Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? " People cannot complain about the lack of equality then complain about the EU trying to do something about it. Either you do not believe in equality or you support the EU in their attempt to even things up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Either you do not believe in equality or you support the EU in their attempt to even things up." Or is there a third option of believing in equality, but thinking that the EU proposal is the wrong way to go about it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? " . One would hope that most people could not care less what sex the various members of the board of directors are. What matters is results, that is probably the only issue that counts. What right does the EU have to dictate to listed companies about how they are run ? It is the shareholders make these decisions, not unelected bureaucrats. If a company is unsuccessful, people will stop buying their products. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? . One would hope that most people could not care less what sex the various members of the board of directors are. What matters is results, that is probably the only issue that counts. What right does the EU have to dictate to listed companies about how they are run ? It is the shareholders make these decisions, not unelected bureaucrats. If a company is unsuccessful, people will stop buying their products. " Pat is the number 1 BOT on fab!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Either you do not believe in equality or you support the EU in their attempt to even things up. Or is there a third option of believing in equality, but thinking that the EU proposal is the wrong way to go about it?" I agree here. Equality of opportunity should be the goal. Not equality of outcome. Will we see a 40% quota on jobs like sewage works? Brick layers? Bin men? General labourers? Or is it only the cushy, comfy, extremely well paid jobs the EU wants to see equality on? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? " So thaat would mean you would be forced to take on somone because of thier gender just because thye would fit the quota ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's just another EU directive that nobody wants but they just can't stop themselves sticking their noses in." If ‘nobody’ wants it within the EU it won’t be implemented | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""Fancy the EU playing Catch-UP. It's already at 40% in the UK. But there is still a lot more work to be done" Don't know about the UK, but the principle is already established in many countries/large companies, Germany I can personally confirm. IF there are discussions - and not just more "square bananas" bullshit anti-EU sound-bites - it will simply be to implement a uniform rule throughout the bloc. Standard EU way of doing things, irrelevant to us 'cos we're not in the EU... but could become relevant if UK companies are excluded because they don't comply. Like so many other things, we'll end up following what the EU does, without having had a say in their decision-making." Wise words  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The FCA is already looking at this in the UK. It's going to quickly become an implied quote if not explicitly stated. My opinion, we should be making sure there aren't hidden reasons for low numbers of female biard members. That's not just patriarchal issues, but human nature playing through ....we tend to like and promote people who remind us of ourselves .... And given boards are (for historical reason) white and male, it's a risk it will perpetuate. But imo this approach is too simple. It doesn't stack up in theory (even if boards are chosen at random, you'd expect some with 40pc women... And some with 40 pc men. You shouldn't bootstrap wider trends onto smaller samples). It also doesn't make practical sense. Does a board with 80pc makes need to sack a load of directors and then only recruit women. That's odd. And it ignores that the workforce c 30 years ago didn't look like today's. So does a 60/40 split reflect that? (You could argue there is self selection and that the quality of women is higher on average...) This feels like someone setting a target that looks good, and then being able to blame others for non delivery. " Well said It’s a rather sloppy attempt at fixing a problem that might not need fixing in all the areas it’s enforced | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fancy the EU playing Catch-UP. It's already at 40% in the UK. But there is still a lot more work to be done." Is that by legislation though? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Fancy the EU playing Catch-UP. It's already at 40% in the UK. But there is still a lot more work to be done. Is that by legislation though? " Voluntary Gov & business led approach. And only 2nd in the whole of Europe. So on the road with just a few more stops to make. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? " Sure. Why not. The needle barely flickers without a legislative push. As has been posted, promotion is of "people like us" who are white males of which many also share a particular social background. Once "People like us" actually is like all of us, any pressure becomes unnecessary. In general it's those who benefit from the status quo who get upset about it changing and start to question the competence of those selected to "fill a quota". That implies that the competence isn't there. That it only resides in the population of white men... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can't just expect a step change in numbers. Look at the history of the people that are on these boards. Many of them will have decades of service that got them there. The change has to come, but it has to come naturally, and it's been changing for years. Just look at the demographics of company's workforces over the years." It won't change naturally, it never does. Multinational companies will have a diverse workforce but senior positions are predominantly old white men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People whether it be a board position or shop floor should be employed on merit whether they be women ,men, black, white gay or straight Thats the only rule they need not quotas to meet." I doubt many disagree. How do you enforce your rule ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People whether it be a board position or shop floor should be employed on merit whether they be women ,men, black, white gay or straight Thats the only rule they need not quotas to meet.I doubt many disagree. How do you enforce your rule ? " Ive no idea thats not my job, its what they have all these elected people for to work out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It is changing though. Just look at the demographics of the board room. It can only change at the rate people move out of the job market and what talent is available to fill the vacancies. You can set it in law that it has to be 50% but who is going to sack employees to fill a quota? " They won't be sacked. As time passes and they retire, the firm would have trained someone who isn't a man in leadership and management who is a good fit for the board room. That's why businesses are given time, it isn't something that is imposed within immediate effect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People whether it be a board position or shop floor should be employed on merit whether they be women ,men, black, white gay or straight Thats the only rule they need not quotas to meet." As mentioned, without some sort of legislation board rooms will always pick someone who is like them - i.e. white and male. Senior management is conservative (small c), so they will pick a conservative candidate by default. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People whether it be a board position or shop floor should be employed on merit whether they be women ,men, black, white gay or straight Thats the only rule they need not quotas to meet.I doubt many disagree. How do you enforce your rule ? Ive no idea thats not my job, its what they have all these elected people for to work out." and it looks like they could end up using quotas (probably comply or explain). The devil will be on the detail. Imo, spend less time on gender pay gap reports, more on how they control for bias reports. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People whether it be a board position or shop floor should be employed on merit whether they be women ,men, black, white gay or straight Thats the only rule they need not quotas to meet." So why, in your opinion, are there so many exceptionally competent men and not women? White men are just better? Could it be that equally or better qualified women are just overlooked because they do not fit the perception of the white men who make the decisions? You seem to believe that the selection process is neutral. If that were the case then everyone except white men are significantly less competent. Quotas are needed when people won't change themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You can't just expect a step change in numbers. Look at the history of the people that are on these boards. Many of them will have decades of service that got them there. The change has to come, but it has to come naturally, and it's been changing for years. Just look at the demographics of company's workforces over the years." As has been said, it does not happen "naturally". It has been changing at a snail's pace compared to the number and qualifications and ability of women who have also been in the workforce for decades. You could look at the data, if you wanted to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So why, in your opinion, are there so many exceptionally competent men and not women?" In the UK women make up about 40% of board seats. What makes you think that they aren't represented? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As has been said, it does not happen "naturally"." And as has also been said, women make up 40% of board seats in the UK. We didn't need legislation, it just happened, 'naturally'. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? " It's good to bring such things to light and encourage change but I'm not sure if force is the best way. I speak from experience of someone that once benefited from a manager that needed to tick a box and I fitted into that box. I did not last as was simply not cut out for it. I should have been more forceful in saying no but I did raise some concerns I had which were overlooked. There were far better people for the position but they did not fit the box. That's my experience but I'm sure there are plenty of more positive outcomes. I see from other posters that the UK is doing well in this so hope that continues | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So why, in your opinion, are there so many exceptionally competent men and not women? In the UK women make up about 40% of board seats. What makes you think that they aren't represented?" Did you just look at the headline? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60430198.amp Nearly 40% of the board positions at the UK's biggest companies are now held by women. Just 13.5% of the executive director positions are held by women. Executive directors run the company. Other director positions are support roles. '"on the surface, 39.1% looks like a wonderful statistic". But the fact that there were so few women in executive roles means that women are being assigned roles "lower in power" than men at the FTSE 100 firms.' Are women just not capable of wielding power? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As has been said, it does not happen "naturally". And as has also been said, women make up 40% of board seats in the UK. We didn't need legislation, it just happened, 'naturally'." It didn't happen "naturally". Most companies in the FTSE 100 signed up to the Hampton-Alexander Review to voluntarily increase the number of women on boards. It was a "voluntary" quota but these positions were predominantly in less powerful positions. “Women on boards encourage the appointment of women into executive roles, and the other way around. Talent management and robust succession planning are vital if women and other diverse people are to be promoted into executive roles." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's just another EU directive that nobody wants but they just can't stop themselves sticking their noses in." "Nobody" wants a more representative number of women in positions of power? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? . One would hope that most people could not care less what sex the various members of the board of directors are. What matters is results, that is probably the only issue that counts. What right does the EU have to dictate to listed companies about how they are run ? It is the shareholders make these decisions, not unelected bureaucrats. If a company is unsuccessful, people will stop buying their products. " Equally, what right does the UK Government have to demand the same thing as of this year? According to the FCA: "At least 40% of the board should be women. At least one of the senior board positions (Chair, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or Senior Independent Director (SID) should be a woman. At least one member of the board should be from an ethnic minority background excluding white ethnic groups (as set out in categories used by the Office for National Statistics)." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As someone coming from a country where there is reservation quotas everywhere, I can say that it would cause more bad than good over time. Quotas are good if it's imposed for a short period and removed. But unfortunately once it's imposed, no politician will have the guts to remove it. It will just screw up all the industries it is imposed on." Back to the discussion about people from a lower castes not being good enough? Politicians using the process for electoral gain is a separate matter. Prejudice is prejudice. Are women just not good enough to do these jobs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? It's good to bring such things to light and encourage change but I'm not sure if force is the best way. I speak from experience of someone that once benefited from a manager that needed to tick a box and I fitted into that box. I did not last as was simply not cut out for it. I should have been more forceful in saying no but I did raise some concerns I had which were overlooked. There were far better people for the position but they did not fit the box. That's my experience but I'm sure there are plenty of more positive outcomes. I see from other posters that the UK is doing well in this so hope that continues" How many people were they choosing from in your company for the quota and did they look externally? Is your lack of ability and the behaviour of your company representative of the 36m women and ethnic minorities in the UK? I'm sure that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands who could step up but don't get the opportunity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As someone coming from a country where there is reservation quotas everywhere, I can say that it would cause more bad than good over time. Quotas are good if it's imposed for a short period and removed. But unfortunately once it's imposed, no politician will have the guts to remove it. It will just screw up all the industries it is imposed on. Back to the discussion about people from a lower castes not being good enough? Politicians using the process for electoral gain is a separate matter. Prejudice is prejudice. Are women just not good enough to do these jobs?" Never said people in lower caste are good enough. Humans are not robots. Cultural factors have a major effect on what people turn out to be. Should we impose quota on nursing and primary school teaching to have more male teachers? One example of how caste based reservation fails - There are people from a specific caste who are a majority in one particular town that has chemical industries. So there is an insanely high number of people of that caste trying to develop skills that could land them in those jobs. It would be natural to let them get into colleges which teach the skills based on merit. Instead we have a quota system that limits number of people from that caste get into the college. These are people with much higher drive to do that job. They are being denied the job because the caste based quota is full. India already has caste based reservation for 7 decades. We are in a stage where a rich guy scoring much lower than a poor guy would get into a top university ahead of the poor guy because he was born into a caste that was ill treated 70 years back. If there is discrimination, take visible action against it. Expecting percentage of X, Y and Z group in every industry is a stupid idea unless you think humans are all clones with exact same interests. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only men voted in Switzerland. It took until 1971 to voluntarily give women the vote in a referendum and even then, only with 66% The men in two Cantons never voted to allow women that right in local elections. The Swiss Courts had to force them to in 1990. The privileged very rarely surrender their privilege. That's assuming that they're even aware of it." Except in this case, there is no one really privileged by law without reservation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As someone coming from a country where there is reservation quotas everywhere, I can say that it would cause more bad than good over time. Quotas are good if it's imposed for a short period and removed. But unfortunately once it's imposed, no politician will have the guts to remove it. It will just screw up all the industries it is imposed on. Back to the discussion about people from a lower castes not being good enough? Politicians using the process for electoral gain is a separate matter. Prejudice is prejudice. Are women just not good enough to do these jobs? Never said people in lower caste are good enough. Humans are not robots. Cultural factors have a major effect on what people turn out to be. Should we impose quota on nursing and primary school teaching to have more male teachers? One example of how caste based reservation fails - There are people from a specific caste who are a majority in one particular town that has chemical industries. So there is an insanely high number of people of that caste trying to develop skills that could land them in those jobs. It would be natural to let them get into colleges which teach the skills based on merit. Instead we have a quota system that limits number of people from that caste get into the college. These are people with much higher drive to do that job. They are being denied the job because the caste based quota is full. India already has caste based reservation for 7 decades. We are in a stage where a rich guy scoring much lower than a poor guy would get into a top university ahead of the poor guy because he was born into a caste that was ill treated 70 years back. If there is discrimination, take visible action against it. Expecting percentage of X, Y and Z group in every industry is a stupid idea unless you think humans are all clones with exact same interests." I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only men voted in Switzerland. It took until 1971 to voluntarily give women the vote in a referendum and even then, only with 66% The men in two Cantons never voted to allow women that right in local elections. The Swiss Courts had to force them to in 1990. The privileged very rarely surrender their privilege. That's assuming that they're even aware of it. Except in this case, there is no one really privileged by law without reservation?" No clue what that means. Those with power prevented those without power from getting it until they had to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As someone coming from a country where there is reservation quotas everywhere, I can say that it would cause more bad than good over time. Quotas are good if it's imposed for a short period and removed. But unfortunately once it's imposed, no politician will have the guts to remove it. It will just screw up all the industries it is imposed on. Back to the discussion about people from a lower castes not being good enough? Politicians using the process for electoral gain is a separate matter. Prejudice is prejudice. Are women just not good enough to do these jobs? Never said people in lower caste are good enough. Humans are not robots. Cultural factors have a major effect on what people turn out to be. Should we impose quota on nursing and primary school teaching to have more male teachers? One example of how caste based reservation fails - There are people from a specific caste who are a majority in one particular town that has chemical industries. So there is an insanely high number of people of that caste trying to develop skills that could land them in those jobs. It would be natural to let them get into colleges which teach the skills based on merit. Instead we have a quota system that limits number of people from that caste get into the college. These are people with much higher drive to do that job. They are being denied the job because the caste based quota is full. India already has caste based reservation for 7 decades. We are in a stage where a rich guy scoring much lower than a poor guy would get into a top university ahead of the poor guy because he was born into a caste that was ill treated 70 years back. If there is discrimination, take visible action against it. Expecting percentage of X, Y and Z group in every industry is a stupid idea unless you think humans are all clones with exact same interests. I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before?" The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only men voted in Switzerland. It took until 1971 to voluntarily give women the vote in a referendum and even then, only with 66% The men in two Cantons never voted to allow women that right in local elections. The Swiss Courts had to force them to in 1990. The privileged very rarely surrender their privilege. That's assuming that they're even aware of it. Except in this case, there is no one really privileged by law without reservation? No clue what that means. Those with power prevented those without power from getting it until they had to." No. There was a law that actually discriminates women from voting. If there is a similar rule in any of those boards where they want to prevent women, sanction them. What the situation needs is more transparency about who they interviewed and how the candidates were evaluated, rather than forcing quota system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into." Nah mate. Real action is needed not silly advertising campaigns. Structural change is needed. Tell where a company failed because it implemented positive discrimination and I’ll share 10 companies that failed for not innovating . