#diversity

I've served on the interview panels over last couple of yrs ... and during that entire period, we have not interviewed a single non-Indian candidate. The latest round of interviews followed exactly the same pattern.... How is it possible that not a single candidate from another demo group has made it to our interview panel??? I am in Consumer Tech...

Requires Bloomberg subscription

Diwali is a major religious holiday. It is celebrated as a primary religious and cultural festival in India. So why then is the Plano Campus spending all sorts of money to have an outdoor festival during the work day for a religious holiday?

I was laid off from Q a while ago. Quite a few things have happened since then. I found another job, in a remarkably similar business, and had some time to reflect.

One thing strikes me as particularly peculiar.

At Qualcomm, you could literally spend days without encountering an American-born engineer. Most of the people around me were from India, some from China, and others from various Asian countries.

I was repeatedly told why this was supposedly inevitable. Americans don't study hard enough. They don't pursue STEM careers. They lack discipline, technical competence, work ethic, and so forth. Vivek Ramaswamy was particularly eloquent in explaining all this.

I was also told, in no uncertain terms, that entire groups within Q would never hire a non-Indian engineer. The explanation was fascinating: American engineers supposedly wouldn't put up with certain management practices (hello Murthy), while employees dependent on their employers for immigration status would be much more accommodating.

Go figure.

Fast-forward to my new employer.

Similar industry. Similar technical complexity. Serious engineering challenges.

Except the overwhelming majority of engineers I encounter are American-born. There are some Indian engineers, of course, but nowhere near the proportions I saw at Q.

And guess what? The engineering gets done. Apparently, Americans can still do mathematics, write software, design complex systems, and solve difficult problems.

Perhaps Mr. Ramaswamy's explanation wasn't quite as brilliant as you imagined and quietly approved.

This experience has made me seriously suspect that what I witnessed at Qualcomm was not simply a shortage of qualified American engineers, but something considerably less flattering: hiring practices shaped by ethnic networks, favoritism, and managerial convenience.

I cannot overstate how widespread this was. I am also confident those same networks influenced who was protected during layoffs and who was expendable.

And here is the part worth reflecting on, particularly for those who participated in or benefited from such arrangements.

You may have convinced yourselves that you were practicing some form of Indian exceptionalism. That your networks were stronger, your people more capable, your management methods more effective, and that excluding outsiders was simply good business.

But a company is not an ethnic clubhouse. It exists in a competitive market.

When hiring becomes an exercise in loyalty and conformity rather than competence, the consequences eventually reach everyone—including those who thought the arrangement worked in their favor.

I have observed something else at Q. There was no shortage of people who could execute an established process, navigate corporate politics, manage upward, and keep the machinery running smoothly. Some were remarkably accomplished at it. (Hello again, Murthy.)

Give such an organization a well-defined problem and an established algorithm, and it can produce millions of lines of code implementing variations of bubble sort. Namaste.

But technological leadership demands something fundamentally different. It requires people willing to question the algorithm itself, challenge conventional wisdom, and occasionally invent an entirely new way of solving the problem.

There is a world of difference between implementing a Viterbi decoder and having the insight to recognize that a seemingly intractable problem can be transformed into a tractable trellis-based optimization.

And that brings me to Qualcomm's present difficulties.

Look at Qualcomm's stock performance. Compare it with the semiconductor industry. Even Intel, for years the laughingstock of Silicon Valley, has outperformed Q dramatically.

Of course, there are many ingredients in Qualcomm's troubles: strategic missteps, market dynamics, competition, and management decisions. I am not suggesting that ethnic favoritism explains all of them, or even most of them.

But I cannot help wondering whether they are related. After all, a corporate culture that rewards ethnic loyalty, conformity, and obedience over competence and independent judgment is hardly a recipe for technological leadership.

You cannot manage your way into a breakthrough that nobody is willing to imagine.

And now another round of layoffs.

For anyone who helped build or sustain those closed networks, perhaps this is a useful moment for reflection.

You may succeed in excluding your competition from the hiring process. You cannot exclude your competition from the marketplace.

