Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA)

1. 85

   Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

   
   "The Biden administration awarded $2.8 billion this week to 20 companies after they pledged to honor Democratic goals like diversity, equity, and inclusion as they hire people to build batteries and related components to be used in electric vehicles.
   
   The conditional grants are the latest attempt by the Biden administration to push its diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) agenda into the private sector. Last month, DEIA leaders from several agencies met and agreed to extend their efforts in this area "across the federal government and our society."
   https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/bi … esg-agenda
   
   It is also part of a broader trend of companies following environment, social and governance (ESG) principles as a way of earning a "responsible" brand among investors.
   
   On Wednesday, President Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced the $2.8 billion "investment" in EV battery companies and said explicitly that their decision to provide federal funding for these projects was conditioned on a promise to advance the DEIA agenda."
   
   "The goals of the DEIA Team work are to enhance research and investment in communities to ensure diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility; help reduce barriers to access and advance opportunities for underserved communities; and clarify how NIFA collects and uses data to continually improve its services.
   
   These goals stem from the creation and development of a concept paper on racial equity and the following executive orders: 1) Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, and 2) Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility Through the Federal Government. The DEIA team created overarching goals and activities to address while working in conjunction with other initiatives addressing the priorities of The Biden Administration and USDA"
   https://www.nifa.usda.gov/diversity-equ … ility-deia
   
   General thoughts...
   
   Do you feel this initiative is worthy of our tax dollars?

   replyreport
   1. 75

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      *shrug*  Biden made it very clear long ago that he is both racist and sexist.  Why would we expect anything else?  This isn't about equality; it's about not hiring white males, in an openly racist and sexist effort to exclude them from jobs.
      
      But it will likely buy some votes when publicized, and whatever could be more important than that?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         For every job that is to be filled, there is an equally competent person among the pool of white men, women and those of all racial background.
         Pew research shows us that women are still earning only 84% of what the white male earns for the same job. Women of color earn  even less. But the case for business diversity is overwhelming in the research. Businesses are more successful as they increased diversity. There really isn't any downside to this.   Opponents seem to feel that the best candidates are only found in a pool of white men and that just isn't the case.
         
         https://online.uncp.edu/articles/mba/di … iness.aspx

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I think your thoughts are pretty solid. I don't feel Federal Government should pay employers to bring about diversity.  It would seem they are being paid to hire on diversity possibly over best to suit a given job.
            
            This clearly would have Federal Government dictating to American employers who to hire, and being rewarded with taxpayer's funds.

            replyreport
         2. 75

            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I agree that the best candidates are not found only in the pool of white men, and thought I was clear on that.  One who is NOT racist, is NOT sexist, etc. will choose from the larger pool of everyone.
            
            Biden does not do that, eliminating white men from the pool of job candidates.
            
            I take exception to what I think you're saying; that it is in the interest of business to behave as Biden did, and hire on the basis of color in order to create more diversity.  You say that "there really isn't any downside to this", but you have obviously forgotten to include the white male that is passed over for a job solely because of color or sex.  There is certainly a downside to him!

            replyreport
            1. 85

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               One must look beyond the weeds --- these diverse employees would be working around and with some of the most poisonous minerals on earth. Minerals we have had mining restrictions on.

               replyreport
               1. 75

                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know that is a huge deal.  We've worked with dangerous chemicals for a hundred years and have gotten to the point where we pretty much know how to handle them. 
                  
                  We work with simple chemicals; mercury, lead, fluorine and many others.  We work with Uranium, Polonium and other radioactive elements.  We work with biological items, including some of the most deadly diseases mankind has ever known.
                  
                  We know how to do these things relatively safely.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes let's hope the plight of the coal miners is not repeated.

                     replyreport
                  2. 85

                     Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                     I guess to keep it short, I do not have as much confidence as you appear to have. I find it pretty frightening to start mining some of these minerals and frightening for workplace safety. 
                     
                     I do think environmental agencies will bring all my concerns to light, and hopefully educate our population on some of the real dangers we could face with our quest for "green energy".   
                     
                     As a rule in our history we jump in, and then when problems arise just melt down, and start the blame game.
                     
                     Science is very clear in regard to minerals, what are safe, and what are not.

                     replyreport
                     1. 75

                        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                        First, very few minerals are "safe", though it does of course depend on just where we decide to set the exposure limit.
                        