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As someone coming from a country where there is reservation quotas everywhere, I can say that it would cause more bad than good over time. Quotas are good if it's imposed for a short period and removed. But unfortunately once it's imposed, no politician will have the guts to remove it. It will just screw up all the industries it is imposed on. Back to the discussion about people from a lower castes not being good enough? Politicians using the process for electoral gain is a separate matter. Prejudice is prejudice. Are women just not good enough to do these jobs? Never said people in lower caste are good enough. Humans are not robots. Cultural factors have a major effect on what people turn out to be. Should we impose quota on nursing and primary school teaching to have more male teachers? One example of how caste based reservation fails - There are people from a specific caste who are a majority in one particular town that has chemical industries. So there is an insanely high number of people of that caste trying to develop skills that could land them in those jobs. It would be natural to let them get into colleges which teach the skills based on merit. Instead we have a quota system that limits number of people from that caste get into the college. These are people with much higher drive to do that job. They are being denied the job because the caste based quota is full. India already has caste based reservation for 7 decades. We are in a stage where a rich guy scoring much lower than a poor guy would get into a top university ahead of the poor guy because he was born into a caste that was ill treated 70 years back. If there is discrimination, take visible action against it. Expecting percentage of X, Y and Z group in every industry is a stupid idea unless you think humans are all clones with exact same interests. I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into." Again, you are talking about a corrupt application of the system for political gain. Actually, lots of Asians play football when they are young and are very good, but are not selected to progress. That is a "cultural factor". How do your "campaigns" work if the less privileged, like women, apply for jobs with identical or better skills and abilities but are not selected because they are different to the people doing the selecting? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Only men voted in Switzerland. It took until 1971 to voluntarily give women the vote in a referendum and even then, only with 66% The men in two Cantons never voted to allow women that right in local elections. The Swiss Courts had to force them to in 1990. The privileged very rarely surrender their privilege. That's assuming that they're even aware of it. Except in this case, there is no one really privileged by law without reservation? No clue what that means. Those with power prevented those without power from getting it until they had to. No. There was a law that actually discriminates women from voting. If there is a similar rule in any of those boards where they want to prevent women, sanction them. What the situation needs is more transparency about who they interviewed and how the candidates were evaluated, rather than forcing quota system." There was a law which could have been removed at any time. Those who could remove that law chose not to. They made a decision to keep power for themselves and exclude others. It is the same mechanism at work in employment at higher levels. They are choosing to maintain power in a group that looks like themselves. You, yourself, wrote in another friend that it is "normal" for people to help those who are like them over others. You believe that is acceptable. You said as much. That is stating that prejudice is acceptable. This is exactly the same thing. Hiring someone who is more like you than someone else. If you can "improve" how people are hired to be more fair, then you can also "improve" how aid is allocated to be more fair. Right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a BBC news programme that investigated why south Asians didn’t progress at the highest level . The south asian reporter essentially said there was a lack of parental support or would-be footballers and pressure to get a corporate job. However, as we see cricket is a whole different category. There is institutional racism clear and simple . " Would that attitude be the same if there were South Asian players visible in football? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As someone coming from a country where there is reservation quotas everywhere, I can say that it would cause more bad than good over time. Quotas are good if it's imposed for a short period and removed. But unfortunately once it's imposed, no politician will have the guts to remove it. It will just screw up all the industries it is imposed on. Back to the discussion about people from a lower castes not being good enough? Politicians using the process for electoral gain is a separate matter. Prejudice is prejudice. Are women just not good enough to do these jobs? Never said people in lower caste are good enough. Humans are not robots. Cultural factors have a major effect on what people turn out to be. Should we impose quota on nursing and primary school teaching to have more male teachers? One example of how caste based reservation fails - There are people from a specific caste who are a majority in one particular town that has chemical industries. So there is an insanely high number of people of that caste trying to develop skills that could land them in those jobs. It would be natural to let them get into colleges which teach the skills based on merit. Instead we have a quota system that limits number of people from that caste get into the college. These are people with much higher drive to do that job. They are being denied the job because the caste based quota is full. India already has caste based reservation for 7 decades. We are in a stage where a rich guy scoring much lower than a poor guy would get into a top university ahead of the poor guy because he was born into a caste that was ill treated 70 years back. If there is discrimination, take visible action against it. Expecting percentage of X, Y and Z group in every industry is a stupid idea unless you think humans are all clones with exact same interests. I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into. Again, you are talking about a corrupt application of the system for political gain. Actually, lots of Asians play football when they are young and are very good, but are not selected to progress. That is a "cultural factor". How do your "campaigns" work if the less privileged, like women, apply for jobs with identical or better skills and abilities but are not selected because they are different to the people doing the selecting?" Lol. Do you think that same proportion of Asians apply to become football players as other races? And they are all denied because of their race? That's a massive allegation you are making without any evidence. I work in tech. If we advertise a job, the ratio of women vs men applying for the jobs is something like 20:80. Ratio of Asians to other races is around 40:60 in spite of the fact that ratio of Asians in overall population is much less. Black applicants? I have hardly seen them. You will see the same trend even if you look at statistics of number of applicants for these degrees in universities. Cultural factors play a major role in life even you if you want to believe it doesn't exist. If a majority of women want to get into medicine instead of finance, percentage of women in medicine would be much higher and percentage of women in finance would be much lower. Who the hell are you to tell them what they want to become? I am suggesting "encouraging" students in schools to take up career paths which people belonging to their race/gender do not normally take. This should result in some amount of diversity in universities and eventually in jobs. But forcing your idea of a Utopian society where every group has the exact proportion of representation in every job is senseless. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a BBC news programme that investigated why south Asians didn’t progress at the highest level . The south asian reporter essentially said there was a lack of parental support or would-be footballers and pressure to get a corporate job. " You don't need a bbc investigation for this. In Indian societies, first preference is given to getting a safe job. Any risky career path like sports and arts is strictly discouraged by parents. Most schools in my town didn't even have a playground, not because the schools are poor. It's just that parents sending kids to school did not care for a playground. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As someone coming from a country where there is reservation quotas everywhere, I can say that it would cause more bad than good over time. Quotas are good if it's imposed for a short period and removed. But unfortunately once it's imposed, no politician will have the guts to remove it. It will just screw up all the industries it is imposed on. Back to the discussion about people from a lower castes not being good enough? Politicians using the process for electoral gain is a separate matter. Prejudice is prejudice. Are women just not good enough to do these jobs? Never said people in lower caste are good enough. Humans are not robots. Cultural factors have a major effect on what people turn out to be. Should we impose quota on nursing and primary school teaching to have more male teachers? One example of how caste based reservation fails - There are people from a specific caste who are a majority in one particular town that has chemical industries. So there is an insanely high number of people of that caste trying to develop skills that could land them in those jobs. It would be natural to let them get into colleges which teach the skills based on merit. Instead we have a quota system that limits number of people from that caste get into the college. These are people with much higher drive to do that job. They are being denied the job because the caste based quota is full. India already has caste based reservation for 7 decades. We are in a stage where a rich guy scoring much lower than a poor guy would get into a top university ahead of the poor guy because he was born into a caste that was ill treated 70 years back. If there is discrimination, take visible action against it. Expecting percentage of X, Y and Z group in every industry is a stupid idea unless you think humans are all clones with exact same interests. I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into. Again, you are talking about a corrupt application of the system for political gain. Actually, lots of Asians play football when they are young and are very good, but are not selected to progress. That is a "cultural factor". How do your "campaigns" work if the less privileged, like women, apply for jobs with identical or better skills and abilities but are not selected because they are different to the people doing the selecting? Lol. Do you think that same proportion of Asians apply to become football players as other races? And they are all denied because of their race? That's a massive allegation you are making without any evidence. I work in tech. If we advertise a job, the ratio of women vs men applying for the jobs is something like 20:80. Ratio of Asians to other races is around 40:60 in spite of the fact that ratio of Asians in overall population is much less. Black applicants? I have hardly seen them. You will see the same trend even if you look at statistics of number of applicants for these degrees in universities. Cultural factors play a major role in life even you if you want to believe it doesn't exist. If a majority of women want to get into medicine instead of finance, percentage of women in medicine would be much higher and percentage of women in finance would be much lower. Who the hell are you to tell them what they want to become? I am suggesting "encouraging" students in schools to take up career paths which people belonging to their race/gender do not normally take. This should result in some amount of diversity in universities and eventually in jobs. But forcing your idea of a Utopian society where every group has the exact proportion of representation in every job is senseless." Have you been to a park on the weekends when minor leagues are playing? It's not so "lol" for some. I'm "telling" people what to do am I? How's that different to you "encouraging" them? That really is a "lol". "Forcing" an idea of creating diverse leaders to provide role models and better hiring seems better than your plan to treat prejudice as normal and providing "encouragement". Do you think that your idea is a new one? It's what's been "done" for the last half a century. Taking the OP as an example, the numbers of women on Boards has only been achieved now because of voluntary, published, quotas. Not because of "encouragement". Even then not in the most powerful positions and still paid significantly less doing the same job. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As someone coming from a country where there is reservation quotas everywhere, I can say that it would cause more bad than good over time. Quotas are good if it's imposed for a short period and removed. But unfortunately once it's imposed, no politician will have the guts to remove it. It will just screw up all the industries it is imposed on. Back to the discussion about people from a lower castes not being good enough? Politicians using the process for electoral gain is a separate matter. Prejudice is prejudice. Are women just not good enough to do these jobs? Never said people in lower caste are good enough. Humans are not robots. Cultural factors have a major effect on what people turn out to be. Should we impose quota on nursing and primary school teaching to have more male teachers? One example of how caste based reservation fails - There are people from a specific caste who are a majority in one particular town that has chemical industries. So there is an insanely high number of people of that caste trying to develop skills that could land them in those jobs. It would be natural to let them get into colleges which teach the skills based on merit. Instead we have a quota system that limits number of people from that caste get into the college. These are people with much higher drive to do that job. They are being denied the job because the caste based quota is full. India already has caste based reservation for 7 decades. We are in a stage where a rich guy scoring much lower than a poor guy would get into a top university ahead of the poor guy because he was born into a caste that was ill treated 70 years back. If there is discrimination, take visible action against it. Expecting percentage of X, Y and Z group in every industry is a stupid idea unless you think humans are all clones with exact same interests. I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into." is the population split 33/33/33 or 50/25/25. That's important in your example. If it's the former, Id want to understand why tiwce as many A applied than B. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As someone coming from a country where there is reservation quotas everywhere, I can say that it would cause more bad than good over time. Quotas are good if it's imposed for a short period and removed. But unfortunately once it's imposed, no politician will have the guts to remove it. It will just screw up all the industries it is imposed on. Back to the discussion about people from a lower castes not being good enough? Politicians using the process for electoral gain is a separate matter. Prejudice is prejudice. Are women just not good enough to do these jobs? Never said people in lower caste are good enough. Humans are not robots. Cultural factors have a major effect on what people turn out to be. Should we impose quota on nursing and primary school teaching to have more male teachers? One example of how caste based reservation fails - There are people from a specific caste who are a majority in one particular town that has chemical industries. So there is an insanely high number of people of that caste trying to develop skills that could land them in those jobs. It would be natural to let them get into colleges which teach the skills based on merit. Instead we have a quota system that limits number of people from that caste get into the college. These are people with much higher drive to do that job. They are being denied the job because the caste based quota is full. India already has caste based reservation for 7 decades. We are in a stage where a rich guy scoring much lower than a poor guy would get into a top university ahead of the poor guy because he was born into a caste that was ill treated 70 years back. If there is discrimination, take visible action against it. Expecting percentage of X, Y and Z group in every industry is a stupid idea unless you think humans are all clones with exact same interests. I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into. Again, you are talking about a corrupt application of the system for political gain. Actually, lots of Asians play football when they are young and are very good, but are not selected to progress. That is a "cultural factor". How do your "campaigns" work if the less privileged, like women, apply for jobs with identical or better skills and abilities but are not selected because they are different to the people doing the selecting? Lol. Do you think that same proportion of Asians apply to become football players as other races? And they are all denied because of their race? That's a massive allegation you are making without any evidence. I work in tech. If we advertise a job, the ratio of women vs men applying for the jobs is something like 20:80. Ratio of Asians to other races is around 40:60 in spite of the fact that ratio of Asians in overall population is much less. Black applicants? I have hardly seen them. You will see the same trend even if you look at statistics of number of applicants for these degrees in universities. Cultural factors play a major role in life even you if you want to believe it doesn't exist. If a majority of women want to get into medicine instead of finance, percentage of women in medicine would be much higher and percentage of women in finance would be much lower. Who the hell are you to tell them what they want to become? I am suggesting "encouraging" students in schools to take up career paths which people belonging to their race/gender do not normally take. This should result in some amount of diversity in universities and eventually in jobs. But forcing your idea of a Utopian society where every group has the exact proportion of representation in every job is senseless." Tell me about the "cultural" reasons for women not wanting to take on the most senior positions in companies... