ReadyRsv

Well if you’re agreeing with yourself then it must be true. Are you saying that besides gays they are letting in minorities as well!! Next thing you know we will be an equal opportunity employer.

Seriously though, you wear a union pin. Part of that is standing up for others. Maybe you should try it.

PS. UAL is 95% white male still. You’re going to be fine.

duvie

Disclaimer:

I am not believer in affirmative action programs and certainly have great distaste for some recent liberal psychological “phenomonons,” such as micro aggressions etc. But this blaming of people who don’t look like you really smacks of ignorance

The snark:

I know that logic is highly overrated in our current environment, but instead of using anecdotal “evidence” to back up your claim, try and think things through.

The facts:

UAL interview candidates are selected from a database of applicants.
There is no metric on the app that could sort out the “minorities.”
The man power it would take to manually look through the 7,000+ apps on file when they are hiring 100 a month to try and glean enough insight about a person’s skin color/sexual orientation is far beyond what recruiting has. This is especially true, when the vast majority of members of OBAP and/or women in aviation are not representative members of that particular group. I was a part of both when I got hired, despite being a straight white male. So if you are supposing that a company who is known for their sub-optimal IT has paid a pretty penny for some advanced software that can find these people in a large database… I am pretty skeptical. The very fact that people openly acknowledge that CPs and high ranking members of our company don’t know how to push through their personal picks/favorites for interviews… Shows you that the selection for a Hogan invite is still based on whatever supersecret algorithm they use. Now, I will be the first to agree that it is hard to see what they are always sorting for… But the pass rate on the face to face interview is north of 85%. So those people who make it to that interview with a different color skin then white and/or don’t have something hanging between their legs, Should already have the job unless they come across as an arrogant jerk. In my new hire class of 24, there were two women, no nonwhites or open/obvious homosexuals.

I understand not getting the call is super frustrating when you’ve been building a resume for well over a decade… But instead of blaming people who don’t look/act like you (as it is the natural human tendency to do)… Maybe also look at the recent upgrades and/or senior first officers who are also getting the call ahead of you despite being straight white males. The hogan invite may be confusing and even flawed, but if you walk into a crew room anywhere in the system at United… More often than not you will not see more than two people who fit the description of a non-white male

baseball

The only thing our interview "experts" should be examining is someone's qualifications. The higher qualified persons should be getting the job. No one is blaming applicants who don't look/or act like you. We are blaming the dumb nuts idiots who are going out of their way to hire lower or inferiorly qualified applicants.

Why bother building a resume, or gaining experience? Just doesn't matter anymore to do it "right." We need pilots hiring pilots. It's really pretty simple. Pilots can examine qualifications and talk pilot stuff and scratch and sniff the applicant to see what the personality is like.

Blame goes to UAL for this screwed up and HR focused exercise in silliness we call a hiring process.

baseball

Our union should want the best and most qualified applicants hired regardless of anyone's minority status. Equal opportunity implies equality, not preference or deference.

If two people go to an interview, the nod should go to the most qualified right? There is nothing "equal" about our process. Otherwise jobs would be going to higher qualified and very available applicants.

The word "equal" is being used these days to give preference or deference to one perceived class or minority status over another.

I personally could care less if we hire all females, or all whatever, as long as they the MOST qualified applicants.

Really, the word "equal opportunity" back when the term was first coined was to refer to the fact that the employer would not discriminate or intentionally not consider a minority applicant. Now, it seems to mean something totally different.

JetDoc

My friend, I'm all that AND I worked at LUAL for 15 years. Model employee. Nothing negative at all in my file. Never even "counseled" about my sick leave usage which was fairly common. Crickets. I wish you luck.

duvie

Baseball,

I literally started my post with a statement about my personal leanings against affirmative action type programs. So instead of assuming an opposition to your views based on the narrative concocted by fear mongers with huge amounts of advertising space to sell, address the situation as it actually exists. Please tell me where in the process these people with subpar qualifications are being culled by the people running our hiring?

