The woke roll back continues

[Hoardasurass]

Jack Daniels has ditched all it's woke policies and it's lgbtq equality index membership

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/22/jack-daniels-owner-scraps-diversity-targets-amid-anti-woke/

@newmummycwharf1 no-one said listening was not important. That is not unique to black women, any woman who has been pregnant could probably tell you similar stories. The perception of differing pain thresholds, if I remember it correctly, said black staff also had that perception.

The point was that the emphasis was placed entirely on listening. The mere suggestion of using the data to investigate the reasons was deemed racist because it would distract from the idea that the NHS was systemically racist. These comments were made about the taskforce set up to look at the reasons

"The taskforce has been welcomed by some, including charities Tommy’s99 and Sands.100 However, Tinuke Awe said the failure in the original press release to specifically acknowledge the considerably higher mortality rate for Black women in particular, had upset and angered many stakeholders.101 Amy Gibbs emphasised the need for the Taskforce to address the issue of racial bias in the maternity system,102 and Dr Ekechi hoped that the Taskforce would focus on the “social and structural drivers that underpin the poor quality of health and poor outcomes”.103 "

So lets not have unbiased research and action, lets just decide in advance what the causes are.

The same thing happened with covid - lots of comments about how deprivation caused the higher death rates, something we now know to be influenced by genetics. A particular gene being more common in those of asian origin has been identified and once you know about that you can look for different strategies on things like vaccination, drug treatment and likelihood of needing ICU. If you persist in saying everything is racist then you dont do the necessary research.

There is now alot of money and effort dedicated to research into why the outcomes are poorer. There are significant research gaps that have been identified and need to be addressed. There have been calls for decades into more research funding to understand why Black women are 3X more likely to die in childbirth than others. And maternity care in general needs to improve and women are not listened to - but there is evidence that this particular women are even more ignored than women in general AND particularly by midwives of other races.

I have never seen any leader (and I am a national leader in healthcare) say anything about listening to the negligence of research. I cannot comment on what individuals say or bystanders. I am speaking from the perspective of healthcare leaders, policymakers and lead researchers.

Lastly the risk gene in South Asians for COVId acts in the context of other factors - which includes age, comorbidities, over-crowded housing etc. Which were all factors initially identified to have contributed to the higher rate of death in those communities in the first wave. And the identification of the gene was due to inclusive research, including people like Prof Mahendra Patel setting up the Centre for Research Equity at Oxford.

https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/nihr-challenge-maternity-inequalities-funding-call/35654

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/inequalities-in-midwifery-continuity-of-care-during-pregnancy

https://www.nhsrho.org/news/new-research-identifies-gaps-in-ethnicity-research-in-maternal-care/

And lastly- we are doing the necessary research, setting up institutes to do so and working to fix the problem - which includes systemic racism!

Oh, come on — let's not pretend that the T-takeover of DEI hasn't been catastrophic for disabled people in particular, but also for lesbians and gay people for whom gender ideology is actively homophobic. With all the emphasis on the T (which is heavily skewed towards white, middle class and largely male individuals) I'm hearing from black friends that they feel racism is creeping back into their organisations.

@GustyFinknottle

The only clear cut case of racial discrimination I have seen in a hiring process was when a black male who the interviewers acknowledged was the best person for the job was actively passed over in favour of a white transgender woman who was also very vocal on DEI initiatives and who the interviewers feared (probably correctly) would make a big discrimination issue if not hired.

The black male meanwhile just wanted to get on with the job and when not hired, his view was f' them and very quickly got a job with a competitor on double the money.

I don’t think it’s rolling back on all the progress- it’s recognizing that DEI in its current form (T-centred, doctrinaire and spiteful) is undesirable to customers, the majority of employees, and employment tribunals.

I wouldn't worry.

These initiatives are/were all wound up in TQ+. So your needs would be ignored but they would get brownie points for pronoun name badges and flying the 'progress' flag.

Much of the current DEI focuses solely, exclusively on Transgender issues, with no time, effort, energy, or money for other issues (disability, racism, sexism, LGB issues).

As a disabled female, I would absolutely welcome a balanced approach to DEI, that is not merely a front for transactivism.

