[tjpnz]

>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.