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? People cannot complain about the lack of equality then complain about the EU trying to do something about it. Either you do not believe in equality or you support the EU in their attempt to even things up." None of our frikkin business anyway. We left and the EU does as the EU pleases, isn't that what they wanted? Same for us making comments on US gun laws, it's their problem, not ours. At least the EU is trying, not Sat on its fingers doing nothing as we do. The EU wants to use USB C chargers only from now on. What a great idea, one charger for all. Great for travelling. But no, Britain sticks two fingers up to that nugget of common sense to remove tons of charger based landfill because 'we can', and prefer instead to piss around with weights and measures on packaging. What tossers!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? People cannot complain about the lack of equality then complain about the EU trying to do something about it. Either you do not believe in equality or you support the EU in their attempt to even things up. None of our frikkin business anyway. We left and the EU does as the EU pleases, isn't that what they wanted? Same for us making comments on US gun laws, it's their problem, not ours. At least the EU is trying, not Sat on its fingers doing nothing as we do. The EU wants to use USB C chargers only from now on. What a great idea, one charger for all. Great for travelling. But no, Britain sticks two fingers up to that nugget of common sense to remove tons of charger based landfill because 'we can', and prefer instead to piss around with weights and measures on packaging. What tossers!!!" Actually, we are introducing similar legislation for female and minority board representation. Plus ca change... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into. Again, you are talking about a corrupt application of the system for political gain. Actually, lots of Asians play football when they are young and are very good, but are not selected to progress. That is a "cultural factor". How do your "campaigns" work if the less privileged, like women, apply for jobs with identical or better skills and abilities but are not selected because they are different to the people doing the selecting? Lol. Do you think that same proportion of Asians apply to become football players as other races? And they are all denied because of their race? That's a massive allegation you are making without any evidence. I work in tech. If we advertise a job, the ratio of women vs men applying for the jobs is something like 20:80. Ratio of Asians to other races is around 40:60 in spite of the fact that ratio of Asians in overall population is much less. Black applicants? I have hardly seen them. You will see the same trend even if you look at statistics of number of applicants for these degrees in universities. Cultural factors play a major role in life even you if you want to believe it doesn't exist. If a majority of women want to get into medicine instead of finance, percentage of women in medicine would be much higher and percentage of women in finance would be much lower. Who the hell are you to tell them what they want to become? I am suggesting "encouraging" students in schools to take up career paths which people belonging to their race/gender do not normally take. This should result in some amount of diversity in universities and eventually in jobs. But forcing your idea of a Utopian society where every group has the exact proportion of representation in every job is senseless. Have you been to a park on the weekends when minor leagues are playing? It's not so "lol" for some. I'm "telling" people what to do am I? How's that different to you "encouraging" them? That really is a "lol". "Forcing" an idea of creating diverse leaders to provide role models and better hiring seems better than your plan to treat prejudice as normal and providing "encouragement". Do you think that your idea is a new one? It's what's been "done" for the last half a century. Taking the OP as an example, the numbers of women on Boards has only been achieved now because of voluntary, published, quotas. Not because of "encouragement". Even then not in the most powerful positions and still paid significantly less doing the same job." I have watched minor league games and no. I hardly see any Asians there compared to White and Black kids. When did I ever say prejudice is normal? I am saying that if only a few people from a particular group are interested in joining an industry, it is doesn't make any sense to force a high percentage of them to be board members in that industry. How did you translate that to "prejudice is normal"? What if that person who missed out on that role because the company had to satisfy female quota regulation is a male from an underprivileged group? Do you think promoting someone ahead of an underprivileged guy just because she is a woman is fair? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a BBC news programme that investigated why south Asians didn’t progress at the highest level . The south asian reporter essentially said there was a lack of parental support or would-be footballers and pressure to get a corporate job. However, as we see cricket is a whole different category. There is institutional racism clear and simple . Would that attitude be the same if there were South Asian players visible in football?" What’s the lived experience in South Asia ? I’ve not been there or lived there . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into. Again, you are talking about a corrupt application of the system for political gain. Actually, lots of Asians play football when they are young and are very good, but are not selected to progress. That is a "cultural factor". How do your "campaigns" work if the less privileged, like women, apply for jobs with identical or better skills and abilities but are not selected because they are different to the people doing the selecting? Lol. Do you think that same proportion of Asians apply to become football players as other races? And they are all denied because of their race? That's a massive allegation you are making without any evidence. I work in tech. If we advertise a job, the ratio of women vs men applying for the jobs is something like 20:80. Ratio of Asians to other races is around 40:60 in spite of the fact that ratio of Asians in overall population is much less. Black applicants? I have hardly seen them. You will see the same trend even if you look at statistics of number of applicants for these degrees in universities. Cultural factors play a major role in life even you if you want to believe it doesn't exist. If a majority of women want to get into medicine instead of finance, percentage of women in medicine would be much higher and percentage of women in finance would be much lower. Who the hell are you to tell them what they want to become? I am suggesting "encouraging" students in schools to take up career paths which people belonging to their race/gender do not normally take. This should result in some amount of diversity in universities and eventually in jobs. But forcing your idea of a Utopian society where every group has the exact proportion of representation in every job is senseless. Have you been to a park on the weekends when minor leagues are playing? It's not so "lol" for some. I'm "telling" people what to do am I? How's that different to you "encouraging" them? That really is a "lol". "Forcing" an idea of creating diverse leaders to provide role models and better hiring seems better than your plan to treat prejudice as normal and providing "encouragement". Do you think that your idea is a new one? It's what's been "done" for the last half a century. Taking the OP as an example, the numbers of women on Boards has only been achieved now because of voluntary, published, quotas. Not because of "encouragement". Even then not in the most powerful positions and still paid significantly less doing the same job. I have watched minor league games and no. I hardly see any Asians there compared to White and Black kids. When did I ever say prejudice is normal? I am saying that if only a few people from a particular group are interested in joining an industry, it is doesn't make any sense to force a high percentage of them to be board members in that industry. How did you translate that to "prejudice is normal"? What if that person who missed out on that role because the company had to satisfy female quota regulation is a male from an underprivileged group? Do you think promoting someone ahead of an underprivileged guy just because she is a woman is fair? " it's not perfect and many companies are getting switched on to the different groups who are swimming against the tide. So while this may happen and it's not fair, chances are the underprivileged guy is also being selected against and so in the long run focusing on bias will be a good thing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into. Again, you are talking about a corrupt application of the system for political gain. Actually, lots of Asians play football when they are young and are very good, but are not selected to progress. That is a "cultural factor". How do your "campaigns" work if the less privileged, like women, apply for jobs with identical or better skills and abilities but are not selected because they are different to the people doing the selecting? Lol. Do you think that same proportion of Asians apply to become football players as other races? And they are all denied because of their race? That's a massive allegation you are making without any evidence. I work in tech. If we advertise a job, the ratio of women vs men applying for the jobs is something like 20:80. Ratio of Asians to other races is around 40:60 in spite of the fact that ratio of Asians in overall population is much less. Black applicants? I have hardly seen them. You will see the same trend even if you look at statistics of number of applicants for these degrees in universities. Cultural factors play a major role in life even you if you want to believe it doesn't exist. If a majority of women want to get into medicine instead of finance, percentage of women in medicine would be much higher and percentage of women in finance would be much lower. Who the hell are you to tell them what they want to become? I am suggesting "encouraging" students in schools to take up career paths which people belonging to their race/gender do not normally take. This should result in some amount of diversity in universities and eventually in jobs. But forcing your idea of a Utopian society where every group has the exact proportion of representation in every job is senseless. Have you been to a park on the weekends when minor leagues are playing? It's not so "lol" for some. I'm "telling" people what to do am I? How's that different to you "encouraging" them? That really is a "lol". "Forcing" an idea of creating diverse leaders to provide role models and better hiring seems better than your plan to treat prejudice as normal and providing "encouragement". Do you think that your idea is a new one? It's what's been "done" for the last half a century. Taking the OP as an example, the numbers of women on Boards has only been achieved now because of voluntary, published, quotas. Not because of "encouragement". Even then not in the most powerful positions and still paid significantly less doing the same job. I have watched minor league games and no. I hardly see any Asians there compared to White and Black kids. When did I ever say prejudice is normal? I am saying that if only a few people from a particular group are interested in joining an industry, it is doesn't make any sense to force a high percentage of them to be board members in that industry. How did you translate that to "prejudice is normal"? What if that person who missed out on that role because the company had to satisfy female quota regulation is a male from an underprivileged group? Do you think promoting someone ahead of an underprivileged guy just because she is a woman is fair? it's not perfect and many companies are getting switched on to the different groups who are swimming against the tide. So while this may happen and it's not fair, chances are the underprivileged guy is also being selected against and so in the long run focusing on bias will be a good thing. " I am all for fighting bias. But quota system is not a solution for it. If anything, quotas only increase the bias. Rules requiring transparency is a much more effective solution. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a BBC news programme that investigated why south Asians didn’t progress at the highest level . The south asian reporter essentially said there was a lack of parental support or would-be footballers and pressure to get a corporate job. However, as we see cricket is a whole different category. There is institutional racism clear and simple . Would that attitude be the same if there were South Asian players visible in football? What’s the lived experience in South Asia ? I’ve not been there or lived there . "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into. Again, you are talking about a corrupt application of the system for political gain. Actually, lots of Asians play football when they are young and are very good, but are not selected to progress. That is a "cultural factor". How do your "campaigns" work if the less privileged, like women, apply for jobs with identical or better skills and abilities but are not selected because they are different to the people doing the selecting? Lol. Do you think that same proportion of Asians apply to become football players as other races? And they are all denied because of their race? That's a massive allegation you are making without any evidence. I work in tech. If we advertise a job, the ratio of women vs men applying for the jobs is something like 20:80. Ratio of Asians to other races is around 40:60 in spite of the fact that ratio of Asians in overall population is much less. Black applicants? I have hardly seen them. You will see the same trend even if you look at statistics of number of applicants for these degrees in universities. Cultural factors play a major role in life even you if you want to believe it doesn't exist. If a majority of women want to get into medicine instead of finance, percentage of women in medicine would be much higher and percentage of women in finance would be much lower. Who the hell are you to tell them what they want to become? I am suggesting "encouraging" students in schools to take up career paths which people belonging to their race/gender do not normally take. This should result in some amount of diversity in universities and eventually in jobs. But forcing your idea of a Utopian society where every group has the exact proportion of representation in every job is senseless. Have you been to a park on the weekends when minor leagues are playing? It's not so "lol" for some. I'm "telling" people what to do am I? How's that different to you "encouraging" them? That really is a "lol". "Forcing" an idea of creating diverse leaders to provide role models and better hiring seems better than your plan to treat prejudice as normal and providing "encouragement". Do you think that your idea is a new one? It's what's been "done" for the last half a century. Taking the OP as an example, the numbers of women on Boards has only been achieved now because of voluntary, published, quotas. Not because of "encouragement". Even then not in the most powerful positions and still paid significantly less doing the same job. I have watched minor league games and no. I hardly see any Asians there compared to White and Black kids. When did I ever say prejudice is normal? I am saying that if only a few people from a particular group are interested in joining an industry, it is doesn't make any sense to force a high percentage of them to be board members in that industry. How did you translate that to "prejudice is normal"? What if that person who missed out on that role because the company had to satisfy female quota regulation is a male from an underprivileged group? Do you think promoting someone ahead of an underprivileged guy just because she is a woman is fair? it's not perfect and many companies are getting switched on to the different groups who are swimming against the tide. So while this may happen and it's not fair, chances are the underprivileged guy is also being selected against and so in the long run focusing on bias will be a good thing. I am all for fighting bias. But quota system is not a solution for it. If anything, quotas only increase the bias. Rules requiring transparency is a much more effective solution." I don't disagree, and have said something similar. However, setting targets and challenging companies to explain why they aren't there is useful IMO. Because you do need a way of checking in on what feels a sensible number... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody can provide a single example of a failed business that implemented a quota for positive discrimination. Come on lads, you can surely find 1 example lol " Literally every American business does better than European businesses where there is competition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody can provide a single example of a failed business that implemented a quota for positive discrimination. Come on lads, you can surely find 1 example lol Literally every American business does better than European businesses where there is competition." Why answer a question that wasn’t asked. I know you’re a clever lad. So read my question and please attempt a genuine answer . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody can provide a single example of a failed business that implemented a quota for positive discrimination. Come on lads, you can surely find 1 example lol Literally every American business does better than European businesses where there is competition. Why answer a question that wasn’t asked. I know you’re a clever lad. So read my question and please attempt a genuine answer ." to be honest I travel to name companies that have failed, that alone know what their recruitment policy was like. Struggle to name a company that failed which had a racist recruitment policy so does that mean that racist policies are also a key to success? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody can provide a single example of a failed business that implemented a quota for positive discrimination. Come on lads, you can surely find 1 example lol Literally every American business does better than European businesses where there is competition. Why answer a question that wasn’t asked. I know you’re a clever lad. So read my question and please attempt a genuine answer ." My answer was wrong. But as far as I know positive discrimination is illegal in most countries. So it would be virtually impossible to find a company in the west that is documented to have positive discrimination. Companies that followed it can't reveal that to public. But if you want to know the impact of positive discrimination, you can try getting some work done through the government offices in India. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Still nobody can provide a single example of a failed business that implemented a quota for positive discrimination. Come on lads, you can surely find 1 example lol Literally every American business does better than European businesses where there is competition. Why answer a question that wasn’t asked. I know you’re a clever lad. So read my question and please attempt a genuine answer . My answer was wrong. But as far as I know positive discrimination is illegal in most countries. So it would be virtually impossible to find a company in the west that is documented to have positive discrimination. Companies that followed it can't reveal that to public. But if you want to know the impact of positive discrimination, you can try getting some work done through the government offices in India." What's the impact of discrimination? You're only suggestion is to "encourage" the people being discriminated against to apply for jobs they wouldn't ordinarily apply for. Why will the outcome be any different? Is there no discrimination? If not why are representative numbers of women in positions of power? Is it "cultural"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I'm not going to engage in debating your position on it being "unfair" to try to improve the position of those who are in a more difficult position. Quotas stop being necessary when an appropriate balance of people in senior positions is reached because that will feed through. Who takes the "visible action"? The people who are in a position of privilege? Why would they choose to now if they haven't before? The problem is that it is never removed even when it stops being necessary because politicians are scared of removing it. But the problem is it is not fair in any way. Simple mathematics. There is vacancy for 100 roles. 200 people apply, 100 from group A, 50 from group B and 50 from group C. Assuming that all groups have equal proportion of skills, a prejudice-free system would result in 50 people from group A, 25 each from group B. But a quota system where each group needs to have equal ratio will result in 33/34 people from each group. There is a good chance that group A is actually the least privileged group in this scenario. Quota systems will work only if you have same number of people from different groups getting into different jobs. But the world doesn't function like this. Why are there insane number of STEM graduates from Asian background but abysmally low number of Asian footballers? Cultural factors. Do you want to force equality in STEM jobs by reducing quota for Asians and give those jobs to others? Better solution would be to have campaigns that encourages less privileged groups to get into fields they normally don't get into. Again, you are talking about a corrupt application of the system for political gain. Actually, lots of Asians play football when they are young and are very good, but are not selected to progress. That is a "cultural factor". How do your "campaigns" work if the less privileged, like women, apply for jobs with identical or better skills and abilities but are not selected because they are different to the people doing the selecting? Lol. Do you think that same proportion of Asians apply to become football players as other races? And they are all denied because of their race? That's a massive allegation you are making without any evidence. I work in tech. If we advertise a job, the ratio of women vs men applying for the jobs is something like 20:80. Ratio of Asians to other races is around 40:60 in spite of the fact that ratio of Asians in overall population is much less. Black applicants? I have hardly seen them. You will see the same trend even if you look at statistics of number of applicants for these degrees in universities. Cultural factors play a major role in life even you if you want to believe it doesn't exist. If a majority of women want to get into medicine instead of finance, percentage of women in medicine would be much higher and percentage of women in finance would be much lower. Who the hell are you to tell them what they want to become? I am suggesting "encouraging" students in schools to take up career paths which people belonging to their race/gender do not normally take. This should result in some amount of diversity in universities and eventually in jobs. But forcing your idea of a Utopian society where every group has the exact proportion of representation in every job is senseless. Have you been to a park on the weekends when minor leagues are playing? It's not so "lol" for some. I'm "telling" people what to do am I? How's that different to you "encouraging" them? That really is a "lol". "Forcing" an idea of creating diverse leaders to provide role models and better hiring seems better than your plan to treat prejudice as normal and providing "encouragement". Do you think that your idea is a new one? It's what's been "done" for the last half a century. Taking the OP as an example, the numbers of women on Boards has only been achieved now because of voluntary, published, quotas. Not because of "encouragement". Even then not in the most powerful positions and still paid significantly less doing the same job. I have watched minor league games and no. I hardly see any Asians there compared to White and Black kids. When did I ever say prejudice is normal? I am saying that if only a few people from a particular group are interested in joining an industry, it is doesn't make any sense to force a high percentage of them to be board members in that industry. How did you translate that to "prejudice is normal"? What if that person who missed out on that role because the company had to satisfy female quota regulation is a male from an underprivileged group? Do you think promoting someone ahead of an underprivileged guy just because she is a woman is fair? " The park football pitches are full of South Asian guys on Saturdays and Sundays. I don't know where you're looking. This is where you said that prejudice is normal: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1311037 Remember? It's normal to want to give people like you more help and charity than people not like you. Not based on need. Different treatment based on "culture" and geography. That is prejudice. Again, that is exactly why European and American boards are full of white men from wealthy backgrounds. They favour people from a similar background. You advocated for it previously. You still cannot explain why women are "culturally" going to want to be in less well paid jobs and be paid less for doing the same role. You are all for fighting bias, but apparently not for actually doing anything except "encourage" people to hire more diversely. Your only solution is to get the victims to try harder. No, it isn't fair to promote a woman over an underprivileged man. Of course, that is pitting two people who are discriminated against, against each other. The underprivileged man is no more likely to be offered the job if there is no quota. It's more unfair that white men from the same background give each other the best jobs. That has never changed until legislation is introduced. The Swiss referenda preventing women from voting for so long demonstrate that. The privileged do not surrender their power until forced to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The park football pitches are full of South Asian guys on Saturdays and Sundays. I don't know where you're looking. This is where you said that prejudice is normal: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1311037 Remember? It's normal to want to give people like you more help and charity than people not like you. Not based on need. Different treatment based on "culture" and geography. That is prejudice. Again, that is exactly why European and American boards are full of white men from wealthy backgrounds. They favour people from a similar background. You advocated for it previously. You still cannot explain why women are "culturally" going to want to be in less well paid jobs and be paid less for doing the same role. You are all for fighting bias, but apparently not for actually doing anything except "encourage" people to hire more diversely. Your only solution is to get the victims to try harder. No, it isn't fair to promote a woman over an underprivileged man. Of course, that is pitting two people who are discriminated against, against each other. The underprivileged man is no more likely to be offered the job if there is no quota. It's more unfair that white men from the same background give each other the best jobs. That has never changed until legislation is introduced. The Swiss referenda preventing women from voting for so long demonstrate that. The privileged do not surrender their power until forced to." Someone playing in park football pitches is different from someone actually wanting to make a career out of it. I played cricket on all weekends when I grew up with a bunch of guys. None of us even considered taking up cricket as a career choice. We even have a joke within Indian social media circles "We all become engineers first and then think about what to do with our lives" Prejudice is defined as preconceived opinion without reason. How does choosing to help someone from their own friends/family/culture fall into this definition? Your view that men will not offer these jobs to underprivileged men is a prejudice. Your statement that white men will give each other the best job better fits the definition of prejudice and even racism. You just have to look at the number of Asian CEOs in big tech. So much for prejudice and discrimination. The percentage of people in leadership in every industry can mostly be explained by number of people actually wanting to get into the industry. There is a bit of bias too. But the solution to the bias is making rules on transparency around candidates interviewed and performance feedback. Not enforcing quota. American and European boards are mostly white men from wealthy background because they have been the majority in the country for a long time. An immigrant coming into a country has to build wealth and career from scratch. But someone who is already here has intergenerational wealth. You will see that trend in almost every country in the world. But people did eventually support women's voting rights in Switzerland. The fact that you would take what happened about 50 years back in a country as an explanation and call it as a current day trend is laughable. There is plenty of research around why disproportionately high women choose to get into nursing and teaching. You can look it up on Google. I am all for eliminating bias. But enforcing quotas is a bad solution. Like socialism, this also falls within the example of how the roads to hell are built with good intentions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So much waffle here. You guys are spending so much wasted time pontificating and it’s hilarious. Get a job lads. All this navel gazing . Let’s use some facts . Name a company or organisation that has failed from positive discrimination. " I'm not arguing with you on this. Any data from any studies indicate that more diverse boards lead to better performing companies. Very few companies have made such changes to board make-up out of choice. They have almost all been embarrassed or forced into it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So much waffle here. You guys are spending so much wasted time pontificating and it’s hilarious. Get a job lads. All this navel gazing . Let’s use some facts . Name a company or organisation that has failed from positive discrimination. I'm not arguing with you on this. Any data from any studies indicate that more diverse boards lead to better performing companies. Very few companies have made such changes to board make-up out of choice. They have almost all been embarrassed or forced into it." It’s called progression. Don’t be fooled in thinking the status quo is the most effective or a successful model. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The park football pitches are full of South Asian guys on Saturdays and Sundays. I don't know where you're looking. This is where you said that prejudice is normal: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1311037 Remember? It's normal to want to give people like you more help and charity than people not like you. Not based on need. Different treatment based on "culture" and geography. That is prejudice. Again, that is exactly why European and American boards are full of white men from wealthy backgrounds. They favour people from a similar background. You advocated for it previously. You still cannot explain why women are "culturally" going to want to be in less well paid jobs and be paid less for doing the same role. You are all for fighting bias, but apparently not for actually doing anything except "encourage" people to hire more diversely. Your only solution is to get the victims to try harder. No, it isn't fair to promote a woman over an underprivileged man. Of course, that is pitting two people who are discriminated against, against each other. The underprivileged man is no more likely to be offered the job if there is no quota. It's more unfair that white men from the same background give each other the best jobs. That has never changed until legislation is introduced. The Swiss referenda preventing women from voting for so long demonstrate that. The privileged do not surrender their power until forced to. Someone playing in park football pitches is different from someone actually wanting to make a career out of it. I played cricket on all weekends when I grew up with a bunch of guys. None of us even considered taking up cricket as a career choice. We even have a joke within Indian social media circles "We all become engineers first and then think about what to do with our lives" Prejudice is defined as preconceived opinion without reason. How does choosing to help someone from their own friends/family/culture fall into this definition? Your view that men will not offer these jobs to underprivileged men is a prejudice. Your statement that white men will give each other the best job better fits the definition of prejudice and even racism. You just have to look at the number of Asian CEOs in big tech. So much for prejudice and discrimination. The percentage of people in leadership in every industry can mostly be explained by number of people actually wanting to get into the industry. There is a bit of bias too. But the solution to the bias is making rules on transparency around candidates interviewed and performance feedback. Not enforcing quota. American and European boards are mostly white men from wealthy background because they have been the majority in the country for a long time. An immigrant coming into a country has to build wealth and career from scratch. But someone who is already here has intergenerational wealth. You will see that trend in almost every country in the world. But people did eventually support women's voting rights in Switzerland. The fact that you would take what happened about 50 years back in a country as an explanation and call it as a current day trend is laughable. There is plenty of research around why disproportionately high women choose to get into nursing and teaching. You can look it up on Google. I am all for eliminating bias. But enforcing quotas is a bad solution. Like socialism, this also falls within the example of how the roads to hell are built with good intentions." What a sweeping generalisation to make about British Asians. Why would you feel that you can apply your experience in India to here? So you are completely comfortable with putting those like yourself before those different to you and do not believe that is prejudice. Fine. There is "a bit of bias"? No problem then. Nothing needs changing then. Privileged white men can continue to fill board seats with other privileged white men like themselves. Wanting to get into industry or able to? What are the number of Asian CEOs compared to white men or compared to women in Tech? Do you actually know? Is it OK because South Asian men are doing OK in your perception? You defend your own prejudice again and again in this thread and every other based purely on your own perceptions. There are many reasons for why there are more women teachers and nurses starting with the fact that for decades they were amongst the very small number of professions that women were allowed to join. That's what Google tells you. Still unable to comprehend the basic point that long after the world had apparently moved on, the privileged group held onto power. The final ones had to be forced. You keep saying that you want to "eliminate bias" but don't want to do anything except "encourage" the people suffering from discrimination and hope that those in charge want to surrender their own privilege. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So much waffle here. You guys are spending so much wasted time pontificating and it’s hilarious. Get a job lads. All this navel gazing . Let’s use some facts . Name a company or organisation that has failed from positive discrimination. I'm not arguing with you on this. Any data from any studies indicate that more diverse boards lead to better performing companies. Very few companies have made such changes to board make-up out of choice. They have almost all been embarrassed or forced into it. It’s called progression. Don’t be fooled in thinking the status quo is the most effective or a successful model. " Not sure I follow your first point. Progress sometimes has to be forced because the status quo suits those on power. After all, that's how they got their jobs and they are "amazing", so it's "obvious" that changing this would be foolish... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let’s use some facts . Name a company or organisation that has failed from positive discrimination. " Will you be posting examples of companies that have failed due to 'negative' discrimination? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let’s use some facts . Name a company or organisation that has failed from positive discrimination. Will you be posting examples of companies that have failed due to 'negative' discrimination?" If you mean companies that haven’t changed their business practices yes . this thread will get full very quickly . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Let’s use some facts . Name a company or organisation that has failed from positive discrimination. Will you be posting examples of companies that have failed due to 'negative' discrimination? If you mean companies that haven’t changed their business practices yes . this thread will get full very quickly . " that's not what you asked of us. Failed BECAUSE they hadnt changed their business practice. Ideally showing the link. But this is a gotcha question built on a straw man. Noone is saying positive discrimination and quotas will drive businesses under. The argument is the best person may not be recruited, and so the company will no have as strong a leadership, so will not perform as well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What happened to the best candidate for the job regardless of gender ?" It doesn't happen, unless your position is that boards are made up predominantly of men from privileged backgrounds because they are the best people for the job and somehow women and minority groups just aren't as good... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What happened to the best candidate for the job regardless of gender ? It doesn't happen, unless your position is that boards are made up predominantly of men from privileged backgrounds because they are the best people for the job and somehow women and minority groups just aren't as good..." Spot on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The park football pitches are full of South Asian guys on Saturdays and Sundays. I don't know where you're looking. This is where you said that prejudice is normal: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1311037 Remember? It's normal to want to give people like you more help and charity than people not like you. Not based on need. Different treatment based on "culture" and geography. That is prejudice. Again, that is exactly why European and American boards are full of white men from wealthy backgrounds. They favour people from a similar background. You advocated for it previously. You still cannot explain why women are "culturally" going to want to be in less well paid jobs and be paid less for doing the same role. You are all for fighting bias, but apparently not for actually doing anything except "encourage" people to hire more diversely. Your only solution is to get the victims to try harder. No, it isn't fair to promote a woman over an underprivileged man. Of course, that is pitting two people who are discriminated against, against each other. The underprivileged man is no more likely to be offered the job if there is no quota. It's more unfair that white men from the same background give each other the best jobs. That has never changed until legislation is introduced. The Swiss referenda preventing women from voting for so long demonstrate that. The privileged do not surrender their power until forced to. Someone playing in park football pitches is different from someone actually wanting to make a career out of it. I played cricket on all weekends when I grew up with a bunch of guys. None of us even considered taking up cricket as a career choice. We even have a joke within Indian social media circles "We all become engineers first and then think about what to do with our lives" Prejudice is defined as preconceived opinion without reason. How does choosing to help someone from their own friends/family/culture fall into this definition? Your view that men will not offer these jobs to underprivileged men is a prejudice. Your statement that white men will give each other the best job better fits the definition of prejudice and even racism. You just have to look at the number of Asian CEOs in big tech. So much for prejudice and discrimination. The percentage of people in leadership in every industry can mostly be explained by number of people actually wanting to get into the industry. There is a bit of bias too. But the solution to the bias is making rules on transparency around candidates interviewed and performance feedback. Not enforcing quota. American and European boards are mostly white men from wealthy background because they have been the majority in the country for a long time. An immigrant coming into a country has to build wealth and career from scratch. But someone who is already here has intergenerational wealth. You will see that trend in almost every country in the world. But people did eventually support women's voting rights in Switzerland. The fact that you would take what happened about 50 years back in a country as an explanation and call it as a current day trend is laughable. There is plenty of research around why disproportionately high women choose to get into nursing and teaching. You can look it up on Google. I am all for eliminating bias. But enforcing quotas is a bad solution. Like socialism, this also falls within the example of how the roads to hell are built with good intentions. What a sweeping generalisation to make about British Asians. Why would you feel that you can apply your experience in India to here? So you are completely comfortable with putting those like yourself before those different to you and do not believe that is prejudice. Fine. There is "a bit of bias"? No problem then. Nothing needs changing then. Privileged white men can continue to fill board seats with other privileged white men like themselves. Wanting to get into industry or able to? What are the number of Asian CEOs compared to white men or compared to women in Tech? Do you actually know? Is it OK because South Asian men are doing OK in your perception? You defend your own prejudice again and again in this thread and every other based purely on your own perceptions. There are many reasons for why there are more women teachers and nurses starting with the fact that for decades they were amongst the very small number of professions that women were allowed to join. That's what Google tells you. Still unable to comprehend the basic point that long after the world had apparently moved on, the privileged group held onto power. The final ones had to be forced. You keep saying that you want to "eliminate bias" but don't want to do anything except "encourage" the people suffering from discrimination and hope that those in charge want to surrender their own privilege." There are plenty of surveys that support the generalisation I made. Most immigrants from India here are still first generation immigrants. The trend will definitely change after two generations. If someone buys a luxury toy for his kid instead of donating that money to the homeless in the neighborhood, is he being prejuduced for spending money for his kid when it could be better used for something else? Helping someone is a positive action. Not helping anyone is being neutral. Helping one person but not another doesn't negatively affect the person not being helped. It's not prejudice. Are you saying that you would rather spend your money than prioritising yourself and your family? If your answer is yes, you are lying. Because here you are paying for membership in a swingers site instead of using the money to buy meal for a homeless, obviously putting your horniness over someone else's hunger. It's lazy argument to blame everyone for putting up facts: https://syncni.com/article/5387/record-uptake-of-females-in-computer-science-but-gender-gap-remains-large#:~:text=Overall%20entries%20for%20A%2Dlevel,%2C%20according%20to%20BCS'%20analysis. Only 16.2% of computer science students are female. This is last year and the percentage is highest it has ever been. Leadership positions need an experience of 15 years usually. So if you look back before 15 years, the percentage is even worse. How don't you think forcing 40% quotas is going to work in a computer science industry where only around 10% of candidates are women? Should we all see stand in the gates of nursing college and drag the women to do computer science degree? Should we also drag the men doing computer science degrees into doing nursing because percentages seem to matter much to you than individual will? As if now, 10 of the fortune 500 CEOs are Asians. If you take into account that you need to be in the country (US in this case) for a long period to achieve this growth, this is great. Most of these appointments happened in the last decade because, Indians started getting into professional and management careers around the turn of the millennium and now is the age they will be that stage of the career. No wonder you see many high profile appointments recently. The number will only get better going forward. I clearly told another solution to eliminate bias, which you have conveniently ignored. Companies should be mandated to maintain a record of interviews and promotion evaluations. It should be private by default but should be accessible by some watchdog in case they receive complaints. Encouragement at school level and promoting transparency at corporate level is a much better solution than quota systems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mixed views, so to people that are for the quotas, I’ve a few question A business needs to hire 10 people. 100 people apply to interview. Only 4 are women Do those women need to interview? Or should they just be hired purely by applying? Is that equality to get hired without an interview purely based on your gender? Would any women be happy knowing they got that position because of a quota to fill? Also, where do we stop? Are black people under represented? Do we need a 40% black quota? And presumable equal parts black male and black female? What about trans? I’m sure they are struggling much more in interviews. Do they get a quota? What happens when there aren’t enough positions to fill each quota? Who gets left out? And to go further on that, why is the quota only applied to the well paid, upper end jobs? Can we have a 40% quota on binmen? Or is it only equality when it’s a well paid jobs? What about female dominated roles? Teaching for example. 40% quota on men? It’s tricky, I’m not a fan of quotas at all. But, if a quota is going to be applied, it shouldn’t be a flat %. It should be a % of people that applied. For example, 10 people need. 100 applicants. 30 are female. So 30% of the applicants are women, 30% of people hired should be women. I still don’t agree with that though, the best person for the job should be hired. And if men truly are hiring incompetent men over competent women, that would be reflected in the free market where you can’t hide from performance markets and profit margins. " This is about women in company boards. Your example is irrelevant. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I didn't used to agree with it but increasingly I do. Hiring the best person makes sense but we might not realise that roles are structured in a way that men become the best person. If a CEO role demands someone who works 80 hour weeks, it will generally favour men over women. The solution is rethink what being CEO is rather than just look for women who work like men do." Nobody is saying there needs to be more CEO. There is a need to have more females in executive boards to balance . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess my point is, does every unequal mixture need fixing with legislation? Are the majority of teachers female because women are pure pinky not hiring men? Or is it more likely that the type of people most attracted to that career women? Why is construction dominated by men? Are men not hiring women? Are there swarms of out-of-work tradeswomen? Or do very few women choose that job route Could it be similar in high ranking management roles? I’m not a big fan of this forced equality. Where quotas need to be met. But I don’t like the idea of anyone, man or women, getting hired on anything other than their ability. And forced quotas force people to hire based on gender. As someone else said. It’s sloppy. It’s a quick fix designed to put the blame on someone else I’d much prefer to see a system of fairer opportunity then forced quotas " You’re not in favour because equality doesn’t benefit you . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess my point is, does every unequal mixture need fixing with legislation? Are the majority of teachers female because women are pure pinky not hiring men? Or is it more likely that the type of people most attracted to that career women? Why is construction dominated by men? Are men not hiring women? Are there swarms of out-of-work tradeswomen? Or do very few women choose that job route Could it be similar in high ranking management roles? I’m not a big fan of this forced equality. Where quotas need to be met. But I don’t like the idea of anyone, man or women, getting hired on anything other than their ability. And forced quotas force people to hire based on gender. As someone else said. It’s sloppy. It’s a quick fix designed to put the blame on someone else I’d much prefer to see a system of fairer opportunity then forced quotas You’re not in favour because equality doesn’t benefit you . " In my trade I have no say in the game. I’m not going to be an executive. But rather then just point fingers, why don’t you debate the point? Everyone’s putting together well thought out points, adding to the discussion, you’re not | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess my point is, does every unequal mixture need fixing with legislation? Are the majority of teachers female because women are pure pinky not hiring men? Or is it more likely that the type of people most attracted to that career women? Why is construction dominated by men? Are men not hiring women? Are there swarms of out-of-work tradeswomen? Or do very few women choose that job route Could it be similar in high ranking management roles? I’m not a big fan of this forced equality. Where quotas need to be met. But I don’t like the idea of anyone, man or women, getting hired on anything other than their ability. And forced quotas force people to hire based on gender. As someone else said. It’s sloppy. It’s a quick fix designed to put the blame on someone else I’d much prefer to see a system of fairer opportunity then forced quotas " how do you ensure fairer opportunities? I do agree we should look further and wider. But we cant let perfection be the enemy of the good and we need to start somewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess my point is, does every unequal mixture need fixing with legislation? Are the majority of teachers female because women are pure pinky not hiring men? Or is it more likely that the type of people most attracted to that career women? Why is construction dominated by men? Are men not hiring women? Are there swarms of out-of-work tradeswomen? Or do very few women choose that job route Could it be similar in high ranking management roles? I’m not a big fan of this forced equality. Where quotas need to be met. But I don’t like the idea of anyone, man or women, getting hired on anything other than their ability. And forced quotas force people to hire based on gender. As someone else said. It’s sloppy. It’s a quick fix designed to put the blame on someone else I’d much prefer to see a system of fairer opportunity then forced quotas how do you ensure fairer opportunities? I do agree we should look further and wider. But we cant let perfection be the enemy of the good and we need to start somewhere. " We have the technology to perform interviews now where the gender of the person isn’t even know. We could potentially look at methods of skewing the interview process to make sure no bias can exist in hiring. That would benefit race issues too, abs trans But that’s just off the top of my head, I don’t have the answers, I just don’t like the idea of forced quotas. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I didn't used to agree with it but increasingly I do. Hiring the best person makes sense but we might not realise that roles are structured in a way that men become the best person. If a CEO role demands someone who works 80 hour weeks, it will generally favour men over women. The solution is rethink what being CEO is rather than just look for women who work like men do." may spin off other arguments https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10896241/Marks-Spencers-female-boss-earn-140-000-pro-rata-male-counterpart.html A part time ceo is possibly a start... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The park football pitches are full of South Asian guys on Saturdays and Sundays. I don't know where you're looking. This is where you said that prejudice is normal: https://m.fabswingers.com/forum/politics/1311037 Remember? It's normal to want to give people like you more help and charity than people not like you. Not based on need. Different treatment based on "culture" and geography. That is prejudice. Again, that is exactly why European and American boards are full of white men from wealthy backgrounds. They favour people from a similar background. You advocated for it previously. You still cannot explain why women are "culturally" going to want to be in less well paid jobs and be paid less for doing the same role. You are all for fighting bias, but apparently not for actually doing anything except "encourage" people to hire more diversely. Your only solution is to get the victims to try harder. No, it isn't fair to promote a woman over an underprivileged man. Of course, that is pitting two people who are discriminated against, against each other. The underprivileged man is no more likely to be offered the job if there is no quota. It's more unfair that white men from the same background give each other the best jobs. That has never changed until legislation is introduced. The Swiss referenda preventing women from voting for so long demonstrate that. The privileged do not surrender their power until forced to. Someone playing in park football pitches is different from someone actually wanting to make a career out of it. I played cricket on all weekends when I grew up with a bunch of guys. None of us even considered taking up cricket as a career choice. We even have a joke within Indian social media circles "We all become engineers first and then think about what to do with our lives" Prejudice is defined as preconceived opinion without reason. How does choosing to help someone from their own friends/family/culture fall into this definition? Your view that men will not offer these jobs to underprivileged men is a prejudice. Your statement that white men will give each other the best job better fits the definition of prejudice and even racism. You just have to look at the number of Asian CEOs in big tech. So much for prejudice and discrimination. The percentage of people in leadership in every industry can mostly be explained by number of people actually wanting to get into the industry. There is a bit of bias too. But the solution to the bias is making rules on transparency around candidates interviewed and performance feedback. Not enforcing quota. American and European boards are mostly white men from wealthy background because they have been the majority in the country for a long time. An immigrant coming into a country has to build wealth and career from scratch. But someone who is already here has intergenerational wealth. You will see that trend in almost every country in the world. But people did eventually support women's voting rights in Switzerland. The fact that you would take what happened about 50 years back in a country as an explanation and call it as a current day trend is laughable. There is plenty of research around why disproportionately high women choose to get into nursing and teaching. You can look it up on Google. I am all for eliminating bias. But enforcing quotas is a bad solution. Like socialism, this also falls within the example of how the roads to hell are built with good intentions. What a sweeping generalisation to make about British Asians. Why would you feel that you can apply your experience in India to here? So you are completely comfortable with putting those like yourself before those different to you and do not believe that is prejudice. Fine. There is "a bit of bias"? No problem then. Nothing needs changing then. Privileged white men can continue to fill board seats with other privileged white men like themselves. Wanting to get into industry or able to? What are the number of Asian CEOs compared to white men or compared to women in Tech? Do you actually know? Is it OK because South Asian men are doing OK in your perception? You defend your own prejudice again and again in this thread and every other based purely on your own perceptions. There are many reasons for why there are more women teachers and nurses starting with the fact that for decades they were amongst the very small number of professions that women were allowed to join. That's what Google tells you. Still unable to comprehend the basic point that long after the world had apparently moved on, the privileged group held onto power. The final ones had to be forced. You keep saying that you want to "eliminate bias" but don't want to do anything except "encourage" the people suffering from discrimination and hope that those in charge want to surrender their own privilege. There are plenty of surveys that support the generalisation I made. Most