back to article Intel doubles its bounty for women and ethnic minorities

Intel is so keen to increase the diversity of its workforce that it is paying double its finder's fee for women and minorities, according to reports. Intel is currently offering $4,000 (£2,560) to employees who suggest job candidates that help it achieve its diversity goals, according to the Wall Street Journal. “Intel is …


  1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge


    If large companies like Intel drive for politically correct staffing levels (see: not representative of either the actual training pipeline nor the population at large) where are smaller companies supposed to find individuals to meet their quotas? What are the actual targets? Are they set based on simple perpetual ratcheting or population at large ratios? What are these large companies doing to solve the pipeline disparity issues?

    So many questions.

    1. g e

      Re: Questions

      If people don't want to work for Intel then they don't want to work for Intel, not really anyone's fault, particularly, unless Intel have a rep as horrific to work for (more so than their rivals, at least)

      Likewise not Intel's fault (presumably) if people of the 'correct ethnic diversity' don't have the qualifications to be accepted for available roles, either.

      1. Craigness

        Re: Questions

        It's not Intel's fault the people are not there, but it IS their fault that they are discriminating against the people most likely to want to work for them.

      2. martinusher Silver badge

        Re: Questions

        >unless Intel have a rep as horrific to work for

        I was an accidental Intel employee for a couple of years (Intel purchased a small company and eventually shut it down). Your experience of working for Intel depends on whether you're a 'blue' or 'green' badged employee -- blue are proper employees, green subcontractors -- and what division you work for. My experience was positive, I would have probably remained there for years except that I didn't want to move and didn't need a job that badly. Their severance package is outstanding.

        The big problem with a company like Intel is that it manages by remote control. The company that I worked for - Xircom - had products in two categories. One was wireless, that's what they were interested in. The other stuff was no interest so the dumped it / gave it away to competitors. The wireless work eventually got offshored, first to Russians (where it may have fallen foul of ITAR regulations) and then to some Poles. The main development work for the products we were working on (notebook chipset) was being done in Haifa, Israel. You were never quite sure how decisions were being taken or why -- but then it may be because we were used to a startup culture.

        Intel is a global company so the notion of its workforce not being diverse is laughable.There may not be enough females working there in technical roles but that's probably due to a shortage of females in technical roles. We had a significant number -- hardware, firmware, management -- in our little backwater and they were just colleagues.

      3. Charles Manning

        Re: Questions

        "Likewise not Intel's fault (presumably) if people of the 'correct ethnic diversity' don't have the qualifications to be accepted for available roles, either."

        Well in the modern PC world we can't blame it on the ethnically diverse people either, so it must be either Intel's fault or the patriarchy.

        I don't know what it's like in USA, but here in NZ many institutions give free tuition to any women or Maori wanting to do engineering oriented courses... and still they don't come. They do, however, flock to the Maori studies and women's studies courses - neither of which is any use for employment.

        1. perlcat

          Re: Questions

          They do, however, flock to the Maori studies and women's studies courses - neither of which is any use for employment. Which pretty much says it all. There's more money/satisfaction to be made in being outraged, offended, and discriminated against than in actually performing work for pay. Reminds me of a conversation I recently had:

          Outrageist: "There aren't enough women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math professions."

          Me: "What was your major?"

          Outrageist: "Womyn's Studies"

          Me: "..."

          In a normal world, I'd have asked her why she wasn't in such a major -- but I'd like to keep my job, and so freedom of speech went right down the old crapper.

    2. JennyZ

      Re: Questions

      Larger companies (Apple, et al.) have bucket loads of cash to throw away on meeting socio-political expectations - smaller companies can concentrate on delivering stakeholder value.

    3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Questions

      meet their quotas

      What quotas? Quotas would be illegal.

      Anyway, when you see the sums in relation to turnover, it's obvious that these are PR exercises. Want more female black latino engineers? Get them to study engineering at university: Intel could fund some endowments. You can only employ what the market provides.

      Or looked at another way: how much of the USD 1 bn that Microsoft is reportedly stumping up for a crumb of Uber is going towards increasing diversity there and how much is being trousered according to some clever post-JOBS act accounting?

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: Questions

        What quotas? Quotas would be illegal.

