- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
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!
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.
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.
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
“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?
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!”
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.
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.
I’m remembering what always happens when US companies try to run US labour practices in Europe.
It’s hilarious
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.
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.
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 (the totalitarianism part).
One detail was: what happens when you hire people not based on qualifications but based on 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.
I’ll kindly provide you detailed reasons to suck my balls!
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.
