practices in the workplace for those doing business with the federal government.
Jfc he just does stuff to be an asshole
No. The truth is much worse. He knows what he’s doing.
There is still Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act that protects that.
I guess workers are going to have to take things into their own hands again.
The moment he takes away protections for race is the moment I stop hiring white people.
In my industry, black people typically have lower salary expectations and have worked harder to get where they are.
I get what you’re saying but you’re also saying that it’s cool to be racist against white people just because some white people are insufferable antisocial mentally deficient assholes.
I would never say this about any race because I’m not racist, all people are the same. What does that make you?
This deals with equal opportunity for federal contractors. It’s not directly tied to labor in the private sector.
But also, yes. I feel like maybe it’s better in the long run if the federal government isn’t looking out for people, and they get accustomed to organizing themselves enough to demand better treatment from their employers without anyone needing to hand it to them.
Maybe.
IDK, maybe I am just trying to rationalize what is guaranteed to happen regardless.
Like they did during the industrial revolution and the coal mining era?
I’ll have to start wearing my Cabin Creek shirt more often.
A fair and equitable workplace should have been ratified in the constitution forever ago. Now we just lost our labor rights enforcement.
Joan Westenberg’s framing of this problem as “technical debt” I think is spot-on. Because congress (especially the Senate) has become unable to pass bills, and states are no longer able to amend the constitution, we have amassed a ton of technical debt in our laws, patched only by executive orders that can be easily swept away by the next executive.
So many things should have already been put in. Then again so many Americans only care about the 2nd amendment so who knows how much it would help
Musk is a racist white South African who grew up in the ownership class and inherited an emerald mine. Behind the Bastards explains just how bad it gets.
He’s going to have to proclivities towards elitism and towards preserving his privilege. And when that is challenged by the rise of class consciousness, it means he’s going to fall on the side of fascist autocracy, oligarchy and monarchism.
No salute is necessary to determine where Mr. Musk falls in this paradigm, and he would rather kill, die and end the world than give up his wealth and power. I hope we don’t have to oblige him, but peaceful efforts to separate the super-wealthy from their ill-gotten gains have not historically succeeded, where guillotines (and hunting down any potential legal heirs, without remorse) have been more consistently effective.
The trick is getting from that moment to one that distributes that wealth and power diffusely or into actually-for-real public-serving institutions. Historically, we fail to do that part and have to kill a sequence of dictators scrambling to own the One Ring for themselves.
On the surface hiring based off merit sounds better than hiring for diversity, but is it that merit is harder to achieve in diverse communities because of socio economic class? Racism basically?
“Merit” is defined by what is measured in most hiring it’s just a preference of the hiring body. As with a bunch of places around where I live, young single women, older women, old white guys, young white guys, and everyone else was the preference order…
What about qualified? Is there an argument to be had about hiring someone that is more qualified rather than on diversity?
I’m not trying to be facetious here. I work as a union electrician and we have a diverse group, but majority of our workforce are men. On one project we needed 2 crew to run trench conduit (an apprentice and journey level to stay in ratio) but because it was a government project the hiring required us to also stay in diversity ratio. So the project manager anticipated the difficulty and hire 3. A woman and 2 men. All 3 were working on the trench, but due to the nature of the work (harder physical labor) the woman ended up holding a sign for the remainder of 6 months she had to be there to “fill” the diversity hire, as the original planned 2 man crew ran the trench to stay on schedule.
In this scenario should there be a bigger budget for diversity hire to compensate the additional labor required due to qualifications not being met? Of course it easily could have been a rock of a woman and 2 men who couldn’t lift a shovel too. But if that was the case the unqualified labor would have been rotated out instead of staying to fill a required diversity slot. It could have been 2 people like originally planned and both could have been women who were qualified to do the work. But that means it’s qualification over them filling their diversity roles.
Reminds me of that one popular Harvard philosophy lecture where the students were arguing whether it’s fair to grant admissions based on race over merit
You know how Milton burns down the building in Office Space?
Elon Musk shouldn’t exist
return2ozma@lemmy.world 4 days ago
They’re ending all investigations into workplace discrimination.
adarza@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
and the firing of all the future ex-federal employees who were loyal to the job, but not the diaper.