        Fine. Targets then. Same shit, just technically one is non-binding policy and the other is. Doesn't matter. When the word comes down that "the workforce should look like X" this is no different in practice than dictating that the workforce must look like X".

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: Don't believe the hype.

          Fine. Targets then. Same shit, just technically one is non-binding policy and the other is. Doesn't matter.

          It makes a huge difference. One is fluffy PR that doesn't cost much but keeps the company in the headlines for the right reasons. The other is an official policy with potentially very expensive consequences and could soon have the company in the headline for the wrong reasons.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: Don't believe the hype.

            One is subtle reverse discrimination one is overt. There are way better ways to go about this. If there is a finders fee for brains, it should not matter what those brains are wrapped in. If you want to encourage women in tech, you should work on feeding the pipeline (on one end) and addressing cultral issues in a sustainable fashion on the other.

            A "boobs bounty" is just not cool.

            1. Bongwater

              Re: Don't believe the hype.

              Boobs bounty sounds amazing. I'm off to Hooters to collect my $4000 per rack! Surely waiting tables cannot be as terrible as working for Intel, or at Intel. Food service can be rough.

    4. Charles Manning

      Window dressing in USA

      Intel already have lots of diversity.

      Israel, Germany, South America, Canada, Australia, India, China... Can't all be WASP males.

      This is surely just window dressing for inside USA.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Questions

      It's about giving welfare to women and thick people.

      The government doesn't care if IT works. It cares about being elected.

      So if they tell big companies to "exercise corporate responsibility" (codespeak for employ useless people so we don't have to pay them welfare,) then they dream up things like this.

      You may have noticed that IT projects are failing all the time, despite modern methods. Well the modern methods are red tape, dreamed up by consultancies to get government projects, and the projects fail because the government has signalled its intentions (by rewarding companies which fail,) that employing women, and thick minorities in non-jobs like Agile expert, or PMO, wins contracts, whereas succeeding in delivery, but not employing women and minorities doesn't.

      This is why the people who weren't clever enough to be employed in 2002, are now working as Business Analysts, Project Managers and Programme Managers. The government creates work to suck up all the unemployed.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yeah! Who needs competent employees as long as they are diversified!

    On a more serious note, this could be good news for small companies. When the big giants focus less on competence and more on political correctness, this creates a window for small innovative companies to actually hire the best and brightest!

    Ideally they can then grow to become big companies, and then start to focus less on skill again, and more on political correctness, and the cycle starts again.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Keep in mind that ethnicity and gender is just the beginning! I'm certain that the companies would not like to discriminate but instead achieve a perfectly well calibrated work force based on sexual orientation, religion, ideology, citizenship, income bracket, favourite color etc.

    After all, by focusing on onoly gender and ethnicity, there's lot's of people who will be discriminated against.

    1. Anomynus Coward

      - Why, Mx Candidate, you do seem to fill all our critera. First, however: what is your favourite colour?

      - Blue! No, wait, yel-

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Hold on ...

      ... how about equal opportunities for dim people? Workshy people? People who are really unsuitable for their roles? My employer is good at this (hence I've still got a job).

      1. Captain DaFt

        Re: Hold on ...

        "how about equal opportunities for dim people? Workshy people? People who are really unsuitable for their roles?"

        I'd say they have more than equal opportunity in the workplace.

        At most places I've worked, all the above predominated in Management, Marketing, and HR.

  4. silent_count

    If Intel/Google hires a $MINORITY over a more qualified candidate, wouldn't the latter have an almost unlosable employment discrimination lawsuit against that employer?

    1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

      Not if they're fat, white and male.

      1. Joe Cooper

        Fat? Don't you mean thin? But not too thin, of course.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          No, I mean fat. Fat people are the currently accepted group to hate on. Normatives believe that fat people can just wake up one day and choose to be skinny. That anyone has the willpower, that everyone's metabolism is the same, and that fatties are all just weak.

          This leads to acceptable discrimination in the workplace. Hell, it leads to acceptable discrimination everywhere. That - in my opinion - is not okay.

          Look, I'm fat. I'm massively fat. I'm so massively, overwhelmingly fat that I have my own event horizon and photons that stray too near don't escape. So I think I'm a little bit qualified to talk about this.