Nobody here is advocating that people should be hired based on anything other than their merits as a professional aviator. But hey, if you feel this a threat, look around a crew room that is well over 90% SWM and tell all your fellow pilots “the white male is under attack.”

baseball

The only thing that is threatened is the integrity of the hiring system.

I don't feel threatened by any of it. I just feel it is nonsense.

I prefer to call a spade a spade. Like a baseball umpire. The umpire doesn't care who's in the batters box. A ball is a ball, and a strike is a strike. There's this little thing called the official score keeper at a baseball game. The score keeper doesn't keep track of how many SWM's get a base hit. He records the outs, runs, and errors and who made them.

Lots of errors being made. We can just overlook it and call it some silly HR term. Or, we can be honest and call it for what it is. Anytime a more qualified candidate doesn't get in the door, in favor of a lesser qualified applicant, I call it an error. You can call it diversification, or whatever. It's just nonsense being packaged as some sort of way of "leveling out the playing field." Whatever....

Lots of good people recommending lots of super qualified people. They ain't getting in the door. What's your term for that?

duvie

I really appreciate you keeping it as this dispassionate as possible. Honestly.

However, you are attributing a perceived failure of the UAL hiring system to things that I think coincide more with a larger view of your political opposition, rather than what is actually happening in our hiring department. There are definitely industries where what you are highlighting happens, I just believe based on the facts available to us, that ours is not one of those ( to any relevant degree). To observe that You see highly qualified candidates not getting the call and then make the leap that the calls are we given to minorities is just a bridge too far.

Like I said earlier, I don’t see any part of the process other than the face-to-face interview that would be able to bring more non-white males in for interviews. They go so far as to redact the sex and age on your passport when reviewing your application to avoid complaints of discrimination. So, the only place that I can see a preference given toward anyone would be in the face-to-face interview process. If you have made it that far, they are literally looking to make sure you will not embarrass the company in front of passengers and will be pleasant to pass a four day with.

I won’t argue with you that certain groups may have a higher pass rate there… But we are seriously talking about very small percent increases (1/6 is the overall fail rate in that section), not a systematic discrimination against highly qualified white males

blockplus

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DYXIr9LNclPQ&ved=0ahUKEwim-qmora3aAhXyuFkKHbinBw4QtwIIHTAA&usg=AOvVaw31l-R1o6nH17waGSALs-Yh

Current ual pilot recruiting propaganda.. we have a diverse pilot group..

baseball

[QUOTE=duvie;2568088]I really appreciate you keeping it as this dispassionate as possible. Honestly.

However, you are attributing a perceived failure of the UAL hiring system to things that I think coincide more with a larger view of your political opposition, rather than what is actually happening in our hiring department.

/[QUOTE]

The questioner wanted to know about our recommendation system and how many recommendations it takes.

Here's the answer. Don't bother with recommendations.

Why? Because "diversity" has taken over.

Why? Because it has been directed by HR.

Why? Because those who run the show now determine what to place value on.

If a 25 year wide body Captain with a flawless record can't recommend someone and get them preferential treatment, or any treatment for that matter and in the door to compete for a job than really what's the point. Instead, I see 1900 hour pilots get hired with NO PIC time to speak of, never upgraded at a regional. I inquire as to how they did it. They aren't bragging, but they ain't ashamed either. The GPA did it. The GPA was my "in." I've heard it personally 3 times from 3 separate individuals.

When an airline places more value on GPA points than it does from their own line Captains we've got a problem.

I personally have only recommend one pilot to UAL. I've saved my silver bullet for the right person. He didn't even get a call. Instead Delta hired him. I think another poster submitted a similar story.

I've heard it on the line from other pilots.

We don't put value where we should be placing value. We aren't doing right by our current pilots and that in turn hurts us from a morale stand point and it hurts us from a quality stand point.

I don't need a silly lecture on diversity. Who the hell cares about skin color, gayness, sex, etc. It's just about being the best and hiring the best available.

There is no "political opposition" from my perspective. I have not stated any political positions on anything. I am just tired of accepting the status quo. You can either be a change agent for the right reasons (quality and safety), or you can put your head in the sand and pretend what is happening isn't happening. I think our broken recommendation system is evidence enough as to what is really happening.