American capitalism has a peculiar way of teaching that lesson.

And sometimes those who thought they were the beneficiaries of a system discover that they are among its casualties.

Saw this article on Tech Rights;

100 Years of IBM Racism

I believe racism remains a real issue at IBM, but its manifestation may have evolved. In some instances, DEI initiatives appear to have been exploited, distorted, and we-ponized by certain groups to advance their own interests, potentially creating or reinforcing new forms of racial discrimination under the guise of promoting equity and inclusion. In that sense, a framework intended to combat discrimination can itself become a vehicle for it. I’m curious to hear others’ perspectives on this. Thoughts?

Let's validate the education and background of ALL employees. Many of the employees at #chase may have fake degrees and make up experience on their resumes, irrespective of their nationality.

Why doesn't USCIS conduct in-person tech interviews at the consulates or before approving H-1B or other work visas? The companies openly abuse the interview process. They all know that the candidates are not qualified. Managers just want to use their budgets. H1B slaves are the easiest to hire because citizens know their rights and they would question them.

Pretty much the title! Recently left after almost 12 years because of how much the firm has changed (for the worst) over the past couple years. The MTL office is basically 75% Indians. They're terrible at their jobs and they barely speak English or French. They're not compatible with our culture and the firm knows that. They are actively hiring more of them every day in Canada. They use the TFW program as much as they can. MS will do whatever they can to get out a decently payed Quebecois and replace them with a cheap foreigner. Think twice before supporting their services or working for them.

The pendulum swings. The shitheads crawl out from under the cabinets. First tactic will be to get in the way anything that tempers DEI, to embolden the beaten back SJWs and work towards taking back the second (and "fourth") branch(es) of government. Then in another couple of years, we'll be reliving the Good Ol' Joe years. The very thought makes want to vomit.

Hello Groypers and Maga trolls, the below JD is taken from a VP job being advertised by Nasdaq. Notice the last line. I thought English was the spoken language in the US? Where's the outrage now? Where are the theories of Hispanic takeover of US jobs like the conspiracy theories and hate against Indians?

Required Qualifications

Extensive (20+ years) leadership experience in program management and transformation delivery within capital markets, banking, or financial market infrastructures.
Proven success leading large-scale, complex programs across Tier 1 banks or FMIs (e.g., exchanges, clearing houses, custodians, central banks).
Strong executive presence with demonstrated ability to engage and influence C-suite stakeholders and build long-term partnerships.
Deep understanding of front-to-back capital markets operations, including trading, clearing, custody, and post-trade processing.
Demonstrated experience managing large program financials, including budget oversight, forecasting, and commercial governance.
Exceptional communication, governance, and stakeholder management capabilities in global, regulated environments.
Must be fluent in Spanish to communicate with clients.

In 2019 Nike HR identified that we were 5-10 years from a retirement cliff of experienced leaders who had been with the company for ~30 years. We identified a number of up-and-coming leaders who were being groomed to backfill these leaders. Due to the location of Nike in Oregon, the experienced leaders and the backfill candidates were mostly all white men. Donahoe comes in with his Stanford Business School strategy of firing 15% per year, combined with George Floyd inspired aggressive diversity targets and we fire all the experienced leaders and the backfill candidates. Once they leave, no matter how talented the new team is, we lost the institutional knowledge that made Nike successful. Easy as that.

In the past few months post RIF, i have seen at least 3 senior roles G7, G8 open up, and filled up fast with diversity internal candidates bypassing clear competent choices. Females seem to be the first choice for a role irrespective of any relevant experience or job role requirements. Abby moving towards target 70%?

https://www.ft.com/content/ad6d56fa-6a6e-43bd-8f12-205a3f94ac0e?syn-25a6b1a6=1

https://finance.yahoo.com/energy/articles/shale-tycoon-claims-exxon-ceo-124336695.html

In hindsight, he said he wished he had not exposed Pioneer employees to Exxon’s “notoriously cut-throat and dysfunctional culture” but instead pursued takeovers of other US oil companies such as Range Resources or Endeavour Energy Resources.