          It's perfectly acceptable - in my books - to say to a person "you're so fat we need to charge you for two seats" on an airline. When you get to be my size you take up two seats. Fucking period. In fact, if you're of that size - and believe me, the crushing self esteem issues and overwhelming depression mean that we fucking know when we're that size, thanks - means that, as a fatty, you should have bought two seats to start with and saved everyone the grief. Like it or not a goodly portion of the "being enormous" is your fault as a fat person and you need to deal with the extra monetary expense of being that large.

          That said It's not okay to build your airplanes such that the armrest between those two seats doesn't move out of the way. Fat people exist. They're a significant portion of the population, and if you design your chairs, airplane seats and so forth such that they are unusable by fat people you're a goddamned asshole. If you want to be an asshole in that coffee shop you own, that's your right. But mass transportation is a whole separate issue and the damned well should be regulations to ensure that all people, regardless of size, disability, etc. can use it.

          A fat person my size isn't going to be physically able to do the job of a high-speed door-to-door mail carrier that has to cover dozens of square kilometers of houses every day. That's ridiculous and fatties shouldn't apply for those jobs. Physical fitness is a requirement of that position. It's a rational requirement of that position, and it's completely and utterly ridiculous to expect an employer to buy you a scooter or some other such nonsense.

          That said, there's nothing that prevents a person of any given size from being back office staff. Or a computer programmer. Or any of these other jobs that don't involve a fair amount of physical labour. So discriminating against them in hiring because you don't like how they might make the company look is complete bullshit and - in my opinion - absolutely grounds for a lawsuit.

          I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Fat people do have to take some responsibility for being fat. That said, for most of us it isn't a choice. It's a disease that we struggle with, and it is a complicated and intricately linked mishmash of physical, psychological and neurochemical issues that allow us to get fat in the first place and then keep us fat, no matter what we try.

          Some parts of society should be open to all people. No one should be excluded from cultural events, mass transportation or finding employment because of how they look, their origins gender, sexual orientation or so forth. But humans aren't good at thinking like that.

          Humans are tribal. We want to identify with a group. A clique. A collection of no more than about 100-125 people. We need the ability to exclude others. We want the ability to use guilt and especially shame to establish our dominance over others. We need to prove that we are superior, they are inferior and we should be in charge/get the best mates/command the highest jobs/receive the accolades/consume the respect.

          You can't hate on people of colour. You can't hate on women. You can't hate on gays or transgender or pretty much any other identifiable group. One by one they've become protected by law. One by one they've earned the right to equality, respect and dignity.

          But not fat people.

          Fat people are a socially acceptable target. The narrative that it is 100% their fault is an easy one. We can claim they choose that way of life. If only they'd accept good, clean, protestant ideals like suffering for their entire lives they could be just like the rest. If only they were of purer genetic stock. If only they worked harder to make more money and afford better food.

          Most people in North America don't even acknowledge that mental health issues are real. So I can't quite say that we discriminate against people with those issues. We simply pretend they don't exist. They they're faking it, doing it for attention, or that they could simply will themselves healthy if they really wanted to.

          Because of this, it's impossible to explain things like decision fatigue to the average North American. It's impossible to explain things like Lectin allergy, neurotransmitter imbalance, dopamine deficiency or weight issues as they pertain to ADHD, depression, anxiety or dozens of other disorders.

          We can't have those conversations because we - as a culture - believe that all of that is "just bullshit". We believe mental, physical and socioeconomic issues play no role whatsoever in obesity. It's nothing but personal choice and weakness.

          Because of this, no matter how much you, personally, dislike the fact that some fat people try (in vain) to achieve some semblance of equality you simply don't have to worry that it will happen in your lifetime. It won't. A few noisy people who make the news that the nation can make fun of them aren't actually changing a goddamned thing.

          In order to address obesity in a rational way we have to go through generations of education, primairily on the realities of mental and psychical health issues. Stigmas around mental health need to drop away. A better understanding of neural and neuroendocrine systems needs to be fundamental to the culture as a whole.

          We aren't there. We won't be there a hundred years, if ever.

          Fat people are the soft, squishy, easy target for hatred and discrimination. They are legal to discriminate against in almost every way. And they will be for a very long time.

