[stcredzero]

I think, ultimately, the best way to promote an inclusive workplace is to hire a diverse team.

I'd say that's the start. You're creating favorable conditions. The important step is to have open and honest communications, even around issues as sensitive as race.

(also, try not to ever say "binders full of women")

I don't think "try not to say" political correctness is intellectually compelling. In fact, I think it's counter-productive to open and honest communications. The implementation of hair-trigger job loss and social stigma is only going to create fear and stifle communications.

I'm not trying to defend toxic speech here. Instead, I'm trying to be clear about comprehension and motivation. Instead of a social context that mindlessly implements pattern-matching hair-trigger sanctions, I'd rather have a support group that understands me and where I'm coming from, so they understand how I would feel about this or that social situation. I'd rather be surrounded by coworkers that know me well enough, they probably won't say something that offends me, or if they happen to do that, I know well enough to talk to them constructively about that.

[eldavido]

A bit off-topic, but I hate that there's such a stigma in the American workplace around getting fired. Statistically, not every hire works out, not every job is great, some people and companies are better off without each other.

Rather than engage in this collective delusion that everything is always OK, I wish firing was a more commonplace thing. I also think how it's framed matters a lot: "this isn't working out for either of us" vs. "you aren't welcome here, don't come back".

Additionally, Slava (coffeemug) is right, personnel decisions are the loudest, most unambiguous signals about what's valued in a work culture. Posters on the walls are bullshit - look at who's advancing, who's getting the raises, titles, and what kind of person is getting hired, to know where an organization's priorities really lie.

[PeterisP]

I believe that the stigma is caused by the very real and very harsh effect of firing on the individual wellbeing and financial safety, given the lack of social 'safety net' in USA and the general lack of savings for not-the-1% of people.

In countries where getting fired doesn't cause immediate financial distress and doesn't remove you from, say, access to medical services for your kids, people don't have such a stigma and actually are willing to simply move on if it isn't working out of if their relationship with teammates matches the bad parts of the original post.

[eldavido]

I think you're right.

A bit of personal perspective: I'm a 30 year old, I earn well into six figures/yr, but I still live relatively far below my means. Concretely, this has required making some very tangible lifestyle choices that haven't always been pleasant, including living with roommates in a somewhat bad neighborhood, not buying high-end clothes, etc.

The reason I do this, and it's something which somewhat annoys my long-term girlfriend, is that I absolutely refuse to live paycheck-to-paycheck. I've done that for a while after a failed startup, and it's terrible. It takes a huge psychological toll and the idea that you have to stay at a crappy job, and be afraid every day of being fired, is something I'm working very, very hard to avoid.

[tomp]

> I also think how it's framed matters a lot: "this isn't working out for either of us" vs. "you aren't welcome here, don't come back".

Doesn't really matter how it's framed, when the reality is clear in almost all interactions: the employee is getting the short end of the stick. It's very simple, really: the ratio of employee's salary to his/her total income is very likely to dwarf the ratio of the cost of the employee to the companies total costs. Hence, keeping an employee is very low-risk for the company, while getting fired is very high-risk for an individual. Even if you say "it's not working for us", what you really mean is "I'll slightly improve my profit margins by turning your life on it's head!".

[makmanalp]

Maybe. What you're saying is a tautological conclusion of the fact that large companies tend to have a lot of employees. None of your employees cost much individually, but if you don't fire anyone, the aggregate cost is a lot.

Besides, if you thought that the point of a company was to provide you with a job and sustenance, you were delusional to begin with. The fact that they're paying you is a side effect of the fact that you're doing things for them that they need. I'm not saying it should be that way, I'm just saying that no one's really hiding that fact.

How this ties in to what the parent is saying: not everyone is fired because they inherently suck. It's possible to not suck and still not be useful to the company. So the stigma here is a bit irrational. I know a company who hired a C-level executive and then very soon realized that they didn't need that person yet, and went through many pains to keep that person onboard on the paperwork. They made it look like they left after a year on their own accord, all in order to not ruin the person's career.

[presumeaway]

> I don't think "try not to say" political correctness is intellectually compelling.

Except, that's not what the parent was doing. It was a partisan dig, thinly disguised: even worse.

[issa]

It actually was neither. What I meant was that it is painfully obvious when someone does NOT have a diverse team.