Well first off, the focus shifts on identity, not productivity or merit. This "justifies" lower salaries based on equal pay. Most of DEI means equity (of outcome), not equality, which is often achieved by pushing higher-achievers down, not lifting everyone up. Needless to say how this affects compensation.
Second, if you are a DEI hire, you are made to feel that you only got the role for who you are, so you will most likely not ask for a raise due to the fear of reprisal or dismissal.
Third, weakens the belonging amongst coworkers since everyone is really careful in social interactions to not give the leadership a (mostly fabricated) opportunity to fire them for breaching DEI policies. Obviously, when coworkers are suspicious of each other, it's much easier to use divide-and-conquer tactics and underpay everyone.
Fourth, those companies recruit immigrants specifically, so they can underpay them under the threat of firing them (and making them lose their visa).
>Well first off, the focus shifts on identity, not productivity or merit. This "justifies" lower salaries based on equal pay. Most of DEI means equity (of outcome), not equality, which is often achieved by pushing higher-achievers down, not lifting everyone up. Needless to say how this affects compensation.
That sounds more like a scheme to standardise job levels. Been through it multiple times now and never saw anyone end up significantly worse off. If anything they might be bumped up a level.
>Third, weakens the belonging amongst coworkers since everyone is really careful in social interactions to not give the leadership a (mostly fabricated) opportunity to fire them for breaching DEI policies. Obviously, when coworkers are suspicious of each other, it's much easier to use divide-and-conquer tactics and underpay everyone.
I can understand that fear but to me it says more about the legal protections afforded to workers. In the US you might be marched right out the door by security, but in other countries there's a graduated process employers typically need to follow.
> Obviously, when coworkers are suspicious of each other, it's much easier to use divide-and-conquer tactics and underpay everyone.
OTOH because of aforementioned attitude, an employee could feel zero sense of loyalty or obligation to stay beyond the absolute minimum and just go to a different company
Personally, I’d rather feel that way. It would pay more long term
It’s the “pipeline problem”—by the time an employee enters the workforce, their skillset is the product of everything that came upstream (education, family circumstances, living conditions, etc.) If someone spent their childhood living in poverty (malnourished, inhaling pollution, in a house filled with lead paint, attending poor schools, etc.), by the time they enter the workforce, the resulting deficiency in cognitive achievement will be dramatic and unsurmountable relative to someone who spent their childhood sans toxins, well-fed, and attending good schools.
Suppose systematic discrimination against certain ethnic groups “X” has made them disproportionately more likely to grow up in poverty, which (along with many other systemic factors) causes a huge cognitive deficit relative to other ethnic groups “Y” who have not experienced systematic discrimination. Some jobs’ skillsets are predicated on cognitive ability, so ethnic groups X will be disproportionately underqualified (and thus naturally underrepresented) in those jobs relative to ethnic groups Y.
Many DEI initiatives prescribe that the ethnic makeup of a company/institution ought to perfectly reflect overall population demographics. This will, by definition, necessitate lowering hiring standards for ethnic groups X, since a much smaller proportion of them have the necessarily skillset relative to their peers in ethnic groups Y, who haven’t experienced systematic discrimination.
A company's primary goal is to optimize its profit. At first glance, willfully hiring underqualified people in the name of DEI would negatively impact profits, so OP surmises there must be some ulterior motive that actually makes it profitable. OP's proposed motives sound plausible, but it could also just be that companies are afraid that not having a DEI initiative would hurt their image relative to their peers that have DEI initiatives—a prisoner's dilemma.
No, I just made it up (sarcasm). Jokes aside, these are just my observations. While writing my comment, I tried to look for online sources backing up or disproving what I said, but I haven't found much.
I think this is just an area which is not really written about.
Qualification is also just a box. Of course will nobody be hired if they lack even the basic qualification. But the boxes can influence on whether you will hire the top-notch performer, or the just barely good enough dude who checks more DEI-boxes.
Second, if you are a DEI hire, you are made to feel that you only got the role for who you are, so you will most likely not ask for a raise due to the fear of reprisal or dismissal.
Third, weakens the belonging amongst coworkers since everyone is really careful in social interactions to not give the leadership a (mostly fabricated) opportunity to fire them for breaching DEI policies. Obviously, when coworkers are suspicious of each other, it's much easier to use divide-and-conquer tactics and underpay everyone.
Fourth, those companies recruit immigrants specifically, so they can underpay them under the threat of firing them (and making them lose their visa).