Id agree with this. I don’t think a lot of the DEI initiatives in companies do a lot to help people who need it. It’s generally a focus on a tiny minority with lots of rainbows. To me it seems like companies pay hundreds of thousands to be told they need to centre a trans woman and everyone should have pronouns and all paperwork should be gender neutral ( leading to ridiculous results sometimes) then they are graded on this by the outside company. Also how much you pay can affect your grade.

I mean you could spend the money consulting with your actual employees and spending on support measures but that would probably cost more. I’m sure it’s cheaper to just pay someone to tell you that you are a fabulously diverse employer. I suspect firms are dropping out as public perception of these schemes isn’t great.

I think a key issue is that activists for certain groups have become more and more ridiculous in their demands.

I see quite a bit of overlap with some autism activists and trans activists. They suggest that only autistic people/trans people have a right to express views on anything relating to the 'differences' they have and the accommodations that should be in place to address them. They also suggest that in-group people who disagree with them have internalised bigotry relating to their 'difference'.

They also seek to control language and certain behaviours within the workforce and think it's entirely reasonable to expect this without discussion. Furthermore, they expect people who do object to be banned from expressing their objections.

Many HR departments bought in to this but have come unstuck as the activists rarely recognise that employees are there to perform their roles and adjustments are there to allow this. They often think that workplaces are there to supply them with allyship, validation and social justice.

Having said that, some HR departments do think their roles are more about social justice than enabling high performance.

Exactly. Plastering progress flags and rainbows everywhere is no help to someone who is visually impaired or in a wheelchair. Guidedogs can't navigate rainbow crossings and painting the train doesn't provide more staff to help the wheelchair bound person get on and off.

Several posters have expressed the problems with DEI in many companies way better then I could. Fundamentally, some flags and bunting are way cheaper then making any real changes.

At The end of the day it’s illegal to discriminate on basis of sex, race, disability etc so companies should be following the law.

This isn’t the case everywhere. At our midsize company (2k employees) we have a fantastic woman in charge of DEI projects. As a result we’ve made one of our offices more accessible (it’s a listed building so no legal obligation but we’ve put a lift in), we’ve got a policy around adjustments for ND individuals and we’ve started taking apprentices from local schools in disadvantaged areas. We’ve also introduced KPIs around female representation in senior leadership.

I really don’t think we should be throwing the baby out with the bath water here.

Private businesses in the main don’t focus their DEI policies on disability in particular as this would involve some expenditure to make reasonable adjustments needed - far cheaper to stick up LGBTI banners and flags and call it good.

I still at a loss as to how a prospective employer could know an applicant was same sex attracted at interview stage and exclude them on that basis? Most gay people I know are unidentifiable from straight folk. If it applies to internal moves I suppose that could be an issue if the orientation of the person was known, but really? Does anyone still care about it that much? I’d have thought all the older bigots were pretty much gone even in quite parochial parts of the country.

Race can be much more thorny. I live in a very homogenous part of the country with very few asian, black or mixed race people. Public sector employers in particular are very keen to recruit from this pool as it ticks a box for them. Having recently been involved in a recruitment board I can attest to that. A colleague on another board with two interviewers (her first time on board) told me she interviewed one black candidate but rejected them as they did not score highly enough across the various competency categories. (one doing questions one scoring answers) The other board member who had been until then very methodical with interviewees became very anxious, talking about how nice the person had been and admitted she was concerned about being thought of as racist. Only when she was asked to go through the marking profile properly to see if the applicant had covered the minimum points did she agree this was a fair outcome. My colleague was really surprised at the other board member’s behaviour - she felt she was being fair but the other person was being racist.