          So don't worry. Your position atop the social pyramid is safe. You're superior. We're inferior. And it'll be that way for as long as you live.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: fat people are the only acceptable group to hate

            See also: people with light red hair, men with small hands, women who want to stay at home and look after kids without claiming they're being discriminated against, prostitutes, white men, women who disagree with SJWs, Christians, Germans, parents.

            Not to minimise your problems, but there are plenty of other groups. Trick is to spot the ones you aren't in and stand against the hate of them :)

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Re: fat people are the only acceptable group to hate

              Fat people aren't the only acceptable group to hate; they're the easiest, and the least likely to be able to achieve any sort of equality any time soon.

              The interesting part is that while you have successfully listed a series of identifiable groups who have been traditionally on the receiving end of prejudices most (if not all) actually have both a number of laws and fairly strong movements that are working on equality for them. I think it's worth disassociating those who have traditionally been subjects of discrimination but are winning the fight from those who have traditionally been subjects of discrimination and don't stand a prayer in the near or medium term.

              1. silent_count

                Re: fat people are the only acceptable group to hate


                Well said, mate.

                With regards to mental illness, try to be generous to people who don't understand. Most people (myself included) don't have anywhere near the grasp of chemistry needed to understand what goes on in our brain. Or the linkage between the various chemical balances and their effect on our behaviour.

                Some of it is that we (humans) don't want to understand. If you mix so much sodium and so much chlorine, you get so much salt. It's entirely deterministic. If we accept that out brains operate on the same laws of chemistry as everything else in the universe, it doesn't leave any room for the free will that many of us hold dear.

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  Re: fat people are the only acceptable group to hate

                  Some of it is that we (humans) don't want to understand.

                  And that actually is a choice. And it's a choice that I don't have a lot of patience or compassion for. Ignorance is the precursor to prejudice, and prejudice presages douchebaggery.

                  1. MondoMan

                    Re: fat people are the only acceptable group to hate

                    As a fatster myself, I still can't ignore the fact that wholesale obesity seems to be a function of culture; 50 years ago your average American wasn't as fat as we are today. There are plenty of other examples of wholesale cultural dietary changes leading to increased obesity throughout history. Personally, I suspect part of the issue is less day-to-day exercise in getting to places -- we all drive rather than walking or cycling these days.

          2. That Awful Puppy

            Being fat is almost entirely a choice, the very few medical exceptions notwithstanding.

            I used to weigh 140 kilos. Not quite enough to have my own event horizon, but I did notice a few minor satellites orbiting me. So I took a good hard look at myself, which took a fair amount of time due to my extensive surface area, and decided things need to change.

            I started eating less carbs and more protein and fats (whilst keeping an eye on total caloric intake), and did a bit of exercise. My weight is now around 85 kilos, +/- a few. I feel immeasurably better, I look better and I don't sweat nearly as fucking much.

            It wasn't easy, but it's a choice, as much as being fat is a choice. It's just a matter of altering your daily habits.

            Discriminating against someone based on things they can't control, such as race, sex or the kind of naughty bits that attract you? Shit behaviour.

            Discriminating against someone based on things they can control, such as going into politics or choosing to stuff your face day in, day out? Well, it's not nice, but people's choices are a good indicator of what they are like, unlike things they can't control.

            Trevor, I enjoy reading your articles, but your comment is just one long list of excuses. Please consider some change, for your health's sake if for nothing else.

            1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

              Thanks for making my point for me, mate. You don't actually know what you are talking about. Despite this but you are so completely and absolutely convinced you do.

              There were people who were absolutely positive that black people were inferior, too. And they'd argue that point up and down, considering anyone who said a single thing different to be clinically insane.

              As for "just shifting my behaviour", oh, yeah mate, I'll get right the fuck on that. Thanks for telling me something I haven't heard 100,000 times before. You've really managed to open my eyes. I'll have absolutely no problems losing weight no, there's no barriers in my way. It's nothing but a choice!

              Maybe one of these days you'll actually learn about the lovely genetic anomaly I have. It's spectacularly rare. Not that it would matter to you. Because it's a choice.

              Maybe one day you'll learn about the ins and outs of clinical depression, which by the way, if a hell of a lot more all-encompassing than a case of "the blues". Not that it would matter to you, because clearly that's a choice too.

              Choices, choices. Just will yourself to be normal!

