Removed by mod
Have you seen the size of his turkey neck? They’re going to need to build a double wide for him.
I think the issue is not about applying DEI in French companies, nor it exist. The problem is a foreigner leader telling an independent country how he should manage his companies, or at least, to foreign companies how they should hire people. You can’t be a libertarian from one side and tell such things… until you want to fire every human and make every company in the world running with Musk AI and robots …
Government so small it can fit inside your office.
The interesting part:
France has not traditionally been a place where DEI programmes have taken root because of legal limitations on the collection of racial and ethnic data. Employers are not allowed to factor people’s origins into hiring or promotion decisions.
In France, you cannot really base any official decision on the origin of someone, even just using the concept of race is considered racist and against the law. This is due to the trauma of Vichy’s regime Nazi collaboration but also the popularization of the idea that there is no scientific evidence for human races in the current human population by the famous anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss.
Didn’t he study jeans?
That’s how he figured out the race thing. Jeans look equally good on all people no matter color or origin!
Nono, he was an anthropologist, he studied genes
Like Wilder and Hackman?
That was his brother, Jimmy “Beans” Levi-Strauss
We still have DEI policies focusing on gender, disability and on socio-economic background (which does correlate with ethnicity in a lot of places). Of course in a lot of companies it’s mostly for show, but in some it’s done with a sincere will and has real effects.
It may correlate with ethnicity, but the cases when it doesn’t are important too and it makes it a better condition. It’s also better at countering some far right arguments against help programs.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
It’s not rocket science. (Although coincidentally we Frenchmen know how to build rockets too)
Removed by mod
The British managed that, though we are more than happy to share with our European cousins.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Shrapnel
He invented the idea of an explosion powered guillotine blade. Perfect for a rocket warhead.
That doesn’t apply to hiring women though, which is also DEI.
It does in general according to this government website. https://travail-emploi.gouv.fr/offre-demploi-et-embauche-les-droits-du-candidat#anchor-navigation-411
Machine translated:
The same applies to gender. No one can mention or have mentioned in a job offer the gender or family situation of the candidate sought. This prohibition applies to any form of advertising related to hiring, regardless of the nature of the proposed employment contract. The offer must therefore be written in such a way that it clearly indicates that it is addressed equally to men and women. For example, “Executive M/F” or “Employee.” For more details, one can refer to the document “Gender Equality in the Workplace.”
However, when belonging to one gender or the other meets an essential and determining professional requirement, and provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate, the above prohibition does not apply. Article R. 1142-1 of the Labor Code thus establishes the list of jobs and professional activities for which belonging to one gender or the other is a determining condition; this list, which is revised periodically, is as follows:
- Artists called to interpret either a female role or a male role;
- Models tasked with presenting clothing and accessories;
- Male and female models.
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.
This sounds like Trump’s dream country.
If you think it’s because there’s no help programs for minorities, there are, but it is usually based on the revenue of the household or the district.
Has it worked well for France? I’ve been arguing that such an approach would work much better for the US.
Using self-identified racial identities for aid programs is too easy to argue is itself racially biased. Even if you can make good contextual arguments that race-based aid is a compensation for race-based oppression, either current or historical, that’s not a winning political position.
Using metrics like generational wealth, income, education is a much easier argument to make, even if in effect it would disproportionately benefit these identity groups.
The primary downside seems to be that administering such a program is more complicated, which means more of the expense goes to overhead, and more people will not get the benefits they could because of the difficulty of navigating a more complex process.
I think it works in some ways, there are tones of people who graduate university every year without having to pay for the diploma and getting money to live on top of that (bourse), based on household revenue. We still have a problem of reproduced inequalities, educated people marry each other and their kids are much more likely to graduate from top schools, but maybe it’s worse in the USA. I don’t hear the conservatives or (populist) far right criticizing this social system, they are more focused on immigration, so I guess the non-ethnicity based public help is good at avoiding this politization.
The primary downside seems to be that administering such a program is more complicated, which means more of the expense goes to overhead, and more people will not get the benefits they could because of the difficulty of navigating a more complex process.