I'm a people leader and I'm being told by my SVP and EVP I must hire only from the GCC. I can't help but feel like this is some what discrimatory , shouldn't I be able to hire who is best for the job? Not just only from the GCC? So I'm being forced to hire from the GCC all while managers onshore that look like they came from the GCC only hires ppl that also reflect people from the GCC. What is happening?

The only ones at risk well you know who you are the inclusive group excludes you.
Nothing to see here folks just a shell of reality at tjx. Mental illness encouraged.

Over the past year and a half, many White and Asian leaders in Engineering and Product have been forced out --- while many new leadership come from the same Indian background. Layoffs seem to disproportionately affect non-Indian engineers, while new VPs and Senior Directors who are all Indian -- hire predominantly from their own communities.

I hope HR is reviewing the promotion, and layoff data objectively. Engineers from every background are equally capable, talented, and hardworking. Everyone deserves a fair and equal opportunity, regardless of ethnicity or background.

What is happening at Teradata now --- is not fair.

When you tie executive compensation to a goal like this, you get results that we have today.

2025 Targets - 50 percent representation of women in global corporate workforce and 45 percent in leadership positions.

Leaders hired on on basis of their gender are spread through the org from SLT to first level managers. The cancer has spread throughout the org. WON won, NKE lost.

We need large layoffs every year and need to hire back based on merit.

Anybody else just feel like the interview questions are pointless and do not reflect the candidate properly? Why it is the HR questions are tick box exercises and not actually about the role. I got a question last week about diversity and inclusion... what the actual f**k?

Why not ask about the job and what experience i bring.. they wonder why all these companies lose good candidates to their stupid questions. I've literally had a 10 years old ask me more technical questions about my job than HR could ever...

Everyone knows that RV is all about replacing American workers. Here’s the factual numbers that prove it.

Number of employees - 47,097

US employees - 19,187
Non US employees - 27,910

Of those non US employees , India specifically equals 15,925

Someone had a copy of a strategic plan that showed KPIs for hiring women and minorities? What if that proof existed?

If when you do an internet search on “Humana Stock.” And then click on “News” at the top, if you do the slightest internet research on each of those news reporting sites, you will find that almost all are owned by and run by India. And most will have sorted (unless your click to sort by latest articles) will show articles that speak favorably as to Humana’s stock.

Why do you think that is?

India is propping up Humana with their news media, with their buying stock into Humana, etc. So, no wonder Humana has so many Indians on the payroll, via H-1B or offshoring to India.

Please, won’t you remaining American citizens wake up and see what is occurring?!

Seattle's mayor has initiated a plan to lessen the city's dependence on major technology companies. A commissioned report revealed that the city's tax revenue is overly concentrated in a few large businesses. This initiative aims to broaden the economic base and reduce this reliance. The goal is to create a more resilient and varied local economy. This effort is a direct response to the findings of the economic development office.

Seattle, Washington

https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2026/09/09/mayor-katie-wilson-business-community-amazon.html

So, here in Dublin employee from outside Ireland are celebrated excessively and there is even advice on immigration/visa!

Talk about rubbing it in after just closing offlices in Cork and Wexford. Perhaps those offices were not diverse enough?

Just wondering if anyone noticed any patterns in this round of layoffs? for example, whether certain groups seemed disproportionately affected, such as women, LGBTQ+ employees, employees over 40/50, racial or ethnic minorities, people of certain national origins or religions, pregnant employees, employees with disabilities or undergoing medical treatment, or anyone who had previously raised concerns, reported issues, discussed working conditions with coworkers, or engaged in other protected activity?

Cummins keeps pushing this whole diversity-and-mental-health thing, the "let's all sit around the hot tub, hold hands and make sure everyone's feeling good" vibe.

But is that actually true? Is the culture really as "inclusive" as they claim? Every manager ending every meeting with the company's favorite buzzword—"Cummins values"—sure makes it sound that way.

The reality is a different story. As a white, Christian, straight guy, I get the short end of the stick constantly. Go ahead and apply for internal openings all you want—nobody's listening. They'll pass you over for someone with way less experience, sometimes none at all.