              You are a walking stereotype. You are the ignorance I abhor and in your absolute certainty the prejudice that destroys both compassion and dignity.

              That is a choice. There are many things you could be, and I am appalled at what you've chosen for yourself and those others around you.

              1. That Awful Puppy

                "Maybe one of these days you'll actually learn about the lovely genetic anomaly I have. It's spectacularly rare. Not that it would matter to you. Because it's a choice."

                You never stated you had one beforehand. As I said in the first line of my comment, there are a few - very few - medical exceptions. If that is the case, I sincerely apologise.

                Nice job on the rest of the comment, though. I haven't seen so many toys ejected from a pram with such force since the last fight with my ex.

                1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                  Why should it matter if I have a genetic anomaly or not? Plenty of people don't, are large, and have no more realistic control over their weight than I do. Nice to see you doubling down on your prejudice though. Great to feel superior, isn't it?

                  Have a super day.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    I am 13 stone (85.5 kg according to google), I've lost about 2 stone in the last year and a half through exercise and cutting out the chocolate biscuits etc.

                    My wife is just under 22 stone (140 kg - thanks google!) - she does twice the amount of exercise I do, and cut her calories lower than mine - she lost about 3 stone.

                    We basically eat the same food and drink (she has less of everything - I am the man!). There are slight differences in diet she likes tea with a splash of milk, I prefer black coffee). I have less sleep (6 hours vs 8 hours)... but basically we have the same lifestyle.

                    To me, that's proof that just changing your lifestyle isn't really the whole story. She sticks well below 2k calories, and we eat a balanced diet - if it was purely calories she'd be smaller than me, not nearly a person bigger!

                    There was a time when I was 15 stone - that was lifestyle, and my largest - I'd just had a kid and doing zero exercise... now I've got more muscle, leaner (albeit it with a slight belly still), and I'm pretty fit.

                    My wife struggles with depression - I'd say it's mostly weight related - but she goes through highs and lows with it - about things not weight related, things that don't really phase me, but I get it phases her.

                    When I hear people saying "it's easy, I just stopped eating pies and donuts and now I'm 'normal' - you're just lazy" it winds me up so much - mostly because I can see first hand it's not that simple for the vast majority of very large people.

                    I've gotten annoyed at kids who've laughed at my wife, pulling faces at her... I hold my tongue when I hear in the workplace people doing fat jokes... I've had somebody in work telling me their neighbour goes running in shorts, but she's fat and jiggles everywhere - why can't she just cover herself up?? I didn't respond... but he still laughed hard at it. So you've been told!! Fat people can't exercise in public, at least in warm weather, unless they want to die from heat exhaustion. FYI - that colleague is thin, eats shit and smokes... but hey... your fat neighbour sucks for trying to exercise!!

                    There is absolutely a culture of hate against big people, usually without knowing anything about the person they're laughing / discriminating against. Well done Trevor for having the balls to post!! Fat people don't want a free ride, they just want to be able to live with some sort of dignity without all the bullshit that's thrown their way.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward


              It is possible to change sex.

              It is possible to change race to some extent, if you define "race" to include things like religion and language, which, in practice, almost everyone does: Jewish, Hispanic, ...

              It is possible for someone with homosexual tendencies to adopt a purely heterosexual lifestyle.

              It is not possible to make a hard distinction between "things you can control" and "things you can't control". In practice it's a continuum. It would probably be easier for me to become Judaeo-Spanish than for some overweight people to become thin like I am. I have a lot of sympathy for overweight people because I myself have a completely uncontrollable appetite. I just can't stop eating. Fortunately my metabolism can cope with it and I remain thin despite being too lazy to get any exercise.

  5. Esme

    I demand that mouse-and-keybaord ambidexters who can only write with their right hand are given equal rights in the workplace! Every company must have the correct percentage of us in their workforce or else!


  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What happened to giving the job to the best person qualified and able to do it?

    It shouldn't matter what they look like or where they come from as long as they fit in with everyone else and can do the job to at least the standard required. Those are the two requirements that I have here for employing people. The first removes conflicts in the workplace and the second sees that the work is done to the standard our clients expect. To do otherwise is the quickest way to kill a business.

    1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      Indeed, this should be the case

      Now encourage a diverse set of people to start at the bottom, and then wait 5/10/20 years for them to gain the correct qualifications and experience, and hope they stay the course.