                        But consider the instance of chip manufacturing.  It uses very dangerous chemicals, but how many chip workers do you hear of being killed from it compared to truck drivers?  To electrical linemen?  To policemen? 
                        
                        But you are correct in one thing - we may know how to do it safely, but will we?  Or will we allow the $$ to take priority over lives?

                        replyreport
                        1. 85

                           Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                           It is clear the government is going to look at mining the minerals differently,  to make batteries and chips., and yes many will get very rich investing in the new booming battery industry. Just seems very hypocritical to trade one environmental problem for another, that actually very well studied to cause great problems in regard to health problems and pollution.
                           
                           Will I invest, oh yes, I never turn away from a good thing, when I know I have no control over the outcome one way or the other.
                           
                           Priority over lives, look at the Governments invitation, the 2.8 billion incentive, and who they are being told to hire.
                           
                           One can hope technology takes care of these workers.  I don't have stats for persons being harmed in this industry, we have so few battery plants in the US, and China is not one to share information.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              In reality though what are our alternatives? Our natural resources, all of them including oil, gas and  all the minerals will be completely depleted at some point.  In my view, mother nature is cyclical and this planet is on a countdown to Extinction. It will return to it's state of  4 billions years ago. Flat, barren,  without life and mostly underwater.  It will take millions of years for it to renew itself and those next inhabitants will quickly get to work on destroying it again.  It's inevitable and unavoidable.  But I suppose somewhere along the way we could have some brilliant innovators who discover ways to power our planet without killing it. I'm not sure it'll be soon enough to stop the clock though. But yes, I think we don't have many great options at this point in time.  They all have a downside for the environment.

                              replyreport
                              1. 75

                                 wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 Why such a dismal prediction.  If nothing else, life has shown that it can, and will, occupy any ecological niche the planet produces.  Desert at 140 degrees, ice at 50 below 0, pressures measured in tons per square inch - if there is space life will fill it.
                                 
                                 Should we manage to change our planet to the point humanity cannot survive I would predict life to continue.  Even through a nuclear holocaust - probably the most damage we could do.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 75

                              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                              "Just seems very hypocritical to trade one environmental problem for another..."
                              
                              LOL  The problem here is that everything humans do, in the quantities we do things, is an environmental hazard.  From paving over the land to destroying the rain forest to changing the atmosphere, everything we do negatively affects the environment.
                              
                              Of course that is nothing new; billions of years ago simple bacteria changed the atmosphere from a deadly (to us) reducing one to what we see today.  Plants increased the oxygen level to something allowing growth of the huge dinosaurs, but has fallen since (and not due to us).  Animals all over the world change their environment, often to the point they then die out.  Common deer, for instance, reproduce to the point there is nothing left to eat, and are in such numbers that disease runs rampant.  Whereupon they die out and start the process all over, if left alone.  The big difference in humanity is that we don't die out so easily.

                              replyreport
                              1. 85

                                 Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                                 "Whereupon they die out and start the process all over, if left alone.  The big difference in humanity is that we don't die out so easily."
                                 
                                 Hey, we have problems with the planet overheating, why not poison our soil and water? It will work doubly as fast to kill us off. We need trees to work naturally to clean and cool the plant, so cut them down and put up solar panels, and wind turbine farms, and disregard the poisons we will use to manufacture and run this new energy. So landfills are full of poison that contaminated water and soil. No problem.
                                 
                                 One silver lining is the cash that can be made investing in our newest forms of energy.

                                 replyreport
            2. 60

               Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               I understand where you're coming from and I do agree. But how do we overcome the bias that's still remains in the workplace? The fact that a white male earns more for the same job title as do women and minorities? Things have come a long way historically but we still have this inequity in pay, hiring and in promotion.  To some degree the hiring process still show signs of sexism and racism.   How  can we overcome that?

               replyreport
            3. 81

               Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Wilderness, Biden is talking about inclusion not exclusion. Who said white males would not be allowed to participate? The problem with you rightwing types is that this is always a zero sum game for you. When "others" are to participate and not be excluded something has to be taken from you.

               replyreport
         3. 84

            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Your points could be verifiably true, (I take your word for it), but they don't change the fact of the effort as already described. The government is influencing hiring decisions in the private sector with money.
            
            As altruistic as the move is intended to be, (in the best sense, but I think it is pandering), I don't think 'free money' incentives can not help but to influence hiring decisions to favor minority candidates—whatever their minority may be.
            