In any technical discussion, no matter how much evidence I bring to the table, management sides with the women in the room every time. My director actually told me, "You're right 99% of the time, but you're going to hurt her feelings and she'll get emotional." So the company shelled out $500k to a law firm just to confirm what I'd already proven for free.

Working here is flat-out he-l for me. The problem is I can't afford to walk away, and job-hunting in this economy is brutal.

As a God-fearing Christian, I used to dread the day I'd have to face my Maker. But four years at this company taught me something—and it's honestly the one good thing I've gotten out of it: I'm not scared of that day anymore. Turns out he-l on earth is real, and Judgment Day will feel like a relief by comparison. Funny enough, I heard Elon Musk say almost the same thing recently. Didn't realize he worked at Cummins too.

I had a two decade long career at Shell. I held on to all the shares that I got through PSP and the discount. Two years ago Shell gave me the ol' heave ho severance package because I don't match the DEI quota for senior leaders (aka male on a 100% male team and I don't have either a tan, an alphabet letter, or an accent so I was the one selected to go). I was watching the Shell shares run up in value... but the nagging part was that while watching them climb XOM was climbing faster percentage wise... and for most of the time QQQ and nvidia were too. I kind of regret hanging on to Shell for a higher price when selling Shell and buying a better company would have done me better financially.

Selling Shell to buy a lot of different things would have been better. the idea of hoping your holdings are the winner is like staying with your first pick on the Monty Hall problem

SELL Sell SELL

Many of the LI brag posts on UNC training include a photo of the attendees and it is clear that the training is to promote DEI. Under represented groups are very much over represented in the attendees.

Story by James Stephens

The following are among the most common lies hiring managers tell, helping you spot red flags and ask the right questions during your job search. By recognizing these patterns, you can navigate the hiring process with confidence and avoid falling for empty promises. Let’s dive in and expose the truth behind these common hiring myths!

"There’s plenty of room for growth."
This phrase sounds promising, but it’s often as vague as a fortune cookie. “Growth” might mean taking on more responsibilities without a promotion or pay raise. Companies love to dangle this carrot, but without specifics, it’s hard to know if you’ll actually climb the ladder—or just stay on the first rung.

Ask for examples of employees who’ve advanced within the company. If they can’t name anyone, the only thing growing might be your workload. A clear career path beats vague promises, so dig deeper to find out if “growth” means opportunity or just a clever sales pitch.

"We’ll get back to you soon."
This line is the professional equivalent of “I’ll text you later.” It sounds polite, but it often leads to ghosting or weeks of radio silence. Companies use this phrase to buy time or avoid giving immediate feedback, leaving candidates in limbo.

If you don’t hear back, follow up with a polite email. But don’t wait forever—treat this as a red flag. If they’re this unresponsive during the hiring process, imagine how they’ll handle communication once you’re on the team. Sometimes, “soon” really means “never,” so keep your options open.

"We have a great company culture."
“Great company culture” often translates to free snacks and a ping-pong table, while ignoring toxic managers or high turnover. It’s a buzzword companies use to sound appealing, but it rarely tells the full story.

Ask about team dynamics, conflict resolution, or how they support employees during tough times. If they dodge the question or only mention surface-level perks, the “great culture” might be more of a marketing ploy. Remember, a truly great culture goes beyond happy hours and beanbag chairs—it’s about how employees are treated every day.

"Your resume will be kept on file."
This phrase is the hiring world’s version of “It’s not you, it’s me.” It sounds hopeful, but in reality, your resume will likely gather digital dust in a forgotten folder. Companies rarely revisit old resumes unless a role perfectly matches your profile.

If you’re genuinely interested in future opportunities, don’t rely on this promise. Stay proactive by setting up job alerts, following the company on LinkedIn, and reapplying when relevant roles open up. “Kept on file” might sound nice, but it’s no substitute for staying visible and engaged.

"The role’s responsibilities are flexible."
“Flexible” often means “we’ll expect you to do everything.” This phrase can mislead candidates into thinking they’ll have autonomy, but the reality might involve rigid expectations and a never-ending to-do list.

