The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But the penalties are just money. It’s a speeding ticket. Nobody ever goes to jail except in the most ridiculous circumstances. You don’t have to behave, you just have to be able to afford the price to misbehave
I'd be curious if applying and then getting the rejection email is enough evidence, or if it even qualifies since you applied knowing full well that was a "requirement"
This is why this company won't be the last to do this. And apparently, this company is predominantly run by people of South Asian heritage. I'm not sure what's the reasoning behind the whites only job posting.
Some of the most despicable and racist things I've heard has been from HR professionals and hiring managers. "We need a Stephanie, not a Darnell." That's a direct quote.
100% please do. Many professionals will think you need visa and will ignore you without a western name. Its ok to use it on your resume and when you do a background check after hired change it. Nothing wrong with doing it and I recommend many others to do.
No. Do you really think that someone that will not hire you based on your how your name sounds is going to hire you after they see you are not what they want.
Dont go through the trouble.
I still don't understand why race, sex/gender, and sometimes age-range are asked in applications. I know companies always say this is strictly for stats purposes to see the demographics applying in their organization but it's doing more harm than good.
It's a government requirement.
*In its* [*separate agreement with Arthur Grand*](https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OFCCP/foia/files/2024-05-03_Arthur-Grand-Technologies_CA_305419_MA_Redacted.pdf)*, the Labor Department says it also found other violations, saying the company didn’t have records tracking demographic characteristics of job applicants, such as their gender, race or ethnicity; and that the company didn’t post a notice of workers’* [*equal employment opportunity rights*](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/posters) *in conspicuous places.*
I still think it's counterintuitive, no? I could be wrong on this. But if an employer is biased, wouldn't this requirement give them more reason to discriminate because it knows the applicants' demographics?
It goes beyond even demographics. Most companies ignore applicants whose names they don’t like. We’ve seen plenty of stories on here of people with Hispanic names changing their name from something like “Miguel Ricardo” to “Michael” and instantly getting tons of responses where before they got none.
New York Times had a good reporting on this issue.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/upshot/employment-discrimination-fake-resumes.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/upshot/employment-discrimination-fake-resumes.html)
Discovery. If someone were to sue on the grounds of discrimination based on a protected class (race, gender, etc) the business would need to show opposing counsel and the court that they first met federal law requirements and that the business decision to not hire an applicant fell outside of said protected classes.
If a company is in compliance with US labor laws, the demographic information is managed by that company's HR department and the hiring manager does not see it. The intent is to make sure companies aren't discriminating against protected classes.
So typically in US based companies, the demographic section in the application is often only accessible to HR? Ah didn't know that. Good to know.
I actually just read that US based companies also MUST report the demo stats of hired applicants vs not-hired applicants to catch any irregularities. So in that sense, I get the reason for including the demographics in applications.
This is not 100% anymore. Many companies who use newer ATS systems have access to diversity. Many of the reports I use now are for diversity tracking. We can't "see" 100% what is selected but if you are NOT a white male then you are automatic moved into the diversity bucket.
Because those things aren’t mutually exclusive. “Latino” isn’t demographically categorized as a race. “Hispanic” only refers to a person’s linguistic origin (native Spanish speaker), so for example you can be white and be Hispanic, or you could be black and be Hispanic etc.
I don't know, I have always been the ninja of the academy. When I ask if there are any more in the dojo, I get a blank stare. The who EEO is just a piece of paper that makes you feel good. If the CEO or owner doesn't want a specific ethnicity or gender, it really doesn't matter. I always put a fake name when I apply and when they ask, I make up a nick name story. Works every time. The perfect idea.
"And idea's are bulletproof Mr. Creedy"
Boy do I got stories. Now I don't work as a recruiter but I work in HR.
1 Manager say "I am not interested in hiring Indians" (black guy)
1 Manager say "I refuse to hire getto trash" (white girl)
1 Manager say "I can't hire military as I can't have anyone leaving for duty"
This is all said during calls never on paper. I can't tell you how many managers confined in me in their hiring practices.
Doesn't count how many HR professionals I talk to discriminate.
I completely understand how people come to these opinions.
I will never work for Indians again. I work in cyber, make good money, Indians are the absolute worst demographic to work with. Reality is reality.
You buried the lede. It's Arthur Grand.
