Slashdot Mirror
Apple Makes Slight Progress On Diversity While Its Rivals Are Making Practically None (macrumors.com)
The workforce at Apple is still predominately white and male, reveals the diversity report the company released Wednesday. But that doesn't mean that its efforts to improve diversity haven't yielded improvements. This is the third year that the Cupertino giant has released its diversity numbers and the balance is improving, although a bit slowly. From a MacRumors report: Its overall workforce, including tech, non-tech, and retail jobs, is 68% male and 32% female as of June 2016, a slight change from a 69%-31% split in 2015. Apple's race and ethnicity breakdown among U.S. employees is 19% Asian, 9% Black, 12% Hispanic, 2% Multiracial, 1% Other, and 56% White, representing a 2 percent increase in White employees and a 1 percent increase in both Asian and Hispanic employees compared to last year's data. Females represent 37% of Apple's global new hires, while U.S. underrepresented minorities represent 27% of global new hires. Apple defines underrepresented minorities as "groups whose representation in tech has been historically low -- Black, Hispanic, Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Other Pacific Islander."Washington Post compares Apple's progress to other Silicon Valley giants, claiming that rest of the industry is mostly sitting idle. (Alternate source: Reuters) From the report: At Facebook, black and Hispanic employees make up 2 and 4 percent of the employee base. Despite commitments to diversity, neither Google nor Facebook have made a dent in those numbers since they first announced them in 2014.
What
It's only a bad thing if they're excluding better qualified people. If they're hiring the best person for the job regardless of what they have between their legs and the color of their skin, and it turns out to be a bunch of white guys, then that's just an artifact of the talent pool.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
I'm curious what percent of applications come in from minorities comparatively, and what the reasons are for declining those who are declined. I think it's important for the debate/argument (in either direction) to know how many people of each minority are TRYING to work there, compared to which are accepted, as well as the reasoning behind those decisions and the qualifications of each.
That instead of making companies hire under qualified (generally) minorities, we should work on qualifying more minorities. And avoid quotas at all cost.
I am just curious, but according to the census blacks make up 9.5% to 13% depending on which survey you use. So at what point will a company be considered diverse ? When the % of blacks they hire exceed the national % present or when they are equally represented with all other ethnicities, which would put them at a much greater than national average representation.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I wonder if any black or woman programmer has ever been fired for incompetence, insubordination, or for refusing to do their work at Facebook or Apple? Is the company too afraid to get rid of bad programmers if doing so might hurt their 'diversity' numbers? Years ago, I worked with a woman who wanted to be let go so that she could collect unemployment or get a severance package. She did everything she could think of to get the company to get rid of her. Nothing worked so she finally left voluntarily.
Worked for Rachel Dolezal...
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Hmm. I wonder what Apple could have that neither Facebook nor Google possess in the US? What might possibly account for the discrepancy between Apple and other big tech companies? Oh yeah, probably the 30,000 retail workers (out of a total of 43,000) in their Apple stores. I wonder what the breakdown would be for the technical jobs that Apple relies upon for the products those retail workers are hawking? I'm guessing that it'd probably be in line with what Facebook and Google are posting.
Good for Apple for being more diverse that Google, I guess, but I'd bet it's a hell of a lot easier to broaden overall diversity when you essentially require a Starbucks level of skill for the majority of your workforce.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
Apple Makes Slight Progress On Diversity...
Any time ethnicity is a factor in hiring decisions, it's not "progress," it's a social regression. It's the opposite of what Dr. King wanted; namely, a society where people "will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
It's time to take back the work "progressive" from those who use apply it to regressive policies.
1) You're a member of the society you're doing business in.
Read the grandparent post. It simply asserted that a business should hire the best people regardless of sex or ethnicity. That's the society I want to live in, and I suspect most people would agree.
2) Building a reputation as somebody who doesn't care about diversity and inclusion is a good way to find yourself ignored or excluded by the portions of the population you've stated you don't care about. (See: boycott, negative public relations) You are shrinking your pool of available customers.
So you're arguing that Apple should base their hiring practices on meeting some quota of racial hires and gender hires for PR reasons? Sounds pretty messed up to me.
3) Ignoring other parts of the population who could be working for you limits your access to the best thinkers and workers, unless you really care to assert that the lack of minorities in the labor pool are *actually* a reflection of those minorities being dumber and lazier than all of your majority-hire candidates. You are shrinking your pool of available labor.
Read the grandparent post. It says nothing like what you are saying.
Building diversity in your business can be a competitive advantage because it's good public relations, and it's also going to give you access to a wider array of thoughts, ideas, and perspectives - all of which can make your business stronger.
But it's fine - if you don't make it your business, you can be sure your competitors will find a way to make it a competitive advantage. Eventually, you'll be faced with the choice of caring about diversity, or failing and shutting your doors.
Did you read the actual article summary? The breakdown was: "68% male and 32% female as of June 2016, a slight change from a 69%-31% split in 2015. Apple's race and ethnicity breakdown among U.S. employees is 19% Asian, 9% Black, 12% Hispanic, 2% Multiracial, 1% Other, and 56% White." To compare, the racial distribution of the US is 5% asian, 12% black, 16% hispanic, 2% multiracial, 1% other, and 64% white. So what exactly are you so upset about? Is it that Apple has slightly more asians and less hispanics? Fewer whites? Are you planning to complain until Apple's demographics match the US demographics exactly? What do you want?
Any sort of "quota" is awful and racist, because it paints the worker as "a guy that needed a hand from the HR to be hired", and his actual merits get downplayed in the process.
Now if you for example subsidie GOOD schools on the poorer cities/neighbors, you give em an equal chance to get the jobs fairly.
Also if there was any sort of systemic racism in place, it would be favoring asians rather than white people.