Ever since Darcie Henry, AT&T's HR leader, joined HR there has not been one male announced in a senior role. This makes me wonder, does she hate men?
23 replies (most recent on top)
Lipstick Leadership at its finest!
@qj Nah it's 61.1% and falling rapidly. Further, 77 million voted against their own interests; that means there are millions of stupid, incompetent, UNEDUCATED, unqualified, ignorant bottom feeders who can't be considered a potential employee. But they wear that wyte label cause they is privileged!
@qh you’re just another misinformed, out of touch, professional victim.
@qh the low IQ here is YOU… HR determines who gets the interviews to begin with. And 70% of this country is “wyte”, so 70% of the company should be too. Thats what “equality” means.
Wow! You can’t make this stuff up. You people still don’t understand that HR does not make hiring selections. Is it a lack of reading comprehension of something else? I’m thinking it’s something else……….. So many wyte male skin folks whining and crying because they think they should always get all the jobs and run the organizations. That’s what you call privilege.
HR policy should be preventing these things. The whole point of HR is to keep WE THE PEOPLE from suing the company.
@e0 I've seen this too. The violators do it blatantly, completely unconcerned with repercussions. COBC and EEO policies mean nothing when the company commits a foul.
Nobody puts baby in the corner.
HR doesn’t hire, hiring managers hire.
@dz+1kncv7w4e this post is referencing within Darcies chain of command not the company.
I've observed several times during my AT&T tenure where women in leadership positions openly show favoritism toward female Direct Reports, and are harsher toward males. Be quiet and look the other way. That is not the hill you want to di* on at AT&T.
HR doesn’t make the hiring/ promotion decisions.
The leadership of that group does. If that group is hiring primarily women, that is simply what they want to do. Not HR.
@dm+1kncv7w4e danced around my question. This isn't about whether someone should be hired or a person backfilled but who is selected to be hired. I asked a question that needed to be asked after observing Darcie's hires. I think it's a fair question to ask considering they've all been women.
I my experience as a manager, I hired people, not HR.
HR screened candidates and did paperwork. In several instances, I gave HR names of people I wanted to interview to make sure they were on the list.
The OP's post goes along with the mo--nic idea commonly posted here that HR also dictates headcount. Departmental budgets dictate headcount and if a vacancy is backfilled.
HR is full of nothing but lazy, terrible people. Not surprising that the head of HR is more of the same.
All recruiters at AT&T are held to a metrics of placing 50% plus POC and female hires. It has been this way for years.
Nope, I appreciate the consitency.
I believe that is exactly what women thought when they fought for the right to go to a job they hate, now they hope they can find a man to save them from no work/life balance.
😂
@a5+1kncv7w4e Yes. Any other questions?
If they only hired men, would you wonder if they hate women?
Same reason Indian supervisors are ONLY hiring Indians.
1.6% of the US population, yet we have teams that are 90% Indian.
Do your ACTUAL job HR!
Only people with equity cars shall be promoted.