Thread regarding Shell Oil layoffs

@gq You are correct. This is what happened. There were quotas with senior leaders having their compensation tied to those quotas. From about 2015 to at least 2025, some surprising promotions decisions were made, and some of us heard upper-level managers discuss that is was pre-ordained. Even very qualified candidates were often not even given interviews, much less not selected, on basis of the quotas. This happened.

This thread is hard to follow with the deleted posts missing. Granted the missing posts contained some stuff that shouldn't be said; but, the responses seem odd without the context of why people would post such things.

@1cq
"Kind of hard to claim discrimination against white males when 99% of the positions of authority belong to white males. "

That's not academically fair or accurate. Remember that there are more poor homeless men in that demographic than there are at the apex. Given that the real statistics are that 75% of homeless are men, only 40% of college graduates are men and the majority of crime victims are men, and the majority of the incarcerated are men and a woman's resume is 6 times more likely to be reviewed and get a call back. The number of men with an unfavorable outcome is far higher than the number with favorable outcomes. I think that is academically dishonest to suggest that a cherry picked small fraction represent the whole. It'd be more honest to cherry pick the larger fraction that are stuck at the bottom. Those "white men" and men in general are successful despite the odds, More men are caught up in discrimination and face the least favorable outcomes.

No apologies here and, here's a fact check. Technically 72 % of law makers are men and 75% are white men... that means that about 54% are white men not 99%.

Its actually easier to claim discrimination when you look at either individual cases or look at the population wholisically rather than just the to the successful fraction.

Imagine a world where we could look upon the merit and content of a person's mind and abilities rather than their s-x or race or religion.

@s1
In practice native Americans had a 10,000 year head start here in America.
Honestly, in the time period between 10,000 BC to 1850... and more specifically between 1492-1850, White people weren't the majority in North America. So,what does a 400 year head start really mean? Are you saying the second there is a white man there he is de facto in the lead compared to all others regardless of their advantages?
Women have been graduating from US colleges since 1840. Women were graduating from schools even earlier in Europe. And women have been at the fo-e front of science for over 120 years ( Marie Curie noble prize in 1903)... Given the choice most of them didn't pursue that calling.

Women didn't get the right to vote until 50years after popular vote for men... in context, that is not a big head start. And in local elections and territorial areas that gap is smaller and might not even exist.

Remember that there isn't really an advantage and there is not really a significant head start.

Stop making up a mythical victim narrative, @s1

@s1

lots of people had far longer “head starts” in their countries yet haven’t been able to leverage that into the value americans can

curious

White men had a 400yr head start in America and are still crying over the opportunities that other races/classes of people finally get.😭😅

@fn
This is the federal government, not private attorneys.

http://EEOC.gov

The interwebs says you needa file by180 days after the discriminatory act. So if you call the ambulance chasers, say 5 and a half months ago to give them two weeks to get things filed. Yeah you need to act ASAP.

@gh
Yeah, that really happened.

That was overt. There are a lot of covert actions but when coupled with all the evidence... it is clear that it is pretty common. Even for guys who weren't fired, there are a lot of guys who were passed over for promotions or even lateral moves so that a less qualified less merit based choice could be made to support DEI.

did you guys know that there is a currently ongoing lawsuit where shell bosses at woodcreek in houston allegedly hired unqualified diverse applicants for cyber security roles and literally gave white men “tear jars” according to their own words, right before firing them?

google it.

You sign away your right to sue when you take severance.

If Shell wants you gone and they hand you a big pile of money to hit the door, isn’t it best just to move on?
If these attorneys could shake down Shell for any more, it’d take years and they’d get 40% of the recovery anyway. Less if they converted to a class action.
Ambulance chasers fishing for business.

@em I’m not certain, but I’ve heard second hand that when you accept severance you agree to not sue. Something in the paperwork you sign I guess. Anyone know if that’s true?

What's the statute of limitations?

How many Non-DEI types were fired after Senior leaders put a 20% quota of women or people identifying as women in senior leader roles besides me? It is clear as day but after taking the package... can you really sue?

I was rear-ended by another driver and my neck hurts. Can they take my case, too?

@a8 I agree, wouldn’t be surprised. Does anyone know the criteria for posts being taken down? I remember when names used to be grounds for the Layoff pulling a post. Now names don’t matter but criteria seems a little arbitrary now.

This post does nothing wrong but I will be shocked if it is not taken down