Is that so? I’d think the income tax form should tell you those things.
Fwiw, Europeans would look at you funny if you were to ask them to tick Caucasian/Black/Asian/… on random government forms. This data literally doesn’t exist [here] in any consistent way, except [maybe] for criminal suspects.
Yeah but how do you get the information from the IRS into the systems that manage this hypothetical program? How do you get your parents’ and grandparents’ IRS data correlated with your own? What about people who don’t file taxes? The risk is that all that work falls on the applicant. Or if the program administrators do all that work, that’s where the overhead costs come in.
This is something which happens with existing public assistance programs, where so many requirements have been put on the aid application that people give up trying to to prove they made less than X dollars in the last 12 months, or lived in the state for at least 5 years, or have passed a drug screening, and so on. Too often that’s done intentionally to stymie a program, but the phenomenon exists regardless of motivation. The more complicated the program requirement are, the more people will fail to get aid they should, and the more it costs to administer.
I fail to understand your reasoning, France is less liberal than USA the state is rather strong and they directly tax most salaries upfront of it being paid each month, they know all your property in France as these are all registered. Generally they monitor your bank account via the bank themselves that are controlled a lot so they know your income and taxes are prefilled in France. Since most of my income is my salary I have basically never filled taxes I just verify and click accept each year. So yeah it is not difficult for them to implement such programs and it a much more easy and factual data to collect than ‘is this person a minority’
Yeah but how do you get the information from the IRS into the systems that manage this hypothetical program?
Quite honestly, there should be various options. I guess IRS could run such a program itself. Alternatively, the US has SSNs as a universal ID and IRS could send over required data organized by SSN.
What about people who don’t file taxes?
I don’t know but that’s probably solvable.
The risk is that all that work falls on the applicant. Or if the program administrators do all that work, that’s where the overhead costs come in.
I am not convinced by that. An administrator-run program with a simple methodology and a good data basis might be a lot more efficient than an application-based program inviting human error and long back-and-forths.
Right-wingers have decried this system for a while now. They’re convinced it’s designed to hide the fact that brown people commit more crime and such.
Maybe right wingers just like to bitch about everything
My parents fled a socialist country many decades ago. I grew up listening to my father drone on and on about how bad Socialism is. He still doesn’t understand that there’s a difference between socialism and totalitarianism, but following political developments of the last decade or so I am often reminded of his sermons.
One detail was: what happens when you hire people not based on qualifications but loyalty. You get stupid people in positions of power, happy to wield it for its own sake. Often with a penchant for cruelty and a vague feeling of revenge (against “the bourgeousie” then, against “woke globalists” now). And it always ends the same: you have to dilute milk with water and lie about it. This is where the US are headed now, folks. Stalinism, the burgeoning 3rd Reich, take your pick.
My dad grew up in a communist country, and I know exactly what you mean.
I’m incredibly lucky that we have a kind of mutual intellectual respect, where we fact-check each other a lot and are both willing to change our minds about stuff. Consequently, I’ve managed to explain the differences between totalitarianism, communism, and fascism (had to explain why horseshoe theory isn’t a thing).
He thought I was being hyperbolic about the US’ slow descent into fascism in 2017, as I ran through the fascist identification checklist. As a victim of communism, he naturally tried to make excuses for Trump. That ended the first week of his second term, and we’re having some close calls with a similar candidate here.
We have too much emotional baggage to have regular discussions but it was kinda cool to be on the same side during Covid, pro Ukraine and against Putin and Trump. Although he too thought me hyperbolic when I compared Trump’s first weeks in office to Hitler’s first weeks in office. Maybe he has changed his mind by now.
Which means what Jimmy? What the fuck does this mean!?!!?
France replies to trump with “we wave our genitalia in your general direction.”
Do you bite your thumb at me, sir?
I’m remembering what always happens when US companies try to run US labour practices in Europe.
It’s hilarious
“If you don’t play by our rules you can’t do business with us!”
They just keep shooting themselves in both feet. As if a tariff war wasn’t enough.
