re: What's the difference between a "DEI" hire and a "Good Ole Baw Network" Hire?

We hired many a Good Ole Baw. It mainly depended on if they passed minimum qualifications and who was their pledge at the plant. If the guy/gal vouching for them was lazy or incompetent, well, they might not get the nod. But if it was someone you yourself was good working with and was a good worker, that got them at least in the discussion. This method proved out well. Race, religion, ethnicity didn't matter.

We were also told

HR:"look at these 4 candidates"

US: they didn't score in the top 50

HR: they are diverse

US: they didn't pass the minimum qualifier

HR: I need you to at least interview one of them

It was always a painful experience when they weren't qualified because we had to ask ALL of the questions no matter what so every candidate was vetted equally. 4 hours wasted.

quote:

---

Initial responses are neither are acceptable and both are bad...but I don't recall the good ole baws complaining about it.

---

I’ve never had a good ole baw hire directly affect me adversely in the workplace. I can’t say the same for DEI hires. There ya go, race baiter.

quote:

---

Good ole baw is probably qualified for the job even if he got the offer bc he knew someone.

DEI hire is usually not and only hired because of skin color and sometimes the “job” they are hired for isn’t even necessary for the business to do well

---

This is the truth in many cases and, as another poster stated, generally "good ole baws" can and will be fired if they can't do the job. DEI hires not so much.

Both are exclusionary of possible great candidates. Both are often stuck with said hire if the person does not perform excellence.

quote:

---

Nah I just enjoy watching you all cry about silly things

---

"just asking questions, that's all...now you guys are getting all riled up...so much anger!" (*clutches pearls*)

frick off

quote:

---

What's the difference between a "DEI" hire and a "Good Ole Baw Network" Hire?

---

Nothing really, but the way that you fix the "problem" of the "Good Ole Baw Network" is by just hiring the most qualified person for the job, not hiring other people who are under qualified but hired based on some other metric not related to the job (DEI hires).

Didn't we learn as kids, "two wrongs don't make a right?". It feels like some folks were never exposed to that idea.

quote:

---

orrrrrrr...underqualified baws got a job to "keep it in the family" simply to avoid benefiting another group you don't identify with? IDK maybe?

---

IDK should your sig quote


40 years I worked in an industry where I was surrounded by both good old boy network and DEI hires
and where I could point out the similarities between both of them the problems that existed with both of them .Clearly the good old boy network did feel some allegiance to the persons or person that got them the job

and that was some control effort whereas the dei hires knew they were covered by law they knew they couldn't be disciplined because it was such an HR headache

one you can hold the baw accountable the other is systemic and no one is accountable

The "network" hire doesn't exclude people based on race or gender either. Nothing says I can't hire my black buddy, or that black employers can't go that route.

DEI explicitly prohibits people with certain immutable characteristics from getting jobs.

quote:

---

Sam lost his job to a DEI hire

---

i didnt, but if i HAD dont you think that would be a valid reason to be angry?