I understand this to mean that job adverts shouldn’t explicitly target DEI hires. That is not, however, the same as not implementing DEI targets in a company.
The intelligent way to implement DEI has always been to interview and identity the top candidates for a role, and then if you have 2 capable and competent candidates and one is a women / minority, they get the job. This law wouldn’t prevent that.
French companies do have to implement “DEI” policies by law. In France, companies have to monitor inequalities between men and women (in hiring opportunities, salary, promotions, autonomy, etc) and implement plans to reduce them (they can’t discriminate on job adverts, but can take other actions). They also have to hire a certain proportion of people with disabilities.
The subtext of “anti-DEI”, though, is that it is not possible to have two competent candidates where one is a woman/minority because conservative Christian English-speaking white men from wealthy families are inherently superior.
No argument from me, I understand why anti-DEI proponents oppose it. Their racism, classism and misogyny is clear.
The point to my comment was simply that the original commenter is incorrect in thinking that not having DEI explicit adverts excludes a business from having DEI targets.
Interesting, thanks for sharing.
I understand this to mean that job adverts shouldn’t explicitly target DEI hires. That is not, however, the same as not implementing DEI targets in a company.
The intelligent way to implement DEI has always been to interview and identity the top candidates for a role, and then if you have 2 capable and competent candidates and one is a women / minority, they get the job. This law wouldn’t prevent that.
French companies do have to implement “DEI” policies by law. In France, companies have to monitor inequalities between men and women (in hiring opportunities, salary, promotions, autonomy, etc) and implement plans to reduce them (they can’t discriminate on job adverts, but can take other actions). They also have to hire a certain proportion of people with disabilities.
Makes sense, thanks for clarifying.
The subtext of “anti-DEI”, though, is that it is not possible to have two competent candidates where one is a woman/minority because conservative Christian English-speaking white men from wealthy families are inherently superior.
No argument from me, I understand why anti-DEI proponents oppose it. Their racism, classism and misogyny is clear.
The point to my comment was simply that the original commenter is incorrect in thinking that not having DEI explicit adverts excludes a business from having DEI targets.