Most of the "autism activists" that you're talking about are self diagnosed autistics (ie aren't autistic) or are extremely mildly affected by asd. And I say this as someone who is diagnosed with ASD and has a child with asd (amongst other issues)
Unfortunately the TRAs took over most of the autism charities a long time ago to the point that many charities claim that being trans is part of being autistic 🤨 (rather than the inherent vulnerability of autistic people to gender ideology). So they actively promote gender ideology along with asd being a "super power" and all the "rights" it gives you. Basically asd charities and support has been destroyed by the "activists" and it started with lumping us all under 1 meaningless diagnoses of asd ditching the asperges diagnoses as well as the high, moderate and low functioning labels, they weren't the best but were a hell of a lot better than the crap we have now (atleast people had a rough idea of what you were talking about).
And now we are at a point where anyone can claim to I'd as autistic and a proper diagnoses is frowned on and everyone assumes that we don't actually need certain adjustments because Joe bloggs (who self id as autistic) in another department doesn't need the same. Or people taking the absolute piss with "requests " and bosses caving in when really they should be pointing out that the person isn't suitable for the role if they truly need that level of adjustments. Noone seems to be able to say that me asking to use headphones in the office and moving my desk to a quiet corner of the office due to my misphonia) is OK but expecting the entire office to work in silence isn't.

It's interesting though, because this demographic really think, as in they are completely convinced, they're immune to the fall out from getting rid of everyone who isn't white and male. Who do they is next in line?

Except that would be illegal, wouldn't it. Also, as most edi departments can't even get the protected characteristic under the equality act correct I doubt that they are capable of helping anyone

This is what DEI Departments should be concerned with and sorting out but instead they are painting pillars in the train station concourse with Pride flags, wearing rainbow lanyards and badges to signal their inclusivity.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/aug/27/paralympian-tanni-grey-thompson-crawl-off-train-lner?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

As detailed in the article this is not a one off this happens frequently but I guess there are no shiny badges, pretty flags or bunting for disabled people and treating them with basic consideration, respect and dignity just doesn't matter.

There is NO justification for treating disabled people like this, none.

To add to the above, this is LNER, the train company in question.

https://www.lner.co.uk/destinations/travel-inspiration/pride-all-year-round/

A sample:
"To support the LGBTQIA+ community at LNER we introduced a number of initiatives, from the launch of pronoun signatures emails, to a Gender Identity toolkit to support our colleagues transitioning, celebrating key events such as Pride and LGBTQIA+ history month and updating our use of the Pride flag to the Progressive Flag as a result of colleagues feedback.

Our workplace reflects and celebrates the communities we serve and we are committed to creating a safe space for our colleagues to feel comfortable and proud to be their authentic selves at work."

Shocking story. And yes, easy to feel good about sticking up trans flags on stations while forgetting to provide support for disabled travellers.

There is a thread running atm about Tanni Grey Thompson being forced to crawl off a train. There are lots of posts describing the awful lack of service and disrespect for passengers with disabilities. I bet all the staff have had compulsory DEI training that contains nothing about helping those passengers.

DEI should be about ensuring inclusion and equity for all.

It’s not a case of companies need to stop trying to include and provide equitable opportunities for LGBTQ+ staff and service users, so that they can focus on disabled staff and service users instead. They should be capable of doing both.

LNER’s failure is shocking, but sadly I doubt very much it’s an isolated incident. Tbh, providing a safe environment for disabled staff and service users to access transport should be a basic part of what LNER and other transport providers do, rather than being seen as some kind of inclusion function.

I know the thread has moved on somewhat, but this really stood out to me. A lot of plumbers work alone. You might feel more comfortable having a woman in the house than a man, but what if you were that woman plumber going into any house with these "dinosaur men"? How safe would you feel? What if you/your company were specifically requested by a man because you're a woman?

Do you think that would put you off becoming a plumber? Would it be easier just to choose something else?

I know a lot of carers are women, but they're usually regular visitors and are employed by agencies.

DEI should be about ensuring inclusion and equity for all.

It isn't though.

It’s not a case of companies need to stop trying to include and provide equitable opportunities for LGBTQ+ staff and service users, so that they can focus on disabled staff and service users instead. They should be capable of doing both.

Should be but clearly are not doing so.

LNER’s failure is shocking, but sadly I doubt very much it’s an isolated incident. Tbh, providing a safe environment for disabled staff and service users to access transport should be a basic part of what LNER and other transport providers do, rather than being seen as some kind of inclusion function.

Agree, it should be and the big question is why isn't it?

Why would you think this would mean getting rid of everyone white and male? DO you know how many non-white, non-male people there are around the country who are very good at their jobs and are valued employees?