            Your pay disparity points are a different inequity issue, and the 'pool of white men' thought, (et al.), almost sounds like it validates the comment you responded to.
            
            I don't think the idea of DEIA is bad, from the OP's information, but the part that has the government handing out money to select companies that promise to hire the government's desired candidates stinks.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 75

               wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Except that the gender pay gap is 99%, not 84%.  While it is probably true that females earn 84% of what men do, when the same job, along with other such factors as experience, education, hours worked, etc. are factored into the equation it shows women earn only a penny less than men.
               
               https://www.payscale.com/research-and-i … r-pay-gap/

               replyreport
            2. 85

               Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, this was the point of my OP.  Thank you.

               replyreport
      2. 82

         Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Where is he getting the money for the grants?
         
         "Do you feel this initiative is worthy of our tax dollars?"
         
         NO! ESG is a bad idea as it is a bribe to think a certain way, if they don't comply they will be pinished. Free enterprise is being cancelled. The Motivation Factor of citizens should never be tampered with by an overreaching Government.
         
         
         "There are many here among us
         Who feel that life is but a joke..."
         
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT7Hj-ea0VE
         
         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLV4_xaYynY

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            The grants/funds are being allocated through the Department of Energy with funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to companies in 12 states.
            
            "Do you feel this initiative is worthy of our tax dollars?"
            
            This is a hard question to answer. The 20 companies that will be eligible for the cash will be offering jobs that will involve the creation of battery-grade materials including lithium, graphite, and nickel. All are very acoustic materials. The states the money will end up in --- at least 12 states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington state. 
            
            I hesitate to think about what hazards working in this kind of job will
            offer. This also makes me wonder if we will now mime here in the US for minerals that have been prohibited in the past.
            
            Will we be trading one hazard to our planet for another more
            detrimental?  And will those that may be considered groups associated with high unemployment rates be targeted to work in these hazardous environments?    I think there is a lot to weed through with this Federal initiative.

            replyreport
   2. 81

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "The conditional grants are the latest attempt by the Biden administration to push its diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) agenda into the private sector. Last month, DEIA leaders from several agencies met and agreed to extend their efforts in this area "across the federal government and our society."
      
      Well, yeah, I f you are getting government funding that is provided by my tax dollars. Those tax dollars are also contributed by this "diverse" crowd.
      
      Under the circumstances, I can't be terribly bothered regarding rightwing whining about it.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Not whining, just hoping to gather HP users' thoughts on the subject. Thanks for sharing your view.  Good point.
         
         However ---    Food for thought
         
         I hesitate to think about what hazards working in this kind of job will
         offer. And will minorities be filling these jobs?  This also makes me wonder if we will now mime here in the US for minerals that have been prohibited in the past, and we will have a new workforce working with these minerals. A diverse workforce due to the Biden Administration's 2.8 billion offer. Does this in any respect concern you?
         
         Will we be trading one hazard to our planet for another more
         detrimental?  And will those that may be considered groups associated with high unemployment rates be targeted to work in these hazardous environments?    I think there is a lot to weed through with this Federal initiative.
         
         It; appears companies will be very pleased to take cash and will comply with the hiring stipulations.
         
         Just a snag to consider.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, by all means, it is of concern.
            
            The big picture is that fossil fuels are finite and even a bird is smart enough not to foul its own nest. Any negative information about the program from those associated with fossil fuels I would naturally question its credibility.
            
            We all go down this new path together sharing risk and reward. Sharing, diversity and inclusion does not mean that minorities are to assume all of the risks, yet get none of the reward. As we have certainly seen this play out before.  That should well be part of any arrangement for sharing government fiunding with the private sector in this project.
            
            And, yes, there is a lot to weed through, but doing nothing is not the answer. If they want the money, there will be strings, otherwise they are free to go it alone without the government funding advantage.

            replyreport
2. 60

   Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

   So I see that since 1996, our federal government has been offering the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) to provide an incentive for companies to hire target groups associated with high unemployment rates. These targeted groups include qualified IV-A recipients, who are people receiving assistance from a state-approved plan, such as TANF, qualified veterans, ex-felons, designated community residents, physically or mentally disabled people who have a vocational rehabilitation referral, qualified summer youth employees, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients, long-term family assistance recipients, and qualified long-term unemployment recipients.
   