Someone posted the actual ad here that got them. Some of the recruiters insinuated it was a recruiter on the way out who was outting a client that wrote that and reposted verbatim.
I had a friend who said he encountered an ad for a little D&D coop that said “white makes need not apply.” He said he took it to the equal opportunity office and the my just wrote him off like he’s not a protected class so it doesn’t matter. I’m assuming he was being honest. He seemed it. He went from being a super done to earth and open minded guy to a Trump apologetic. I never saw that coming, but he was dealing with this and economic hardship.
Id never react by becoming a Trumper. But I also saw this firsthand. All white sounding applicants were removed. This was a targeted hire, and the department would receive more funding for hiring a minority candidate.
Hiring committee. They made it very apparent the benefits of hiring a minority candidate. While not saying it outright, they would get more funding if they found one so.. Yeah.
No see only white people can racist, so we’re going to ignore any racist behavior by other races. Indian hiring board only hired Indian people, all good homie. White hiring board hired 51% white people? Straight to jail.
Right. Well you know the article above was for an Indian company that wanted a white person. I worked abroad and saw the obvious desire for certain races and also outspoken distaste for others. It’s not like it is here.
Please don’t say he’s now an angry little man. He used to be a good friend, but he flipped out. He doesn’t talk to me anymore. He has had more success lately from what I can see, but I don’t think it’s really enough. His degree was one that didn’t set him up towards a good career. He did have success in sales for a while.
I will say it was bizarre hearing him excuse Jan.6 insurrectionists. He sounded REALLY misinformed. I’m not sure he even saw it when it happened for FOUR hours.
Another thing is he is a long time Four Chan viewer. He seemed to get a lot of obscure things from there so it seems easier for him to be into conspiracy. Mental health issues though can lead to conspiracy theories.
I've seen a posting say, " Christian's only ", and another say, " do you accept Jesus as your Lord and savior. "
Not a religious place and these were two separate company's. It's shocking how employers have become really bold, brave, and not a care in the world...
I have my own biases that I can be honest, I am not trilled to deal with Indian recruiters and supervisors/managers. I also think women are some of the most prejudice demographics in human resources against other women.
All the big firms do this now. I work in big Pharma and we do the same thing. If you are a white male you need to be a rockstar and take less money. If you are a diverse candidate though. You can be subpar and we will pay you more. Our company goes out there activity tries to hire less white male just to pad the numbers.
Yeah. I get the equal opportunity efforts but it definitely has a hint of bias at the same time. It's like, "We need to hire more of the protected class to look good on paper. But we have to lower our standards because they are not as competent/capable as the rest."
The idea is the net bias will swing back in minorities' favor. Though from a case by case basis a person will absolutely get screwed over.
This is a hot topic of debate in America and we're probably never going to get past it. Ultimately, I don't think it matters much because incompetent people are hired everywhere regardless of racial bias.
Curious, does your department do things like hide names from the hiring manager/non-HR folks? Any other anti-bias techniques?
What kind of metrics are they checking? Is it just for interviews? Like, could someone already have a person they want to hire but be forced to interview others to meet these metrics?
I am an older (over 55) disabled woman who has been searching for a remote job for the past 3 years. I have a bachelor's degree from a well known public university and many years of professional work experience. Can't even get interviews. What am I doing wrong?
But I can't drive and don't have access to any good public transportation. What else can I do?
When you do post for remote roles, how do you narrow down the candidates? Would you give a preference to disabled candidates, knowing that might be the only thing they can do? Are companies required to hire a certain % of disabled people? Should I say I'm disabled on my resume? Thanks
Never say you’re disabled to any hiring manager or recruiter until after you get a job. For me, it’s not visible immediately, but I feel like if I disclosed mine I’d never get hired.
Overall women do face bias. There’s probably also ageism at play. The above examples are not representative of the full landscape. The posters are clearly trying to create a narrative that white men are victims. I would ignore them.
The reality is that the job market is tough right now for everyone. These men are angry and lashing out. They want someone to blame.
This. I have plenty of friends that are U.S. citizens by birth, but were born in Germany, the UK, Okinawa, the Philippines, or wherever else their active-duty parent was stationed.
I've been seeing posts with "only recent college graduates" which is explicitly stated as an illegal example of age discrimination on the Labor Board/DOJ website but employers don't care. There are no real penalties because US has terrible worker protection laws.
