cross-posted from: https://yall.theatl.social/post/3229309

From the Atlanta Daily World:

In a surprising yet increasingly common move, Microsoft has quietly dismantled its team dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).  The decision, communicated via email to the affected employees on July 1, cited “changing business needs” as the reason for the layoffs. While the exact number of employees impacted remains unclear, the team’s lead didn’t … Continued

The post Microsoft Says Bye-Bye DEI, Joins Growing List Of Corporations Dismantling Diversity Teams appeared first on Atlanta Daily World.

  • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    197
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    Everything a corporation does that’s not outright trying to fuck you out of your time or money is 100% a scam they’re trying to pull to convince you they care.

    I really wish people would stop falling for it, because, well, there’s never going to be real progress made unless there’s the force of law behind things like DEI.

    • bizarroland@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      5 months ago

      I mean the entire purpose of a dei group in a company is to make sure that the company isn’t doing things that will get them fucking sued into the ground, like choosing to only hire young white males for instance.

      If they want to disband this group fine, just that’s going to be exhibit A in all of the lawsuits.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        You mean the lawsuits that will be tossed out by the totally not corrupt upstanding officials at the “Supreme” Court?

        • bizarroland@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Do you realize how difficult it would be to get a simple case like this in front of the supreme court?

          • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Do you realise how easy it will be to get a case in front of the supreme court if it affects the interests of the oligarchy?

            • bizarroland@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              There is a set process. Cases do not simply go directly before The supreme Court.

              They have to first go through the appropriate venue in whatever jurisdiction they originate in and go through trial and then after that if the results of that trial are not satisfactory then they can be appealed which would mean they would then go to a district court and then if they’re not satisfied with that then they can petition the supreme Court to review the appellate Court’s decision.

              You’re talking years and millions of dollars worth of lawyer fees for each case. Anyone with a drop of sense will attempt to settle the case long before it reaches the supreme court.

              While I definitely understand your stance and your disenfranchisement with the American political system, as of right now, there are still functioning sections of the American government

      • SeaJ@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        An assessment test I did for a job recently was essentially just an SAT and IQ test. None of it had to do with the position but it was a quick way for them to say “no foreigners.”

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      5 months ago

      I dunno. I’m a believer that there is real benefit to diverse teams and there is some evidence in support of this. Seems like a diverse team could really help a company figure out how to keep fucking the money out of you harder.

      • TheOneCurly@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Doing good work takes time to make money, execs need those quarterly bonuses right now. Much easier to do a bunch of layoffs and get that line up now.

        • greenskye@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          5 months ago

          Which is ultimately the biggest reason companies suck so much worse now than they used to. Over a long enough time frame profit isn’t the worst way to steer an organization. Negative actions have repercussions and companies used to avoid those.

          But investors shortened the time frame so that everything and anyone is disposable. We have a handful of rich people hollowing out pretty much all companies in America and stripping them of value as fast as possible. We’re destroying our economic base in a fire sale for like 9 people.

      • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        I dunno. I’m a believer that there is real benefit to diverse teams and there is some evidence in support of this.

        You’re 100% right! But good luck convincing the bean counters.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        DEI programs don’t really help diversity, in my experience. They just send emails and have social gatherings and make committees about initiatives about programs about metrics about committees about…

        A true DEI program would focus on the grassroots level. Granular. They’d have a rep in every location, they’d have massive coordination with hiring managers and HR, they’d be recruiting volunteers and asking for feedback.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The company I work for is tireless about DEI and at least the CEO is personally a big believer. I think the instant he goes, though, the entire thing goes. We have hundreds of people working on it. And they have produced more backlash against DEI than real progress on it. So yeah, there are true believers out there, but the system as a whole doesn’t give a fuck, never did, and there’s never going to come a time when we all turn some corner and want more, more, more DEI staff at work. In my humble opinion the movement is dead already and will be remembered as an artifact of the last decade or so. The actual problem itself will continue to improve, generationally, just as it has done for a hundred years.

      • wagoner@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        That generational improvement is not the natural order of the universe. It’s the result of individuals putting themselves in harms way to push for change. It’s hard-fought legislation moving the cause forward. It’s constitutional amendments. It’s legal cases won against the odds. It’s corporations jumping on the bandwagon not wanting to be seen to oppose respectable society.