Ask for specific examples of how flexibility applies to the role. If they can’t provide clear answers, prepare for a job that stretches you in all the wrong ways. Flexibility should empower you, not overwhelm you, so make sure the role aligns with your skills and career goals before signing on.

"We offer competitive salaries."
“Competitive” with what? Minimum wage? Without specifics, this phrase often means salaries are average—or even below market rates. Companies use it to sound appealing while avoiding actual numbers.

Research industry benchmarks and ask for a salary range during the interview. If they hesitate or dodge the question, it’s a sign they might not be offering what you’re worth. Remember, a truly competitive salary doesn’t need vague marketing—it speaks for itself. Don’t settle for less than you deserve.

"We prioritize work-life balance."
This phrase often hides a reality of long hours and constant availability. Companies love to claim they support work-life balance, but the truth might involve late-night emails and weekend deadlines.

Ask about specific policies, like flexible hours or remote work options. If they can’t provide concrete examples, their version of “balance” might just mean you’re balancing work on your back. Look for signs that they respect personal time, like clear boundaries and a culture that values rest as much as productivity.

"We’re financially stable."
When companies emphasize financial stability, it can sometimes mean they’re trying to distract you from layoffs or budget cuts. This phrase sounds reassuring, but it’s worth digging deeper to confirm.

Research the company’s financial health through public records, news articles, or employee reviews. If they’re truly stable, they’ll have no problem being transparent about their finances. On the other hand, if they’re vague or defensive, it might be time to reconsider. Stability should be a given, not a sales pitch.

"You’ll have access to professional development."
“Access” doesn’t always mean “opportunity.” Companies often promise training and growth, but the reality may involve little more than a dusty bookshelf of outdated manuals.

Ask for examples of past training programs or budgets allocated for professional development. If they can’t provide specifics, their commitment to your growth might be more talk than action. True professional development requires investment, so make sure the company is willing to back up their promises with real resources.

"We’re like a family here."
“We’re like a family” often translates to blurred boundaries and overwork. While it sounds warm and inviting, it can mean you’re expected to prioritize work over your personal life.

Look for signs of healthy boundaries, like clear work hours and respect for time off. A “family” culture can sometimes lead to burnout if not managed properly. Remember, you’re looking for a job, not an adoption. A professional environment with mutual respect beats a dysfunctional “family” any day.

"We value employee feedback."
Companies love to say they value feedback, but in practice, it often goes straight into the void. This phrase can serve as a way to appear open-minded without actually implementing changes.

Ask for examples of how employee feedback has led to improvements. If they can’t name any, their commitment to listening might be more about appearances than action. Feedback should lead to growth, not just a checkbox on a survey.

"The hiring budget is flexible."
“Flexible” often means “we’ll lowball you and hope you don’t notice.” Companies use this phrase to sound accommodating, but it’s often a tactic to keep salaries as low as possible.

Come prepared with market data and your salary expectations. If they push back or hesitate to meet your worth, their “flexibility” might only work in their favor. Don’t be afraid to negotiate for what you deserve.

"We’re open to remote work."
“Open to remote work” can quickly turn into “we need you in the office.” Some companies use this line to attract candidates, only to later push for in-person attendance.

Clarify their remote work policy and ask about long-term expectations. If they start talking about “team synergy” or “office culture,” prepare for a commute. Transparency upfront saves you from future frustration.

"We discourage talking to current employees."
This phrase screams red flag. If a company discourages you from speaking with staff, they’re likely hiding something—like unhappy employees or a toxic work environment.

Push back politely and ask why they discourage these conversations. A company confident in its culture should welcome transparency, not avoid it. If they’re cagey, it’s worth reconsidering the opportunity.

"We’re committed to diversity and inclusion."
“Committed” doesn’t always mean “active.” Many companies talk about diversity and inclusion but fail to back it up with meaningful action.

Ask about specific initiatives, employee resource groups, or metrics that track progress. If their answers feel rehearsed or vague, their “commitment” might be more about appearances than real change. True diversity requires effort, not just a tagline.