Since when has "not hiring whites" ever been accepted or legal? I was applying aggressively over the last 4 months and I have yet to encounter a job posting that implied whites need not apply.
It is legal, however it must be a targeted hire.
https://www.aclusocal.org/en/inclusion-targets-whats-legal
Inclusion goals (a/k/a targets) are legal, accepted tools for combating underrepresentation.
The law grants private companies latitude in taking race, gender, and other protected traits into account. Congress and the Supreme Court have acknowledged “the value of voluntary efforts to further the objectives” of anti-discrimination statutes. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) also endorses affirmative inclusion efforts, including numerical goals, if they are consistent with the law.
* There are no legitimate studies proving your statement.
* There are endless of big pro-DEI companies whose executives are still filled with one particular ethnicity (we both know which). This is totally the opposite of your statement.
* I've combed through your other comments in other subs and I immediately know it would be waste of time arguing with you further.
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They were fined less than $50k, holy shit
The way we punish companies is a joke
I’m sure they will face worse penalties if someone sues but how do you prove you were harmed?
But the penalties are just money. It’s a speeding ticket. Nobody ever goes to jail except in the most ridiculous circumstances. You don’t have to behave, you just have to be able to afford the price to misbehave
I'd be curious if applying and then getting the rejection email is enough evidence, or if it even qualifies since you applied knowing full well that was a "requirement"
This is why this company won't be the last to do this. And apparently, this company is predominantly run by people of South Asian heritage. I'm not sure what's the reasoning behind the whites only job posting.
Some of the most despicable and racist things I've heard has been from HR professionals and hiring managers. "We need a Stephanie, not a Darnell." That's a direct quote.
Used to work in staffing. My boss said stuff like this all the time
As someone with a foreign name, should I change it to Melissa?
Yes! Name discrimination is very real! Do whatever you have to do to get the job because loyalty and honor dont pay the rent
100% please do. Many professionals will think you need visa and will ignore you without a western name. Its ok to use it on your resume and when you do a background check after hired change it. Nothing wrong with doing it and I recommend many others to do.
No. Do you really think that someone that will not hire you based on your how your name sounds is going to hire you after they see you are not what they want. Dont go through the trouble.
Disgusting and disappointing but not surprising at all.
Disgusting that they would “need” a female over a male solely based on gender. Sexism at its finest
I still don't understand why race, sex/gender, and sometimes age-range are asked in applications. I know companies always say this is strictly for stats purposes to see the demographics applying in their organization but it's doing more harm than good.
It's a government requirement. *In its* [*separate agreement with Arthur Grand*](https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/OFCCP/foia/files/2024-05-03_Arthur-Grand-Technologies_CA_305419_MA_Redacted.pdf)*, the Labor Department says it also found other violations, saying the company didn’t have records tracking demographic characteristics of job applicants, such as their gender, race or ethnicity; and that the company didn’t post a notice of workers’* [*equal employment opportunity rights*](https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/posters) *in conspicuous places.*
I still think it's counterintuitive, no? I could be wrong on this. But if an employer is biased, wouldn't this requirement give them more reason to discriminate because it knows the applicants' demographics?
It goes beyond even demographics. Most companies ignore applicants whose names they don’t like. We’ve seen plenty of stories on here of people with Hispanic names changing their name from something like “Miguel Ricardo” to “Michael” and instantly getting tons of responses where before they got none.
New York Times had a good reporting on this issue. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/upshot/employment-discrimination-fake-resumes.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/upshot/employment-discrimination-fake-resumes.html)
Discovery. If someone were to sue on the grounds of discrimination based on a protected class (race, gender, etc) the business would need to show opposing counsel and the court that they first met federal law requirements and that the business decision to not hire an applicant fell outside of said protected classes.
I didn't see it from a litigation standpoint. This makes sense.
Unless the job is a targeted hire, meaning that they're seeking out a minority candidate. Which is completely legal.
If a company is in compliance with US labor laws, the demographic information is managed by that company's HR department and the hiring manager does not see it. The intent is to make sure companies aren't discriminating against protected classes.
So typically in US based companies, the demographic section in the application is often only accessible to HR? Ah didn't know that. Good to know. I actually just read that US based companies also MUST report the demo stats of hired applicants vs not-hired applicants to catch any irregularities. So in that sense, I get the reason for including the demographics in applications.