To be fair
“If you don’t play by our rules you can’t do business with us!”
Is how our European market works as well right?
Yeah, but we don’t try to apply our rules in their country. We demand they apply our rules in our jurisdiction.
They want to sell chlorinated chicken breasts in the US? No problem, but we don’t want that shit here.
yeah and we don’t scrub off the protective film from our eggs either.
It could be argued, I guess?
But to impose arbitrary (and contrary to democracy itself) rules overnight and expect everyone to follow suit instead of negotiating a solution? No fucking way.
Maybe I should have put it differently:
“If you don’t run your business by our fascist rules right now you can’t do business with us!”
Trump legitimately believes his purpose is to put forth the rules that make his voters happy… so in that way, negotiation is more of a sign of weakness and would tank his numbers.
Nah, he doesn’t care about the voters this time.
This is all him and the Project 2025 guys.
Well the difference is that EU tries to impose fair rules that will benefit (or hurt, as is too often the case) everyone equally, while Trump wants to impose unfair rules that only benefit US corporations and himself.
No, the EU has a habit of protectionism disguised as legitimate interest. I recall a case study from when I was in high school, where the EU set the safety limits on a certain contaminant in a product—peanuts, I think it was—way, way stricter than any evidentiary basis, because EU farms could meet the restriction, but African or South American farms could not.
It’s hardly comparable to anything Trump is doing, but it’s worth mentioning, since you did claim EU laws are all about affecting everyone equally.
They also paid for a study on how digital piracy affects profits and then buried it when the result showed that it didn’t have a negative impact.
The EU cares about the EU and its wealth, not its citizens. It’s still a big step up over the land of the free-to-sell-its-citizens-wellbeing-to-the-corporations, though.
This deserves a post of its own.
Maybe, but it’s hardly news. I graduated highschool well over a decade ago, and the case study I mentioned was not exactly new when I was studying economics in school.
Old news is usually “new” to a lot of people. I should look into it myself as someone who has a vote in EU elections.
Damn. No chlorinated chicken for Europeans I guess.
Lmao inagine fucking yourself this hard. That means all global suppliers to the US will have to stop dealing with them. They will run out of brains and resources so fucking fast.
deleted by creator
I dont think that will work out very well for them in the long run.
deleted by creator
According to Les Échos, the letter concluded: “If you do not agree to sign this document, we would be grateful if you could kindly provide us with detailed reasons, which we will forward to our legal department.”
God this is so childish. This just isn’t how grown ups go about disagreeing about things.
My parents fled a socialist country many decades ago. I grew up listening to my father drone on and on about how bad Socialism is. He still doesn’t understand the difference between socialism and totalitarianism, but following political developments of the last decade or so I am often reminded of his sermons.
One detail was: what happens when you hire people not based on qualifications but based on loyalty. You got stupid people in positions of power, happy to wield it for its own sake. Often with a penchant for cruelty and a vague feeling of revenge (against “the bourgeousie” then, against “woke” now). And it always ends the same: you have to dilute milk with water and lie about it. This is where the US are now, folks. Stalinism, the burgeoning 3rd Reich, take your pick.
Yeah ultimately croneyism doesn’t care what your ideology is unless your ideology involves acting on opposition to croneyism.
The French government will have to intervene because I don’t think corporations are gonna be willing to put up a fight on their own.
European governments and courts have a long history of laughing at US companies attempting to apply US labour laws on European soil. I’m sure they’ll cope.
This matter is different: Companies stand to lose business with the US government. These types of demands from a big customer will likely actually effect change.
I’ll kindly provide you detailed reasons to suck my balls!
I think they spelled anti-diversity disorder wrong.
I see no problems with the request. Their country, their rules. We here in EU should do the same instead of trying to fuck everyone of these companies equally. I say let Macaron deal with Trump if he wants to make amendments to the request. Now morally I would say this is absolutely retarded. But this is how this new gov operates there by default.
We here in EU should do the same instead of trying to fuck everyone of these companies equally.
What do you mean?