        But those who have always fought against the process are racking up wins. That generational change you’ve observed that looked inevitable is under severe threat. You cannot count on it happening by itself.

        • sailingbythelee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s true that generational improvement in social acceptance of diversity should not be taken for granted. However, I do think it follows fairly predictably with prosperity. When people feel confident in their economic prospects, they are more open to change that benefits others. The opposite is true as well. So, while the universe may not have a strict “natural order” in terms of social progress, the arc of human history shows a strong correlation between economic prosperity and social progress.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        And they have produced more backlash against DEI than real progress on it.

        That’s the thing…it doesn’t actually work. It doesn’t help anything. It’s just virtue signaling. I understand, hypothetically, how a DEI program could help make a company’s culture more inclusive, but the vast majority of them just add more buzzwords and red tape and performative resume enhancers.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          virtue signaling

          Stop giving this tired interpretation to everything. Not everyone is performing a dance to impress others. I already said that our CEO is a genuine true believer. And it’s not crazy to think that there are people out there who actually care about equality and inclusion. FUCK I get so tired of this “virtue signaling” bullshit. Do you think I’m cussing you out right now to win points with whoever is watching? I promise you I don’t give a fuck.

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Republicans are stupid. Like, deeply, fundamentally stupid in a way that’s difficult for us to comprehend. So sometimes, they see a phrase invented by smarter people, and they start using it ALL THE TIME, because they’re so goddamn stupid that they don’t understand that words have meanings. They think words are like spells in Harry Potter, so if a lib says “oogitty boogitty” to them (and that’s about the level of comprehension they have; everything new and more than a few syllables might as well be “oogitty boogitty”), then if they just shout “oogitty boogitty” back, they can hurt liberals.

            “Virtue signaling” is one of those terms.

            But don’t let them render the term itself useless, because that’s the insidious secondary goal of the bastards promoting this style of bullshit. The goal is an orwellian control of language by associating important phrases with mouth breathing troglodytes so they can essentially delete them from rational people’s discussions.

            “Virtue signalling” is an elegant term that makes a very salient point about how a lot of us on the progressive side do things. People like you and I should feel free to use the term without the association of the swamp people who shout it but don’t know what it means.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Well yeah. The point of a corp is to make a profit. By any means necessary. They are even legally compelled to do so. They are not here to serve us. They are here to take your money. Sometimes even backing you into a corner to force you to do it.

      I just got done watching Fallout and I fully believe our corporations would do the same as the ones in the series given the chance.

      Edit: after some research and the person below me informing me, I was mistaken about the legal requirement.

      • schizo@forum.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        5 months ago

        Minor niggle: they’re legally compelled to work in the best interests of the shareholders which is usually but not always seeking profit at all costs.

        But, in general, I don’t disagree, I merely was mentioning that people keep getting suckered by pretty words and meaningless promises of change and then not bothering to make it have actual legal requirements behind it.

        The mistake is looking at a CEO going Trust Me Bro, and trusting them. See: frog and scorpion story.

        • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          A CEOs job is literally to serve the financial interests of the shareholders.

          In fact a CEO can be fired or charged for not doing it.

          How is that not legally compelling a company to make the most money possible, when to have their top employee by the balls like that?

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            A CEO can be fired for anything.

            A CEO can absolutely not be criminally charged for not maximizing short term profits at all costs. That’s not what fiduciary duty means.

            • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Fair, charged is the wrong word.

              But please explain how you see the fiduciary duty then?

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                5 months ago

                It’s not “how I see it”. It’s a clearly defined legal term, that functionally means that you’re required to act in good faith.

                It doesn’t mean more than that, and minority shareholders that have tried to sue on the grounds that they have any additional legal obligation have been laughed out of court.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            Serving the financial interests of shareholders doesn’t necessarily mean maximizing short-term profits, as this often leads to less profit in the long term due to things like legal issues, loss of reputation, high turnover, etc. Long term growth and stability can be much more valuable than a couple quarters of unsustainable profit.

            A good example of this is Red Lobster, whose new owners sold off all their restaurant real estate holdings to a newly formed shell company and then began charging each individual restaurant massive amounts of rent. Selling these properties gave the company a short-term boost of cash, but now they’re bankrupt because they saddled the company with so much debt and rent that they can’t cover.