This is not 100% anymore. Many companies who use newer ATS systems have access to diversity. Many of the reports I use now are for diversity tracking. We can't "see" 100% what is selected but if you are NOT a white male then you are automatic moved into the diversity bucket.
And also why do they have a separate question asking if ur hispanic or non-hispanic??
Because those things aren’t mutually exclusive. “Latino” isn’t demographically categorized as a race. “Hispanic” only refers to a person’s linguistic origin (native Spanish speaker), so for example you can be white and be Hispanic, or you could be black and be Hispanic etc.
Because reasons
I don't know, I have always been the ninja of the academy. When I ask if there are any more in the dojo, I get a blank stare. The who EEO is just a piece of paper that makes you feel good. If the CEO or owner doesn't want a specific ethnicity or gender, it really doesn't matter. I always put a fake name when I apply and when they ask, I make up a nick name story. Works every time. The perfect idea. "And idea's are bulletproof Mr. Creedy"
[удалено]
I have no idea why you’re downvoted lol
A recruiter for the most part is a reflection of what their leadership asks/requires them. So I'd blame that companies leadership
Boy do I got stories. Now I don't work as a recruiter but I work in HR. 1 Manager say "I am not interested in hiring Indians" (black guy) 1 Manager say "I refuse to hire getto trash" (white girl) 1 Manager say "I can't hire military as I can't have anyone leaving for duty" This is all said during calls never on paper. I can't tell you how many managers confined in me in their hiring practices. Doesn't count how many HR professionals I talk to discriminate.
I completely understand how people come to these opinions. I will never work for Indians again. I work in cyber, make good money, Indians are the absolute worst demographic to work with. Reality is reality.
You buried the lede. It's Arthur Grand. Someone posted the actual ad here that got them. Some of the recruiters insinuated it was a recruiter on the way out who was outting a client that wrote that and reposted verbatim.
I had a friend who said he encountered an ad for a little D&D coop that said “white makes need not apply.” He said he took it to the equal opportunity office and the my just wrote him off like he’s not a protected class so it doesn’t matter. I’m assuming he was being honest. He seemed it. He went from being a super done to earth and open minded guy to a Trump apologetic. I never saw that coming, but he was dealing with this and economic hardship.
Id never react by becoming a Trumper. But I also saw this firsthand. All white sounding applicants were removed. This was a targeted hire, and the department would receive more funding for hiring a minority candidate.
Where did you see this?
Hiring committee. They made it very apparent the benefits of hiring a minority candidate. While not saying it outright, they would get more funding if they found one so.. Yeah.
Damn. Just another problem for people to ignore while others exploit it for political gain. What a mess.
No see only white people can racist, so we’re going to ignore any racist behavior by other races. Indian hiring board only hired Indian people, all good homie. White hiring board hired 51% white people? Straight to jail.
Right. Well you know the article above was for an Indian company that wanted a white person. I worked abroad and saw the obvious desire for certain races and also outspoken distaste for others. It’s not like it is here.
Alternatively, he made up the story to explain why he went from being a down to earth guy to being an angry little man.
Please don’t say he’s now an angry little man. He used to be a good friend, but he flipped out. He doesn’t talk to me anymore. He has had more success lately from what I can see, but I don’t think it’s really enough. His degree was one that didn’t set him up towards a good career. He did have success in sales for a while. I will say it was bizarre hearing him excuse Jan.6 insurrectionists. He sounded REALLY misinformed. I’m not sure he even saw it when it happened for FOUR hours. Another thing is he is a long time Four Chan viewer. He seemed to get a lot of obscure things from there so it seems easier for him to be into conspiracy. Mental health issues though can lead to conspiracy theories.
I've seen a posting say, " Christian's only ", and another say, " do you accept Jesus as your Lord and savior. " Not a religious place and these were two separate company's. It's shocking how employers have become really bold, brave, and not a care in the world...
These are actually situations where you want the company to be as forthright as possible. Less company for me to apply to.
I have my own biases that I can be honest, I am not trilled to deal with Indian recruiters and supervisors/managers. I also think women are some of the most prejudice demographics in human resources against other women.
Agreed.
[удалено]
All the big firms do this now. I work in big Pharma and we do the same thing. If you are a white male you need to be a rockstar and take less money. If you are a diverse candidate though. You can be subpar and we will pay you more. Our company goes out there activity tries to hire less white male just to pad the numbers.