   When employers hire someone from any of these targeted groups and certify through the IRS, the company can earn the tax credit.
   
   President Biden's DEIA order seems to be an action directed toward federal agencies/employers only?   
   
   https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-roo … workforce/

   replyreport
   1. 85

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "On Wednesday, President Biden and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm announced the $2.8 billion "investment" in EV battery companies and said explicitly that their decision to provide federal funding for these projects was conditioned on a promise to advance the DEIA agenda."  https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/bi … esg-agenda
      
      This is a new initiative and has nothing to do with Federal employers only or the 1996  federal government h initiative that offered the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.
      
      $2.8 billion "investment" is earmarked for EV battery companies that support DEIA.
      
      :"WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration on Wednesday awarded $2.8 billion in grants to build and expand domestic manufacturing of batteries for electric vehicles in 12 states. A total of 20 companies will receive grants for projects to extract and process lithium, graphite and other battery materials, manufacture components and strengthen U.S. supply of critical minerals, officials said."
      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/u- … -12-states

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for the additional link. It was detailed.
         
         "Albemarle Corp., Piedmont Lithium Inc., Entek and Syrah Technologies are among 20 companies to win Energy Department grants that will help fund projects in at least 12 states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee and Washington state."
         
         It looks like these states will be the beneficiaries of jobs created by this initiative.  I also see that Companies selected for the grants will be required to match the federal investment. So that means skin in the game.
         I think overall this seems to be positive.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, many jobs will be created.  As they were many years ago in mining coal, and working in our oil industry.

            replyreport
3. 85

   Sharlee01posted 2 years ago

   Yes, it might appear I am a worry wart...  But having some knowledge of minerals, due to my education, I am alarmed about the US increasing manufacturing of Batteries.
   
   Food for thought
   
   What minerals are used to make a battery?
   Battery minerals refer to minerals used in rechargeable batteries. This includes lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, manganese, alumina, tin, tantalum, magnesium, and vanadium.
   
   Cobalt ---   In Idaho, America's first, and ONLY, cobalt mine in decades is opening. Cobalt is an important component of lithium-ion batteries, like those in many electric vehicles  ---  They found cobalt mining was associated with increases in violence, substance abuse, food and water insecurity, and physical and mental health challenges. Community members reported losing communal land, farmland, and homes, which miners literally dug up in order to extract cobalt
   
   Manganese --  There is currently no manganese mine production in the USA or Canada ---  Workers may be harmed from exposure to manganese through the breathing of manganese fumes or dust. Continued exposure can damage the lungs, liver, and kidneys. Exposure to manganese dust or fumes can also lead to a neurological condition called manganism.
   
   Nickle ---  The United States currently has one operating nickel mine, in Michigan, but its resources will be exhausted by 2026   ---  Nickel (Ni) is a hard, silvery-white metal that may cause irritation to the skin. Exposure can harm the lungs, stomach, and kidneys. Exposure to nickel may lead to cancer. Workers may be harmed from exposure to nickel.
   
   Graphite has not been produced in the U.S. since the 1950s. Graphite occurs in the U.S. as disseminated flake graphite deposits and as graphite veins.
   
   Effects of overexposure Repeated inhalation of natural graphite over a number of years may cause scarring of the lungs with such symptoms as chest tightness, shortness of breath, cough, black sputum, and pain. Natural graphite dust causes graphite pneumoconiosis.
   
   The Wilson Springs vanadium deposits were the first to be mined solely for vanadium in the United States. https://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/3762.pdf
   
   US does not mine tantalum --   There are no current U.S. producers of tantalum ---  Environmentally, the main issues related to niobium and tantalum mining are land disruptions, the volume of waste materials and their disposal, and the radioactivity of some tailings and waste materials that contain thorium and uranium.
   
   Tin ---Tin has not been produced in the United States since 1993
   Radioecological impacts of tin mining
   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4646856/
   
   So, many of these minerals are not mined in the US due to the problems they cause to the environment.  Yet now it seems the US may discard the science for a very dirty industry.
   And it would seem our government hopes to encourage our minorities to embrace working in building batteries. And I would think we will now drop regulations on mining these minerals in the US...
   
   What is very odd, the US has tried to stop coal mining, which yes, causes health problems. But building batteries will make coal mining take a back seat to pollution and health problems. 
   
   I am never surprised at what our society can be sold, and buy into with glee.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      precisely!

      replyreport