Subj : Re: Most memorable modern
To : ARELOR
From : Dumas Walker
Date : Fri Jun 06 2025 09:42 am
> > Sounds like the issue is picking "random" people, DEI or otherwise. If
> > they felt like they had to pick "3 DEI," they should have picked the 3 best
> > to start with and not 3 "random" ones.
> I think the problem there is there are many DEI candidates to pick from and
> human resources kind of asumes they aren't going to be good, therefore they
> don't care.
That is a screwed up way to think about it. You can get what looks like a
"DEI candidate" (to persons who care) but who is also really, really good at
what they do.
> I mean, the purpose of those 3 picks is not to work, it is to fill the
> statistics in the HR spreadshet.
See above. You can check off the box and get a good worker. That is not
anywhere near impossible if HR is doing their job.
Now, if the whole process was to get *7* jobs filled, and hire three people
to check boxes that you know won't show up, that is something else... and
is also messed up, just in a different way.
> What bothers me is they kicked 3 candidates from the regular pool in order to
> bring people in who didn't even bother to show up later.
> Fuck this shit.
Still sounds like their damn fault for assuming those who could "check
their boxes" could also be good workers.
* SLMR 2.1a * I am a Baudaholic.
---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
