Yes. She did. We all know she did. She has apologized for it. But she didn't use it to get hired. She said, and I believe with no malice or an intention to defraud anyone, that she believed she had First Nations heritage. As I said, it is likely something her parents or grand parents told her, and she took it at face value (as we all probably would have). It's not like she did what Rachel Dolezal did, pretend she was black and became a chapter president in the NAACP.
Hiring managers take note
- Thread starter dirtyharry555
- Start date
The sort of person that an Employer would hire, (as opposed to the sort of person that a Human Resources staff member would hire), is often very different.
The Employer would like to hire people who will generate more income for the company than their cost, people who can work unsupervised, and people who are capable of, and willing to, make decisions on their own within the limitations of their current rank.
Human Resources staff often look to hire the people who share a similar ideology, and those who 'know their place' in the chain of command. HR often does a good job of hiring those who are ideal for a career of limited responsibility busy work, because they are unable to make decisions on their own, without first polling co-workers for opinions.
From my own experience, in a group project involving ten people, two or three will do the majority of the work, two or three will give reasons why something can't be done, while offering no positive input, and a couple of people primarily undo the damage done by the fuck-ups. Every member will feel that they deserve an equal part of the credit if the project is accomplished. At least half of the group will be skilled at offering excuses for why their part of the project was not completed by the projected deadline.
The Employer would like to hire people who will generate more income for the company than their cost, people who can work unsupervised, and people who are capable of, and willing to, make decisions on their own within the limitations of their current rank.
Human Resources staff often look to hire the people who share a similar ideology, and those who 'know their place' in the chain of command. HR often does a good job of hiring those who are ideal for a career of limited responsibility busy work, because they are unable to make decisions on their own, without first polling co-workers for opinions.
From my own experience, in a group project involving ten people, two or three will do the majority of the work, two or three will give reasons why something can't be done, while offering no positive input, and a couple of people primarily undo the damage done by the fuck-ups. Every member will feel that they deserve an equal part of the credit if the project is accomplished. At least half of the group will be skilled at offering excuses for why their part of the project was not completed by the projected deadline.
I cannot tell if Terbites post stuff like this because it’s laughably stupid or because they actually think these are good ideas.
The majority of people that add pronouns to their signature do so because it has become fashionable. When corporate managers participate in such things, it’s often a tactical decision to signal leadership and build a certain brand. Most diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) workplace initiatives are set up to fail, and often little more than window dressing to allow leaders to claim they have acted in good faith.
There’s a scarcity of good talent. Well managed organizations are continuously on the lookout for top talent, based on the value they bring to the organizational mission, not on perceived political leanings. The idea of overlooking talent based on the use of pronouns is breathtakingly stupid. I’m pretty sure daddy bought her that car and has no real work experience. Not sure why anybody would take advice from a 20-something, attention-seeking bimbo.
The majority of people that add pronouns to their signature do so because it has become fashionable. When corporate managers participate in such things, it’s often a tactical decision to signal leadership and build a certain brand. Most diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) workplace initiatives are set up to fail, and often little more than window dressing to allow leaders to claim they have acted in good faith.
There’s a scarcity of good talent. Well managed organizations are continuously on the lookout for top talent, based on the value they bring to the organizational mission, not on perceived political leanings. The idea of overlooking talent based on the use of pronouns is breathtakingly stupid. I’m pretty sure daddy bought her that car and has no real work experience. Not sure why anybody would take advice from a 20-something, attention-seeking bimbo.
"The majority of people that add pronouns to their signature do so because it has become fashionable."
Our local bank branch manager has "SHE/HER" on her business card. Of course, we all know that already. What have you seen on business cards?
Our local bank branch manager has "SHE/HER" on her business card. Of course, we all know that already. What have you seen on business cards?
Many 'non traditional' given names are not immediately recognizable as masculine or feminine, and there are a lot of unisex given names. I would guess that there aren't many women named Zack, Todd, or Trevor, and not many men named Fiona, Margaret or Emily, but Andrea might be an Italian man, 'Sam' might be any gender or ethnicity, and the correct pronoun is anyone's guess for a name like N'Gele, Khutulun or Dipurash.
Similar threads