FIS Indian employees getting onto interview panels and rejecting qualified American candidates in favor of preferred candidates.
Interview questions and confidential hiring information being passed to friends or associates before interviews.
Interviewers receiving commissions or kickbacks when preferred candidates are hired, including payments connected to staffing vendors.
Once hired, favored employees receiving better assignments, visibility and promotion opportunities.
American workers being given unrealistic deadlines, criticized, marginalized and eventually pressured to resign.

Their words for what happens inside the company:
“This is called systemic pressure.”

Then they describe a second type of “syndicate.”
According to the source, managers and their subordinates become partners in grocery stores and restaurants, particularly around Atlanta, Jacksonville and Brown Deer. They rotate responsibilities so one of them is always at the business, creating another source of income outside their corporate jobs.

We’re constantly told FIS Indian is about hiring the “best and brightest” and the “most qualified.”

But what if the American candidate never had a fair shot in the first place?

I came to this nation 20 years ago, and everywhere I go—whether it’s a shopping area, a park, School, an office, or a hospital—I have always witnessed the kindness, warm smiles, and compassion of the American people. However, I now worry about whether my children will receive that same love in the future because of the actions of some of our fellow Indians. In my own workplace, I have seen instances where Indian professionals undermine their American colleagues, making them feel inadequate or even pushed out of their jobs. Through overbearing behavior in meetings, manipulation, and even falsified experience, I fear these actions will negatively impact how this community is perceived.

The ideology in Citi Tampa is simple. Make Indians sit in director or SVP roles. Keep hiring Indians in h1b under them - promote those h1 Indians. No more h1 grace periods and no more h4 abuse whatsoever. Our governments message is crystal clear. Our kids spend 300 grand for their undergrad education and are jobless. Why give jobs away to outsiders and it’s a shame that our jobs have been taken away. No more exploitation in Citi Tampa.

I’m beginning to notice a troubling pattern in my job search. When the hiring manager is Indian or most members of an interview panel are Indian, I rarely advance. Looking back, my successful applications all involved white, non-indian, interviewers.

I understand that this pattern alone does not prove bias and that many factors influence hiring decisions. Still, after losing my previous role to HIH and seeing that IT departments are majority Indians, it is very disheartening to think that I
might never find a job again. I am competing with Indians here and outside the US.

This is not a judgment about every Indian interviewer or hiring manager. It is an honest observation about my own experiences and a pattern I believe is worth examining. Has anyone else noticed possible affinity bias during their job search? Have you noticed the ratio of Indians and non-Indians in your team?

I get it, they will not be promoted. We don’t want them over us. But that doesn't mean they have to leave. Just take the paycheck, be quiet, and don’t ask for a career. That’s not too much to ask. Like promotes like, we only promote what looks like us, sorry…

There’s a growing concern about how decisions are being made. On top of everything else, there seems to be a pattern where certain groups receive preferential hiring and protection when their managers share the same background. This creates an uneven culture where opportunities, visibility, and project access aren’t distributed fairly. Many employees feel sidelined while others are consistently shielded, and it’s affecting trust across the team

Company News: The "Brandon Hall Group HCM Excellence Awards" - where out of 20 awards issued, 19 went to Optum India.

Way to rub the outright, blatent, anti-USA descrimination into the faces of your employees, a--hats!

When Clearlake took over they fired a total of 20% of all employees at D&B.

Has anyone felt that they or another employee have been discriminated against for either age, gender or religion?

More and more people that I work with have such an accent that it is difficult to understand them, even though they are supposedly speaking English.

Absolutely horrid accents that need to be improved just to communicate successfully.

EM needs an entire team of Speech Therapists, or possibly make communication ability a key screening topic in hiring. Unfortunately the interviewers also have unintelligible accents.

CDW and McKinsey & Company have both faced scrutiny regarding their DEI practices (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and ESG frameworks (Environmental, Social, and Governance), many referring to these programs as "woke," while company leadership defends them as sound strategies. Who is paying the price for these programs?