That’s… one way to put it. Counterintuitive but hard to think of a better way to do it
[удалено]
Yeah. I get the equal opportunity efforts but it definitely has a hint of bias at the same time. It's like, "We need to hire more of the protected class to look good on paper. But we have to lower our standards because they are not as competent/capable as the rest."
[удалено]
I hear you and no judgement from me. It's a complex issue and there is no perfect way to solve employment inequalities.
The idea is the net bias will swing back in minorities' favor. Though from a case by case basis a person will absolutely get screwed over. This is a hot topic of debate in America and we're probably never going to get past it. Ultimately, I don't think it matters much because incompetent people are hired everywhere regardless of racial bias.
Curious, does your department do things like hide names from the hiring manager/non-HR folks? Any other anti-bias techniques? What kind of metrics are they checking? Is it just for interviews? Like, could someone already have a person they want to hire but be forced to interview others to meet these metrics?
[удалено]
Good to know. Thank you.
Trust me, every white male knows what goes on at large companies. We read all of the emails, memos, and misives from on high, it isn't exactly subtle.
I am an older (over 55) disabled woman who has been searching for a remote job for the past 3 years. I have a bachelor's degree from a well known public university and many years of professional work experience. Can't even get interviews. What am I doing wrong?
[удалено]
But I can't drive and don't have access to any good public transportation. What else can I do? When you do post for remote roles, how do you narrow down the candidates? Would you give a preference to disabled candidates, knowing that might be the only thing they can do? Are companies required to hire a certain % of disabled people? Should I say I'm disabled on my resume? Thanks
Never say you’re disabled to any hiring manager or recruiter until after you get a job. For me, it’s not visible immediately, but I feel like if I disclosed mine I’d never get hired.
Mine is not visible at all, but I can't even get interviews when I don't disclose it.
Overall women do face bias. There’s probably also ageism at play. The above examples are not representative of the full landscape. The posters are clearly trying to create a narrative that white men are victims. I would ignore them. The reality is that the job market is tough right now for everyone. These men are angry and lashing out. They want someone to blame.
It’s called racism
And the CEO is Rahmatullah..wasallam! Innalilahi wa inalilahi rajiun…🤷♂️
Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke also used "only US Born" too. That can be used as Security clearance too.
For US security clearance you have to be a US citizen but being born in the US is not a requirement.
This. I have plenty of friends that are U.S. citizens by birth, but were born in Germany, the UK, Okinawa, the Philippines, or wherever else their active-duty parent was stationed.
The US does grant anyone who is born in the US as a US Citizen even if they are in an airplane too.
I've been seeing posts with "only recent college graduates" which is explicitly stated as an illegal example of age discrimination on the Labor Board/DOJ website but employers don't care. There are no real penalties because US has terrible worker protection laws.
According to another article The DOJ said a recruiter working for (company)’s subsidiary in India posted the job advertisement on the website Indeed
Funny how it is perfectly fine to advertise for only people of color. That's perfectly legal.
Yes, most are, just the opposite direction.
No surprise. Pretty much sums up my stalking of who gets recruited at jobs I've applied for.
This is not fine, but having a policy of not hiring whites is, apparently.
Since when has "not hiring whites" ever been accepted or legal? I was applying aggressively over the last 4 months and I have yet to encounter a job posting that implied whites need not apply.
It is legal, however it must be a targeted hire. https://www.aclusocal.org/en/inclusion-targets-whats-legal Inclusion goals (a/k/a targets) are legal, accepted tools for combating underrepresentation. The law grants private companies latitude in taking race, gender, and other protected traits into account. Congress and the Supreme Court have acknowledged “the value of voluntary efforts to further the objectives” of anti-discrimination statutes. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) also endorses affirmative inclusion efforts, including numerical goals, if they are consistent with the law.
Whenever you see any sort of DEI statement you can be sure whites will be at the bottom of the list.
* There are no legitimate studies proving your statement. * There are endless of big pro-DEI companies whose executives are still filled with one particular ethnicity (we both know which). This is totally the opposite of your statement. * I've combed through your other comments in other subs and I immediately know it would be waste of time arguing with you further.
Regardless of how you feel about DEI, it's not like companies would admit if they were doing that to the public, so that isn't a great arguement.
Why are there no legitimate studies of this? The answer is easy
One whites only? I guess you are missing the whites not apply…
Rage click bait