Abolish all DEI initiatives as they are in direct conflict with EEOA laws and discriminate. Fire all DEI hires that are not performing. Restore normalcy in the workforce.
I heavily agree. I have people telling me the workforce might be currently excluding anglo-americans. This is unacceptable. We need a fair workforce for all.
5 Likes
@George_Rapciewicz Which DEI positions?
All hopefully.
3 Likes
So you mean DEI hires.
1 Like
DEI hires hurt organizations. We need to go back to common-sense, merit-based hires, promotions.
9 Likes
A person should be hired based on their merit, qualifications and work experience NOT race nor color. Seems pretty much like common sense to me but we all know common sense isn’t a thing so much anymore.
9 Likes
Common sense went the way of the Dodo bird long ago.
One day at my former job I attended an all-hands meeting at HQ and while using the restroom observed a young Indian man who didn’t seem to know how to operate the sink. I took pity on him and instructed him on the proper use of the sink. I learned that he was a visa worker and shockingly was the same position level as myself despite being half my age.
My boss said it was due to their DEI policies.
Shouldn’t someone with a Principal job title be a more veteran employee experience-wise?
I guess not anymore. But if your a kid from a country without basic plumbing and have dark skin that entitles you to everything I have after 25 years of hard work to attain my level.
Absurd.
And now I can’t find any work to save my life…. Go figure!
2 Likes
All initiatives. DEI is Moasism
1 Like
If they were hired under DEI initiatives and not performing they need to be fired. Thats exactly what I posted.
3 Likes
I don’t really have an issue nor do i think that we should tell private companies who/how to hire. However I do agree with this for all non-private sector jobs.
1 Like
Add be able to fire employees without retaliation chances of Liability from the employee, when given the reason of why the are let go.
2 Likes
Like I said, if they are not performing, then they should be fired.
1 Like
Agreed, but not in any government agency
Title: A Policy Proposal to Abolish DEI Positions: Emphasizing Merit-Based Employment and Workforce Integrity
Introduction:
This proposal suggests abolishing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) positions across government agencies and other sectors, arguing that DEI initiatives may conflict with Equal Employment Opportunity laws, compromise merit-based hiring, and inadvertently encourage discriminatory practices. Advocates for this policy seek to prioritize hiring based on qualifications, experience, and merit while aiming to maintain productivity and workplace morale.
Points One to Four – The Ascent: Critiques of DEI Positions and the Case for Abolishment
-
Conflict with Equal Employment Opportunity Laws
Critics argue that DEI programs may contradict existing Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws, which are designed to prevent discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Abolishing DEI roles would, therefore, eliminate what some view as a double standard, promoting neutrality and fairness in hiring. -
Restoration of Merit-Based Hiring Practices
Many proponents of this policy emphasize a return to traditional, merit-based hiring practices. They believe that qualifications, relevant experience, and performance should be the primary criteria for employment and advancement, free from considerations that may not directly relate to job capability. -
Impact on Organizational Efficiency and Morale
Some employees feel that DEI initiatives lower morale and create division by emphasizing identity over competence. This viewpoint holds that abolishing DEI positions would foster unity and respect among employees by focusing on shared professional goals and individual accomplishments. -
Financial and Operational Costs of DEI Programs
The operational costs associated with maintaining DEI initiatives and positions are a common concern. Detractors argue that DEI programs consume resources and funding that could be directed toward essential operations or employee development programs that benefit all staff members equally.
Point Five – The Summit: Core Argument Against DEI Positions
- The Peak Advantage: Reinforcing Neutral Hiring Standards for Workplace Integrity
Advocates for this policy propose that abolishing DEI positions reinforces neutral, non-discriminatory hiring practices, fostering an organizational culture rooted in equality, unity, and objective standards. By removing these roles, proponents argue, the workforce would become more cohesive and focused on shared competencies rather than demographic differences.
Points Six to Ten – The Descent: Proposed Actions and Practical Considerations
-
Phased Elimination of DEI Positions in Public Sector Roles
A suggested approach is to begin abolishing DEI positions within government agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, and other federal departments, as a pilot measure. Proponents argue this would create a model for how private organizations might follow suit without regulatory mandates. -
Evaluating DEI Hires for Performance-Based Continuation
For current DEI hires, the policy would recommend performance evaluations to determine retention based on job effectiveness. If their roles do not contribute to measurable improvements in organizational performance or employee welfare, it is suggested that these positions be phased out. -
Encouraging Private Sector Autonomy in Hiring Decisions
While the policy advocates abolishing DEI positions in government roles, there is an understanding that private sector companies should retain autonomy in deciding whether to implement DEI initiatives. This allowance acknowledges that private organizations may have specific cultural goals aligned with DEI values and should not be mandated to change unless voluntarily desired. -
Emphasizing Skill Development and Practical Training Over DEI Initiatives
As an alternative, this policy suggests reallocating resources currently dedicated to DEI programs toward skill-building and professional training for all employees. Supporters believe that equipping employees with practical, job-related skills fosters a more robust and adaptable workforce that benefits the entire organization. -
Annual Reviews and Public Transparency in Workforce Policies
To ensure alignment with organizational goals, the policy proposes annual reviews of workforce diversity, skill levels, and overall morale, with transparency to the public. By doing so, the workforce remains adaptable and accountable to both its goals and public standards without reliance on DEI positions.
Conclusion:
The proposal to abolish DEI positions argues for a return to neutral, merit-based hiring practices across public institutions, with a focus on qualifications, skills, and experience. Proponents believe this policy would improve employee morale, reduce operational costs, and maintain compliance with EEO laws. In private sectors, companies would retain the freedom to choose their approach to diversity, but without governmental pressure to adopt DEI initiatives.
Final Thought – “Common-Sense Hiring and the Value of Merit”:
This proposal underscores a viewpoint that hiring and promotion should fundamentally reflect individual ability and contribution. The goal is to restore balance and focus in the workplace, fostering an environment where all employees are respected and evaluated based on merit, thus promoting unity and resilience within the workforce.
3 Likes
Agreed. As a doctor of business this is a sound strategy. I would also incorporate chaos theory and theory of planned behavior
I used to work for government in EEO office. They made us spend so much time on DEI stuff we had trouble getting our job done of managing cases of discrimination. They need EEO people but need to abolish DEI initiatives that are mandated to complete every year.
1 Like