      I really get fed up when activists of all sorts don't take the training/experience lead time into account when considering diversity. They absolutely need to look at the bottom of the stack, and be prepared to wait sufficient time for people to mature, rather than assuming it can be fixed just using quotas.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Indeed, this should be the case

        The problem with that is that the downtrodden will say we should have done that 5/10/20 years ago.

        1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

          Re: Indeed, this should be the case

          We should have. We didn't. Now we're in a pickle as the furor over "incorrect" diversity reaches a fever pitch.

          1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            Re: Indeed, this should be the case

            But rather than bitch and whine now about something that cannot be altered, because time as we know it cannot be reversed, the people wanting to change it should bite the bullet, and actually work to ensure that the correct mix of people are entering professions, whatever they are, today for the next 5/10/20 years, depending on the type of role and level.

            Like many things, to achieve a particular goal, it is always necessary to make adequate preparations.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "What happened to giving the job to the best person qualified and able to do it?"

      That's not what they're doing. They're trying to get more people to TURN UP to the damn interviews in the first place so that they DO find the best qualified person, not matter what they look like.

      Do you really, really think that a company will choose someone with lower qualifications for a job? Are they that stupid?

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Do you really, really think that a company will choose someone with lower qualifications for a job?


        Are they that stupid?

        It's not stupid. It's cost/benefit. Optics matter. You don't need everyone to be a rock star. If they're competent "enough" then there can absolutely be greater value to the company in picking an individual with great optics over one that will deliver that extra few % of oomph.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Are El Reg implying that there are different toilets for different ethnicities at Intel?

    I thought they were more progressive than that.

  8. GrumpenKraut Silver badge

    "24 per cent of Intel employees are female"

    That strikes me as not quite bad for a rather hardcore tech company.

    To be clear: I _do_ appreciate the efforts for more women/diversity.

  9. Dan Paul

    Reverse Discrimination

    If Intel doubles the finders fee to $4,000 they could just as well fund more education programs.

    However, we have had 50 years of entitlements for people who wasted most of them. College Scholarships in particular. If you have good grades and are a minority, you'll get one for sure. The operative words are "Good Grades". If you coasted through high school with a "C" or less average you may not get a scholarship, but you still stand a better chance than a white person as the system is weighted in your favor.

    The left perpetuates the myth that without quotas no one has an opportunity to work as a minority. Nothing could be further from the truth as in reality these quotas diminish your reputation. IE you just got the job because you were a minority, not because you were qualified. Happens every day. All you really need to get a job is a good work ethic and some opportunity.

    Seen this hard quota thing happen in state & county facilities where the new hire can't even type or spell properly but got hired only because they are black. Everyone else has to compensate for the new hire (doing their work for them) and often a long term employee gets the boot to make room for the quota hire. The feds need to stop telling businesses and municipal governments who they must hire.

    ALL hiring quotas are reverse discrimination. Get rid of them!

    Simply hire the best fit qualified person to do the job. Specify what you want and select the candidate based on only that criteria.

    As a candidate, Race, Creed, Sex shouldn't enter into the equation but wearing them as arrogant chips on your shoulder isn't going to help your chances in the job market.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Reverse Discrimination

      The left perpetuates the myth that without quotas no one has an opportunity to work as a minority.

      Apart from this, and I hate to admit it, I agree with you whole-heartedly. ;-)

      America's two-party system does not really produce a "left" and a "right" but different coalitions of vested interests. For a European the union's demands for a "closed shop" (everyone must join the union) is as incomprehensible as the "right to work" states (unions are not welcome). Rinse and repeat for most other bits of legislation.

      1. Craigness

        Re: Reverse Discrimination

        The media and academia are of the left; they perpetuate the myth.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Any intel employees out there ?

    I'll stuff a couple of rolled up socks down my front and black-up, what do you say to splitting the bounty ?

  11. lucki bstard

    Isn't this illegal under sexual discrimination? Or is this an instance where sexual discrimination is legal because all sexes are equal only some are more equal than others.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      It's perfectly legal to provide additional incentives for head-hunters to try and get more of whichever group to apply for jobs. Discrimination only occurs when handing out the contracts.


POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019