| the-pi-guy said: I really don't get the point. What's so wrong with initiatives to increase diversity? Whether something is bad for business, doesn't matter. It's ulimately the company's decision. Considering this is google, I highly doubt it's actually hurting their business all that much... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/ There's actually a lot of studies that show diversity is actually a powerful tool. It actually improves the majority as well. So if Google is hiring a slightly less qualified employee to increase diversity, that might end up being the better hire, because it'll also improve everyone else's performance. There are a lot of studies that support that. Was the memo right? Not really. Was Google right in firing him? I don't know. The answer is probably though. Who knows how keeping him under their employ would have affected his coworkers, I don't think it would have been positive for Google. |
Read the memo and you'll se that very few of it talks about hiring.
And on the firing would you them accept that companies would fire anyone that isn't pro-capitalism or conservative because that is against the bottomline of any company, which is make money for shareholders? Or we can only openly discrimanate and terminate the ones that doesn't agree with one point of view?
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