immigrants from India here are still first generation immigrants. The trend will definitely change after two generations. If someone buys a luxury toy for his kid instead of donating that money to the homeless in the neighborhood, is he being prejuduced for spending money for his kid when it could be better used for something else? Helping someone is a positive action. Not helping anyone is being neutral. Helping one person but not another doesn't negatively affect the person not being helped. It's not prejudice. Are you saying that you would rather spend your money than prioritising yourself and your family? If your answer is yes, you are lying. Because here you are paying for membership in a swingers site instead of using the money to buy meal for a homeless, obviously putting your horniness over someone else's hunger. It's lazy argument to blame everyone for putting up facts: https://syncni.com/article/5387/record-uptake-of-females-in-computer-science-but-gender-gap-remains-large#:~:text=Overall%20entries%20for%20A%2Dlevel,%2C%20according%20to%20BCS'%20analysis. Only 16.2% of computer science students are female. This is last year and the percentage is highest it has ever been. Leadership positions need an experience of 15 years usually. So if you look back before 15 years, the percentage is even worse. How don't you think forcing 40% quotas is going to work in a computer science industry where only around 10% of candidates are women? Should we all see stand in the gates of nursing college and drag the women to do computer science degree? Should we also drag the men doing computer science degrees into doing nursing because percentages seem to matter much to you than individual will? As if now, 10 of the fortune 500 CEOs are Asians. If you take into account that you need to be in the country (US in this case) for a long period to achieve this growth, this is great. Most of these appointments happened in the last decade because, Indians started getting into professional and management careers around the turn of the millennium and now is the age they will be that stage of the career. No wonder you see many high profile appointments recently. The number will only get better going forward. I clearly told another solution to eliminate bias, which you have conveniently ignored. Companies should be mandated to maintain a record of interviews and promotion evaluations. It should be private by default but should be accessible by some watchdog in case they receive complaints. Encouragement at school level and promoting transparency at corporate level is a much better solution than quota systems." You are well behind the times. The trend has long since changed. There has been mass immigration here for fifty years. Again, you are unable to see choosing to place one group above another as prejudice. You seek to call it bias because it sounds more acceptable. Quibble over the definition of the words all you wish but they functionally produce the same outcome. Any argument you make to advance one group over another is the same. Drawing a parallel between family and anyone else is a nonsense, as you well know. However, from an employment perspective it is called nepotism and very rarely produces good outcomes. Leadership positions are all filled by outliers. By definition they should be the highest performers available internally or externally. As has been stated elsewhere, attracting different groups into an industry requires role models and a reasonable expectation of being able to reach the top and not hot a glass ceiling. Quite frankly, fill the quotas with the best people to fill them and stop whining about a system loaded in your favour being equalised. Clearly top positions are not being filled by the best people. You can see examples of that every day from Kodak to the Dot-com bubble to the 2008 crash. "Encouragement" is lovely until you start work and as a woman find that men with less talent are promoted over you. Look at the statistics for women leaving technical professions. Transparency has driven quotas either voluntary or compulsory because they cannot change behaviour any other way due to the type of mindset that you are displaying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mixed views, so to people that are for the quotas, I’ve a few question A business needs to hire 10 people. 100 people apply to interview. Only 4 are women Do those women need to interview? Or should they just be hired purely by applying? Is that equality to get hired without an interview purely based on your gender? Would any women be happy knowing they got that position because of a quota to fill? Also, where do we stop? Are black people under represented? Do we need a 40% black quota? And presumable equal parts black male and black female? What about trans? I’m sure they are struggling much more in interviews. Do they get a quota? What happens when there aren’t enough positions to fill each quota? Who gets left out? And to go further on that, why is the quota only applied to the well paid, upper end jobs? Can we have a 40% quota on binmen? Or is it only equality when it’s a well paid jobs? What about female dominated roles? Teaching for example. 40% quota on men? It’s tricky, I’m not a fan of quotas at all. But, if a quota is going to be applied, it shouldn’t be a flat %. It should be a % of people that applied. For example, 10 people need. 100 applicants. 30 are female. So 30% of the applicants are women, 30% of people hired should be women. I still don’t agree with that though, the best person for the job should be hired. And if men truly are hiring incompetent men over competent women, that would be reflected in the free market where you can’t hide from performance markets and profit margins. " You are effectively giving reasons not to change, aren't you? Even if that is not your intent. Too hard or "unfair" (relative to the status quo?). Let's wait until there is a perfect solution? If you have a quota that does not mean that you fill the position with someone "inferior". It means that you have to work harder at identifying and attracting women and other minorities. This has been pointed out in another post. Rightly or wrongly, many senior executive positions are not filled by people from within the same industry so it is not necessary for direct experience to be a factor. The purpose of the quota is if you effect change at the top then the general management of the company improves and the culture will change throughout the company. Women were not even allowed to be bin or firemen until pretty recently. Quota or no quota. As also stated, the market absolutely does not work efficiently. Do you really think that the preponderance of of white men from privileged backgrounds are in their posts purely on merit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mixed views, so to people that are for the quotas, I’ve a few question A business needs to hire 10 people. 100 people apply to interview. Only 4 are women Do those women need to interview? Or should they just be hired purely by applying? Is that equality to get hired without an interview purely based on your gender? Would any women be happy knowing they got that position because of a quota to fill? Also, where do we stop? Are black people under represented? Do we need a 40% black quota? And presumable equal parts black male and black female? What about trans? I’m sure they are struggling much more in interviews. Do they get a quota? What happens when there aren’t enough positions to fill each quota? Who gets left out? And to go further on that, why is the quota only applied to the well paid, upper end jobs? Can we have a 40% quota on binmen? Or is it only equality when it’s a well paid jobs? What about female dominated roles? Teaching for example. 40% quota on men? It’s tricky, I’m not a fan of quotas at all. But, if a quota is going to be applied, it shouldn’t be a flat %. It should be a % of people that applied. For example, 10 people need. 100 applicants. 30 are female. So 30% of the applicants are women, 30% of people hired should be women. I still don’t agree with that though, the best person for the job should be hired. And if men truly are hiring incompetent men over competent women, that would be reflected in the free market where you can’t hide from performance markets and profit margins. You are effectively giving reasons not to change, aren't you? Even if that is not your intent. Too hard or "unfair" (relative to the status quo?). Let's wait until there is a perfect solution? If you have a quota that does not mean that you fill the position with someone "inferior". It means that you have to work harder at identifying and attracting women and other minorities. This has been pointed out in another post. Rightly or wrongly, many senior executive positions are not filled by people from within the same industry so it is not necessary for direct experience to be a factor. The purpose of the quota is if you effect change at the top then the general management of the company improves and the culture will change throughout the company. Women were not even allowed to be bin or firemen until pretty recently. Quota or no quota. As also stated, the market absolutely does not work efficiently. Do you really think that the preponderance of of white men from privileged backgrounds are in their posts purely on merit?" So would you want the quota to be temporary then? Until things even out, then remove the quota? And I think the issue is far more complex than “it’s old white men hiring old white men”. I think for a long time no women worked in those sectors for many reasons. That’s a factor I think those positions aren’t as desirable to women in general, as can be seen in the overwhelming bias in other areas like teaching, nursing etc I think women are more likely to stray from a given career path when things like children come up. Thad another factor. And, I think old men hiring old men is also a factor I’ve given possible alternatives in other posts. I do not agree with hiring someone based on gender via forced quotas | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess my point is, does every unequal mixture need fixing with legislation? Are the majority of teachers female because women are pure pinky not hiring men? Or is it more likely that the type of people most attracted to that career women? Why is construction dominated by men? Are men not hiring women? Are there swarms of out-of-work tradeswomen? Or do very few women choose that job route Could it be similar in high ranking management roles? I’m not a big fan of this forced equality. Where quotas need to be met. But I don’t like the idea of anyone, man or women, getting hired on anything other than their ability. And forced quotas force people to hire based on gender. As someone else said. It’s sloppy. It’s a quick fix designed to put the blame on someone else I’d much prefer to see a system of fairer opportunity then forced quotas how do you ensure fairer opportunities? I do agree we should look further and wider. But we cant let perfection be the enemy of the good and we need to start somewhere. We have the technology to perform interviews now where the gender of the person isn’t even know. We could potentially look at methods of skewing the interview process to make sure no bias can exist in hiring. That would benefit race issues too, abs trans But that’s just off the top of my head, I don’t have the answers, I just don’t like the idea of forced quotas." No, we don't have that technology. We could conceivably arrive at a shortlist that way using automated systems. However, the reality is that the machine learning uses biased data because a "good" candidate based on existing people in those positions looks like a privileged white man with his experience and interests. Some companies are getting beyond this and see performance benefits as a consequence, but not many are committed until there is a push to do so with a reporting requirement, which is where transparency is vital as you suggest. However, the "skewing" that you suggest becomes a form of quota, doesn't it? How else do you measure success than having as close to a representative make up of the population on your board and your organisation in a reasonable range? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess my point is, does every unequal mixture need fixing with legislation? Are the majority of teachers female because women are pure pinky not hiring men? Or is it more likely that the type of people most attracted to that career women? Why is construction dominated by men? Are men not hiring women? Are there swarms of out-of-work tradeswomen? Or do very few women choose that job route Could it be similar in high ranking management roles? I’m not a big fan of this forced equality. Where quotas need to be met. But I don’t like the idea of anyone, man or women, getting hired on anything other than their ability. And forced quotas force people to hire based on gender. As someone else said. It’s sloppy. It’s a quick fix designed to put the blame on someone else I’d much prefer to see a system of fairer opportunity then forced quotas how do you ensure fairer opportunities? I do agree we should look further and wider. But we cant let perfection be the enemy of the good and we need to start somewhere. We have the technology to perform interviews now where the gender of the person isn’t even know. We could potentially look at methods of skewing the interview process to make sure no bias can exist in hiring. That would benefit race issues too, abs trans But that’s just off the top of my head, I don’t have the answers, I just don’t like the idea of forced quotas. No, we don't have that technology. We could conceivably arrive at a shortlist that way using automated systems. However, the reality is that the machine learning uses biased data because a "good" candidate based on existing people in those positions looks like a privileged white man with his experience and interests. Some companies are getting beyond this and see performance benefits as a consequence, but not many are committed until there is a push to do so with a reporting requirement, which is where transparency is vital as you suggest. However, the "skewing" that you suggest becomes a form of quota, doesn't it? How else do you measure success than having as close to a representative make up of the population on your board and your organisation in a reasonable range?" My skew means using technology to avoid bias in the interview process Video interview with voice changing technology. That all exists. You couldn’t discriminate on anything then. You wouldn’t know woman or man or trans, black or white, disabled or abled. To me, making the interview process less open to bias is the answer. Moving towards something that hired the best candidate. Not forcing quotas | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Mixed views, so to people that are for the quotas, I’ve a few question A business needs to hire 10 people. 100 people apply to interview. Only 4 are women Do those women need to interview? Or should they just be hired purely by applying? Is that equality to get hired without an interview purely based on your gender? Would any women be happy knowing they got that position because of a quota to fill? Also, where do we stop? Are black people under represented? Do we need a 40% black quota? And presumable equal parts black male and black female? What about trans? I’m sure they are struggling much more in interviews. Do they get a quota? What happens when there aren’t enough positions to fill each quota? Who gets left out? And to go further on that, why is the quota only applied to the well paid, upper end jobs? Can we have a 40% quota on binmen? Or is it only equality when it’s a well paid jobs? What about female dominated roles? Teaching for example. 40% quota on men? It’s tricky, I’m not a fan of quotas at all. But, if a quota is going to be applied, it shouldn’t be a flat %. It should be a % of people that applied. For example, 10 people need. 100 applicants. 30 are female. So 30% of the applicants are women, 30% of people hired should be women. I still don’t agree with that though, the best person for the job should be hired. And if men truly are hiring incompetent men over competent women, that would be reflected in the free market where you can’t hide from performance markets and profit margins. You are effectively giving reasons not to change, aren't you? Even if that is not your intent. Too hard or "unfair" (relative to the status quo?). Let's wait until there is a perfect solution? If you have a quota that does not mean that you fill the position with someone "inferior". It means that you have to work harder at identifying and attracting women and other minorities. This has been pointed out in another post. Rightly or wrongly, many senior executive positions are not filled by people from within the same industry so it is not necessary for direct experience to be a factor. The purpose of the quota is if you effect change at the top then the general management of the company improves and the culture will change throughout the company. Women were not even allowed to be bin or firemen until pretty recently. Quota or no quota. As also stated, the market absolutely does not work efficiently. Do you really think that the preponderance of of white men from privileged backgrounds are in their posts purely on merit? So would you want the quota to be temporary then? Until things even out, then remove the quota? And I think the issue is far more complex than “it’s old white men hiring old white men”. I think for a long time no women worked in those sectors for many reasons. That’s a factor I think those positions aren’t as desirable to women in general, as can be seen in the overwhelming bias in other areas like teaching, nursing etc I think women are more likely to stray from a given career path when things like children come up. Thad another factor. And, I think old men hiring old men is also a factor I’ve given possible alternatives in other posts. I do not agree with hiring someone based on gender via forced quotas " Quotas are an imperfect solution for when nothing else works. That's where we are. They could be removed later, but probably won't need to be once some balance is achieved because they will be reached naturally and it would be considered odd for a board to be made up any other way. You are applying your bias to the assumption that women don't want to do these jobs and anchoring that in what has gone before. I don't think intentionally at all. Women weren't allowed to work in most professions. Nursing and teaching were some of the few options available for them to reach the top. Again, childcare cost and complexity are an obstacle to return to work as much as a reason not to. Probably far more so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess my point is, does every unequal mixture need fixing with legislation? Are the majority of teachers female because women are pure pinky not hiring men? Or is it more likely that the type of people most attracted to that career women? Why is construction dominated by men? Are men not hiring women? Are there swarms of out-of-work tradeswomen? Or do very few women choose that job route Could it be similar in high ranking management roles? I’m not a big fan of this forced equality. Where quotas need to be met. But I don’t like the idea of anyone, man or women, getting hired on anything other than their ability. And forced quotas force people to hire based on gender. As someone else said. It’s sloppy. It’s a quick fix designed to put the blame on someone else I’d much prefer to see a system of fairer opportunity then forced quotas how do you ensure fairer opportunities? I do agree we should look further and wider. But we cant let perfection be the enemy of the good and we need to start somewhere. We have the technology to perform interviews now where the gender of the person isn’t even know. We could potentially look at methods of skewing the interview process to make sure no bias can exist in hiring. That would benefit race issues too, abs trans But that’s just off the top of my head, I don’t have the answers, I just don’t like the idea of forced quotas. No, we don't have that technology. We could conceivably arrive at a shortlist that way using automated systems. However, the reality is that the machine learning uses biased data because a "good" candidate based on existing people in those positions looks like a privileged white man with his experience and interests. Some companies are getting beyond this and see performance benefits as a consequence, but not many are committed until there is a push to do so with a reporting requirement, which is where transparency is vital as you suggest. However, the "skewing" that you suggest becomes a form of quota, doesn't it? How else do you measure success than having as close to a representative make up of the population on your board and your organisation in a reasonable range? My skew means using technology to avoid bias in the interview process Video interview with voice changing technology. That all exists. You couldn’t discriminate on anything then. You wouldn’t know woman or man or trans, black or white, disabled or abled. To me, making the interview process less open to bias is the answer. Moving towards something that hired the best candidate. Not forcing quotas " You will eventually need to meet and understand how they actually speak and present information face to face. You are correct that the best solution is for those hiring to make the best decision for the company, but that clearly has not happened until forced to. You end up having to measure it as a percentage which makes it a "quota" officially or unofficially. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess my point is, does every unequal mixture need fixing with legislation? Are the majority of teachers female because women are pure pinky not hiring men? Or is it more likely that the type of people most attracted to that career women? Why is construction dominated by men? Are men not hiring women? Are there swarms of out-of-work tradeswomen? Or do very few women choose that job route Could it be similar in high ranking management roles? I’m not a big fan of this forced equality. Where quotas need to be met. But I don’t like the idea of anyone, man or women, getting hired on anything other than their ability. And forced quotas force people to hire based on gender. As someone else said. It’s sloppy. It’s a quick fix designed to put the blame on someone else I’d much prefer to see a system of fairer opportunity then forced quotas how do you ensure fairer opportunities? I do agree we should look further and wider. But we cant let perfection be the enemy of the good and we need to start somewhere. We have the technology to perform interviews now where the gender of the person isn’t even know. We could potentially look at methods of skewing the interview process to make sure no bias can exist in hiring. That would benefit race issues too, abs trans But that’s just off the top of my head, I don’t have the answers, I just don’t like the idea of forced quotas. No, we don't have that technology. We could conceivably arrive at a shortlist that way using automated systems. However, the reality is that the machine learning uses biased data because a "good" candidate based on existing people in those positions looks like a privileged white man with his experience and interests. Some companies are getting beyond this and see performance benefits as a consequence, but not many are committed until there is a push to do so with a reporting requirement, which is where transparency is vital as you suggest. However, the "skewing" that you suggest becomes a form of quota, doesn't it? How else do you measure success than having as close to a representative make up of the population on your board and your organisation in a reasonable range? My skew means using technology to avoid bias in the interview process Video interview with voice changing technology. That all exists. You couldn’t discriminate on anything then. You wouldn’t know woman or man or trans, black or white, disabled or abled. To me, making the interview process less open to bias is the answer. Moving towards something that hired the best candidate. Not forcing quotas You will eventually need to meet and understand how they actually speak and present information face to face. You are correct that the best solution is for those hiring to make the best decision for the company, but that clearly has not happened until forced to. You end up having to measure it as a percentage which makes it a "quota" officially or unofficially." Well, can’t say I agree or disagree with you. But I think we can both agree it’s no easy task to fix For me, it comes down to making sure the best candidate gets the role. And I can’t see how a forced quota can do that. It can force equality, why the EU is choosing to stop at gender and not force quotas for race too, I’m not sure. I’d hate to see anyone lose out on a position because they of their gender. And that applies equally to a woman that’s not hired on the first place, to a man that might miss out on a position because the quota has already met. But I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I dunno what the answer is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess my point is, does every unequal mixture need fixing with legislation? Are the majority of teachers female because women are pure pinky not hiring men? Or is it more likely that the type of people most attracted to that career women? Why is construction dominated by men? Are men not hiring women? Are there swarms of out-of-work tradeswomen? Or do very few women choose that job route Could it be similar in high ranking management roles? I’m not a big fan of this forced equality. Where quotas need to be met. But I don’t like the idea of anyone, man or women, getting hired on anything other than their ability. And forced quotas force people to hire based on gender. As someone else said. It’s sloppy. It’s a quick fix designed to put the blame on someone else I’d much prefer to see a system of fairer opportunity then forced quotas how do you ensure fairer opportunities? I do agree we should look further and wider. But we cant let perfection be the enemy of the good and we need to start somewhere. We have the technology to perform interviews now where the gender of the person isn’t even know. We could potentially look at methods of skewing the interview process to make sure no bias can exist in hiring. That would benefit race issues too, abs trans But that’s just off the top of my head, I don’t have the answers, I just don’t like the idea of forced quotas. No, we don't have that technology. We could conceivably arrive at a shortlist that way using automated systems. However, the reality is that the machine learning uses biased data because a "good" candidate based on existing people in those positions looks like a privileged white man with his experience and interests. Some companies are getting beyond this and see performance benefits as a consequence, but not many are committed until there is a push to do so with a reporting requirement, which is where transparency is vital as you suggest. However, the "skewing" that you suggest becomes a form of quota, doesn't it? How else do you measure success than having as close to a representative make up of the population on your board and your organisation in a reasonable range? My skew means using technology to avoid bias in the interview process Video interview with voice changing technology. That all exists. You couldn’t discriminate on anything then. You wouldn’t know woman or man or trans, black or white, disabled or abled. To me, making the interview process less open to bias is the answer. Moving towards something that hired the best candidate. Not forcing quotas You will eventually need to meet and understand how they actually speak and present information face to face. You are correct that the best solution is for those hiring to make the best decision for the company, but that clearly has not happened until forced to. You end up having to measure it as a percentage which makes it a "quota" officially or unofficially. Well, can’t say I agree or disagree with you. But I think we can both agree it’s no easy task to fix For me, it comes down to making sure the best candidate gets the role. And I can’t see how a forced quota can do that. It can force equality, why the EU is choosing to stop at gender and not force quotas for race too, I’m not sure. I’d hate to see anyone lose out on a position because they of their gender. And that applies equally to a woman that’s not hired on the first place, to a man that might miss out on a position because the quota has already met. But I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I dunno what the answer is." The answer is women aren’t even considered for roles. You talked about equality and it’s not equal. Doing nothing means nothing changes. You as a man haven’t been discriminated or rejected for being a man. Being from the wrong university , being raised from a council estate , being a misogynist might be reasons a man might get overlooked. But certainly not for his gender. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And my view point remains, the answer to me doesn’t come from legally enforcing quotas on hiring. We can agree to disagree " You can have an opinion that is wrong. And you are wrong . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And my view point remains, the answer to me doesn’t come from legally enforcing quotas on hiring. We can agree to disagree You can have an opinion that is wrong. And you are wrong . " To think you have entirely the right answer on this and everything else is wrong shows your lack of understanding in how complicated and complex this issue is. So I take no issue in you thinking I’m wrong Funnily enough, the other posts on this thread have put together some really great point, and definitely made me think about my position. They realise there is no right or wrong in something so complex You haven’t managed to do that. So best of luck to you. Hopefully if you call enough people wrong, the world will change | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And my view point remains, the answer to me doesn’t come from legally enforcing quotas on hiring. We can agree to disagree You can have an opinion that is wrong. And you are wrong . To think you have entirely the right answer on this and everything else is wrong shows your lack of understanding in how complicated and complex this issue is. So I take no issue in you thinking I’m wrong Funnily enough, the other posts on this thread have put together some really great point, and definitely made me think about my position. They realise there is no right or wrong in something so complex You haven’t managed to do that. So best of luck to you. Hopefully if you call enough people wrong, the world will change " I just know you’re wrong in everything you’ve said. Considering you don’t have a leg to stand on , you’re doing well . Haha | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And my view point remains, the answer to me doesn’t come from legally enforcing quotas on hiring. We can agree to disagree You can have an opinion that is wrong. And you are wrong . To think you have entirely the right answer on this and everything else is wrong shows your lack of understanding in how complicated and complex this issue is. So I take no issue in you thinking I’m wrong Funnily enough, the other posts on this thread have put together some really great point, and definitely made me think about my position. They realise there is no right or wrong in something so complex You haven’t managed to do that. So best of luck to you. Hopefully if you call enough people wrong, the world will change I just know you’re wrong in everything you’ve said. Considering you don’t have a leg to stand on , you’re doing well . Haha " quotas are suboptima Assume that the world is perfect, equal opportunity, no bias, nothing. While you would expect 50/50 splits across all boards, there will be variation at a board level. It's like tossing a coin. Do it enough times it's 50/50. But do it just ten times then it may be a different split. Indeed it's a 20pc chance my ten tosses have 3 or less tails. Boards will have statistical variation. Someone will step down. To keep a quota if that person was female, you'd have to recruit a female, even tho the odds of the next best person being male are 50/50 I can see an argument for it being good enough, and the benefits outweighinh it's weaknesses. But that's a debate to be had. It's not a self evident fact that quotas are the best answer. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And my view point remains, the answer to me doesn’t come from legally enforcing quotas on hiring. We can agree to disagree You can have an opinion that is wrong. And you are wrong . To think you have entirely the right answer on this and everything else is wrong shows your lack of understanding in how complicated and complex this issue is. So I take no issue in you thinking I’m wrong Funnily enough, the other posts on this thread have put together some really great point, and definitely made me think about my position. They realise there is no right or wrong in something so complex You haven’t managed to do that. So best of luck to you. Hopefully if you call enough people wrong, the world will change I just know you’re wrong in everything you’ve said. Considering you don’t have a leg to stand on , you’re doing well . Haha quotas are suboptima Assume that the world is perfect, equal opportunity, no bias, nothing. While you would expect 50/50 splits across all boards, there will be variation at a board level. It's like tossing a coin. Do it enough times it's 50/50. But do it just ten times then it may be a different split. Indeed it's a 20pc chance my ten tosses have 3 or less tails. Boards will have statistical variation. Someone will step down. To keep a quota if that person was female, you'd have to recruit a female, even tho the odds of the next best person being male are 50/50 I can see an argument for it being good enough, and the benefits outweighinh it's weaknesses. But that's a debate to be had. It's not a self evident fact that quotas are the best answer. " Doesn’t it all boil down to equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Hiring someone to fill a quota feels more like equality of outcome. But I can see _asyuk point about needing to even out the people doing the hiring. If you have an entirely male board, there might be some bias. I guess a quota does fix that, but is there always a bias? A blanket law on quotas don’t tackle that. But I can appreciate it being an answer that can be easily implemented now without too much serious thought. I wonder how many women would be happy sitting on a board, knowing they are there to fill a quota? A jobs a job I guess. But I can see the other side. Would a quota help until better methods of getting rid of bias becomes available? Maybe I still quite liked my idea. My it law that the first few stages of interview must be via video where faces are scrambled and voices changed. Make it so the people hiring have no idea about any physical traits you have. From gender to race to disability. Because why should physical traits be needed, shouldn’t you be hired on merit alone? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And my view point remains, the answer to me doesn’t come from legally enforcing quotas on hiring. We can agree to disagree You can have an opinion that is wrong. And you are wrong . To think you have entirely the right answer on this and everything else is wrong shows your lack of understanding in how complicated and complex this issue is. So I take no issue in you thinking I’m wrong Funnily enough, the other posts on this thread have put together some really great point, and definitely made me think about my position. They realise there is no right or wrong in something so complex You haven’t managed to do that. So best of luck to you. Hopefully if you call enough people wrong, the world will change I just know you’re wrong in everything you’ve said. Considering you don’t have a leg to stand on , you’re doing well . Haha quotas are suboptima Assume that the world is perfect, equal opportunity, no bias, nothing. While you would expect 50/50 splits across all boards, there will be variation at a board level. It's like tossing a coin. Do it enough times it's 50/50. But do it just ten times then it may be a different split. Indeed it's a 20pc chance my ten tosses have 3 or less tails. Boards will have statistical variation. Someone will step down. To keep a quota if that person was female, you'd have to recruit a female, even tho the odds of the next best person being male are 50/50 I can see an argument for it being good enough, and the benefits outweighinh it's weaknesses. But that's a debate to be had. It's not a self evident fact that quotas are the best answer. Doesn’t it all boil down to equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Hiring someone to fill a quota feels more like equality of outcome. But I can see _asyuk point about needing to even out the people doing the hiring. If you have an entirely male board, there might be some bias. I guess a quota does fix that, but is there always a bias? A blanket law on quotas don’t tackle that. But I can appreciate it being an answer that can be easily implemented now without too much serious thought. I wonder how many women would be happy sitting on a board, knowing they are there to fill a quota? A jobs a job I guess. But I can see the other side. Would a quota help until better methods of getting rid of bias becomes available? Maybe I still quite liked my idea. My it law that the first few stages of interview must be via video where faces are scrambled and voices changed. Make it so the people hiring have no idea about any physical traits you have. From gender to race to disability. Because why should physical traits be needed, shouldn’t you be hired on merit alone? " HR are looking at how you reduce gender bias in recruitment. Stuff still slips out tho unless you ban ppl talking about themselves. And then, is it still too late for equality of opps. What are we doing at school level to ensure all is fair. Is lower uptake in STEM cultural. Or is it because of some wiring of the brain? I get to: equality of opportunity is the most important. But hard to measure. Measuring outcomes is easier, but missess nuances if a hard limit. I like how the UK has adopted targets without them being legal. We just need the confidence in having a conversation if these targets are missed. It may not be down to the companies entirely. Bit like anything (coug, gender pay gap) the headline gets reported, and anyone who tries to get curious is labeled as being an apologiest etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? It's good to bring such things to light and encourage change but I'm not sure if force is the best way. I speak from experience of someone that once benefited from a manager that needed to tick a box and I fitted into that box. I did not last as was simply not cut out for it. I should have been more forceful in saying no but I did raise some concerns I had which were overlooked. There were far better people for the position but they did not fit the box. That's my experience but I'm sure there are plenty of more positive outcomes. I see from other posters that the UK is doing well in this so hope that continues How many people were they choosing from in your company for the quota and did they look externally? Is your lack of ability and the behaviour of your company representative of the 36m women and ethnic minorities in the UK? I'm sure that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands who could step up but don't get the opportunity." It was one person but not a new person as internal promotion so they did not look externally. I made it clear in my post that this was my experience and did not claim it to be representative. I don't know how others get on though hope better than me. There was several in the team I work in that have the experience and ability but did not get the opportunity as they simply did not fit in the box required. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? It's good to bring such things to light and encourage change but I'm not sure if force is the best way. I speak from experience of someone that once benefited from a manager that needed to tick a box and I fitted into that box. I did not last as was simply not cut out for it. I should have been more forceful in saying no but I did raise some concerns I had which were overlooked. There were far better people for the position but they did not fit the box. That's my experience but I'm sure there are plenty of more positive outcomes. I see from other posters that the UK is doing well in this so hope that continues How many people were they choosing from in your company for the quota and did they look externally? Is your lack of ability and the behaviour of your company representative of the 36m women and ethnic minorities in the UK? I'm sure that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands who could step up but don't get the opportunity. It was one person but not a new person as internal promotion so they did not look externally. I made it clear in my post that this was my experience and did not claim it to be representative. I don't know how others get on though hope better than me. There was several in the team I work in that have the experience and ability but did not get the opportunity as they simply did not fit in the box required." Nobody cares about your one situation. It’s better to understand the scale of the issue across the EU and the UK. It’s clear there is a problem. Gender Pay gap being another issue . Class system and race. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? It's good to bring such things to light and encourage change but I'm not sure if force is the best way. I speak from experience of someone that once benefited from a manager that needed to tick a box and I fitted into that box. I did not last as was simply not cut out for it. I should have been more forceful in saying no but I did raise some concerns I had which were overlooked. There were far better people for the position but they did not fit the box. That's my experience but I'm sure there are plenty of more positive outcomes. I see from other posters that the UK is doing well in this so hope that continues How many people were they choosing from in your company for the quota and did they look externally? Is your lack of ability and the behaviour of your company representative of the 36m women and ethnic minorities in the UK? I'm sure that there are tens if not hundreds of thousands who could step up but don't get the opportunity. It was one person but not a new person as internal promotion so they did not look externally. I made it clear in my post that this was my experience and did not claim it to be representative. I don't know how others get on though hope better than me. There was several in the team I work in that have the experience and ability but did not get the opportunity as they simply did not fit in the box required. Nobody cares about your one situation. It’s better to understand the scale of the issue across the EU and the UK. It’s clear there is a problem. Gender Pay gap being another issue . Class system and race. " Charming. I am not asking anyone to care. I was contributing to the thread as have a personal experience with such ways of working. It may or may not be what some want said, but it's a valid contribution in my opinion. I also mentioned a couple of times that this is just my experience and I hope that there are many more positive ones. I also said it's good that such things are being highlighted. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“ Nobody cares about your one situation. It’s better to understand the scale of the issue across the EU and the UK. It’s clear there is a problem. Gender Pay gap being another issue . Class system and race. Charming. I am not asking anyone to care. I was contributing to the thread as have a personal experience with such ways of working. It may or may not be what some want said, but it's a valid contribution in my opinion. I also mentioned a couple of times that this is just my experience and I hope that there are many more positive ones. I also said it's good that such things are being highlighted. " Your contribution is welcomed. My point is that scale of the issue is what effects most people. Women , ethic minorities , working class people, who are marginalised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I guess my point is, does every unequal mixture need fixing with legislation? Are the majority of teachers female because women are pure pinky not hiring men? Or is it more likely that the type of people most attracted to that career women? Why is construction dominated by men? Are men not hiring women? Are there swarms of out-of-work tradeswomen? Or do very few women choose that job route Could it be similar in high ranking management roles? I’m not a big fan of this forced equality. Where quotas need to be met. But I don’t like the idea of anyone, man or women, getting hired on anything other than their ability. And forced quotas force people to hire based on gender. As someone else said. It’s sloppy. It’s a quick fix designed to put the blame on someone else I’d much prefer to see a system of fairer opportunity then forced quotas how do you ensure fairer opportunities? I do agree we should look further and wider. But we cant let perfection be the enemy of the good and we need to start somewhere. We have the technology to perform interviews now where the gender of the person isn’t even know. We could potentially look at methods of skewing the interview process to make sure no bias can exist in hiring. That would benefit race issues too, abs trans But that’s just off the top of my head, I don’t have the answers, I just don’t like the idea of forced quotas. No, we don't have that technology. We could conceivably arrive at a shortlist that way using automated systems. However, the reality is that the machine learning uses biased data because a "good" candidate based on existing people in those positions looks like a privileged white man with his experience and interests. Some companies are getting beyond this and see performance benefits as a consequence, but not many are committed until there is a push to do so with a reporting requirement, which is where transparency is vital as you suggest. However, the "skewing" that you suggest becomes a form of quota, doesn't it? How else do you measure success than having as close to a representative make up of the population on your board and your organisation in a reasonable range? My skew means using technology to avoid bias in the interview process Video interview with voice changing technology. That all exists. You couldn’t discriminate on anything then. You wouldn’t know woman or man or trans, black or white, disabled or abled. To me, making the interview process less open to bias is the answer. Moving towards something that hired the best candidate. Not forcing quotas You will eventually need to meet and understand how they actually speak and present information face to face. You are correct that the best solution is for those hiring to make the best decision for the company, but that clearly has not happened until forced to. You end up having to measure it as a percentage which makes it a "quota" officially or unofficially. Well, can’t say I agree or disagree with you. But I think we can both agree it’s no easy task to fix For me, it comes down to making sure the best candidate gets the role. And I can’t see how a forced quota can do that. It can force equality, why the EU is choosing to stop at gender and not force quotas for race too, I’m not sure. I’d hate to see anyone lose out on a position because they of their gender. And that applies equally to a woman that’s not hired on the first place, to a man that might miss out on a position because the quota has already met. But I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I dunno what the answer is." Female and minority candidates certainly exist who are better than the overconfident, privileged white men who are "automatically" employed by people similar to them. A quota forces companies to work harder in training and recruitment and giving people from these groups the work and training to make them promotable. This is not only about them being excluded from the job at the end, it's also about excluding them from the path. Women are missing out because of their gender and have done for years. It's only recently that this has not been considered as "normal". As has been said, those who are privileged often have no clue that they are. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So much waffle here. You guys are spending so much wasted time pontificating and it’s hilarious. Get a job lads. All this navel gazing . Let’s use some facts . Name a company or organisation that has failed from positive discrimination. " What is positive discrimination? Tell us how it works and how it is implemented and how it differs from positive Action below. Government Equality Office and equality act: Positive action does not allow an employer to appoint a less suitable candidate, because that candidate has a protected characteristic that is underrepresented or disadvantaged. Example A bank has a vacancy for one of its senior jobs.All the other senior jobs at that level are done by men.The bank conducts a recruitment exercise and at the end of a stringent and objective process finds that two applicants – a man and a woman – could do the job equally well.The bank could decide to take positive action and give the job to the woman. But the bank couldn’t give the job to the woman if the man would be able to do the job better than her – that would be unlawful direct discrimination against the man. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again, you are unable to see choosing to place one group above another as prejudice. You seek to call it bias because it sounds more acceptable. Quibble over the definition of the words all you wish but they functionally produce the same outcome. Any argument you make to advance one group over another is the same. Drawing a parallel between family and anyone else is a nonsense, as you well know. However, from an employment perspective it is called nepotism and very rarely produces good outcomes. " Now you are moving away from your argument and as always, I will remind you where this argument started. You said that I normalise prejudice because I said that it's ok to choose to help one group over the other group. I did not draw a parallel between that and jobs. A better example of prejudice is you repeatedly saying that white men are bad and always select other white men. " Leadership positions are all filled by outliers. By definition they should be the highest performers available internally or externally. " Such a lame excuse! How are those pesky racist white bastards allowing Asian men to lead those big companies? Because they are outliers? " Quite frankly, fill the quotas with the best people to fill them and stop whining about a system loaded in your favour being equalised. Clearly top positions are not being filled by the best people. You can see examples of that every day from Kodak to the Dot-com bubble to the 2008 crash. " What are you blabbering about? Do you think a set of smart individuals in company boards could have prevented recessions? Like the one that might happen because of the Russian war? Either way, you haven't answered the biggest question about quota approach. There are only 16.5% of female students in computer science degree courses. The percentage was even lower in the previous years. So the overall female % in candidate pool is even lower. How exactly is the tech industry going to fill the 40% quota? " "Encouragement" is lovely until you start work and as a woman find that men with less talent are promoted over you. Look at the statistics for women leaving technical professions. Transparency has driven quotas either voluntary or compulsory because they cannot change behaviour any other way due to the type of mindset that you are displaying." Encouragement coupled with transparency will change behaviour. It will slowly but steadily increase the % of women in sectors where we don't have enough women. If a woman feels that she is being discriminated against, she should be able to file a complaint and the records that I mentioned should be documented should be available for public to investigate. Any guilty person should be sacked and the company should be fined by the government. The best part about it is that you can apply it to any minority group that feels discriminated. Companies can function normally. The people from minority groups will not feel impostor syndrome. The other groups will not have a reason to think someone was promoted only for quota. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After sleeping on the idea too, I can see where some places a quota would be desirable For example, if 90% of MPs were male you could see a bias where a males view of what needs to be done is more likely to be taken on. That could effect the day to day lives of people. A quota might help there because we all live very different lives, having a more equal number of female to males in that situation is probably better to avoid biases that might come on to effect other peoples lives. If I was a female looking at a mostly male group of MPs I’d wonder how well they could understand the struggles and life of a woman. This EU law is about board members, so I dunno how much that comes into play. But I can definitely see areas where a quota might be best " Totally agree with quotas in parliaments | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After sleeping on the idea too, I can see where some places a quota would be desirable For example, if 90% of MPs were male you could see a bias where a males view of what needs to be done is more likely to be taken on. That could effect the day to day lives of people. A quota might help there because we all live very different lives, having a more equal number of female to males in that situation is probably better to avoid biases that might come on to effect other peoples lives. If I was a female looking at a mostly male group of MPs I’d wonder how well they could understand the struggles and life of a woman. This EU law is about board members, so I dunno how much that comes into play. But I can definitely see areas where a quota might be best Totally agree with quotas in parliaments "Why? What if women are not "culturally" suited to doing such a job? What if there is a "better qualified" man to become an MP who has had more elected positions in local government? What if a woman's selection means that a man from a poorer background doesn't get selected? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After sleeping on the idea too, I can see where some places a quota would be desirable For example, if 90% of MPs were male you could see a bias where a males view of what needs to be done is more likely to be taken on. That could effect the day to day lives of people. A quota might help there because we all live very different lives, having a more equal number of female to males in that situation is probably better to avoid biases that might come on to effect other peoples lives. If I was a female looking at a mostly male group of MPs I’d wonder how well they could understand the struggles and life of a woman. This EU law is about board members, so I dunno how much that comes into play. But I can definitely see areas where a quota might be best Totally agree with quotas in parliaments
Why? What if women are not "culturally" suited to doing such a job? What if there is a "better qualified" man to become an MP who has had more elected positions in local government? What if a woman's selection means that a man from a poorer background doesn't get selected?"I think when the position moves from a board in place to better the profits of a private business vs a board of people who work towards bettering the life of the general public, different rules apply I wouldn’t want to own a business and be hold I have to hire a woman to fill the quota. Or anyone else to fill a quota for that matter However, as a citizen I don’t mind aiming for a more diverse group of people when it comes to trying to make the general publics life better. Because the public is made up of a diverse group, all with different needs and wants. I don’t want to see an all man government as much as I hate to see an all Christian government. That’s why I agree on quotas more there. I don’t believe business for profit is the same as government | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Again, you are unable to see choosing to place one group above another as prejudice. You seek to call it bias because it sounds more acceptable. Quibble over the definition of the words all you wish but they functionally produce the same outcome. Any argument you make to advance one group over another is the same. Drawing a parallel between family and anyone else is a nonsense, as you well know. However, from an employment perspective it is called nepotism and very rarely produces good outcomes. Now you are moving away from your argument and as always, I will remind you where this argument started. You said that I normalise prejudice because I said that it's ok to choose to help one group over the other group. I did not draw a parallel between that and jobs. A better example of prejudice is you repeatedly saying that white men are bad and always select other white men. Leadership positions are all filled by outliers. By definition they should be the highest performers available internally or externally. Such a lame excuse! How are those pesky racist white bastards allowing Asian men to lead those big companies? Because they are outliers? Quite frankly, fill the quotas with the best people to fill them and stop whining about a system loaded in your favour being equalised. Clearly top positions are not being filled by the best people. You can see examples of that every day from Kodak to the Dot-com bubble to the 2008 crash. What are you blabbering about? Do you think a set of smart individuals in company boards could have prevented recessions? Like the one that might happen because of the Russian war? Either way, you haven't answered the biggest question about quota approach. There are only 16.5% of female students in computer science degree courses. The percentage was even lower in the previous years. So the overall female % in candidate pool is even lower. How exactly is the tech industry going to fill the 40% quota? "Encouragement" is lovely until you start work and as a woman find that men with less talent are promoted over you. Look at the statistics for women leaving technical professions. Transparency has driven quotas either voluntary or compulsory because they cannot change behaviour any other way due to the type of mindset that you are displaying. Encouragement coupled with transparency will change behaviour. It will slowly but steadily increase the % of women in sectors where we don't have enough women. If a woman feels that she is being discriminated against, she should be able to file a complaint and the records that I mentioned should be documented should be available for public to investigate. Any guilty person should be sacked and the company should be fined by the government. The best part about it is that you can apply it to any minority group that feels discriminated. Companies can function normally. The people from minority groups will not feel impostor syndrome. The other groups will not have a reason to think someone was promoted only for quota. " Once again accusing others of something that you do. Moving off topic. You stand by what you said about it being "normal" behaviour and "human nature" to provide aid and support in a prejudiced and bias manner to "people like us". Yet, for some reason, you appear to believe that "human nature" is different when it comes to employment. You are the one who, irrelevantly, tries to compare how you treat family to how you street people you don't know. I merely provided the word that describes giving family members a job over others; nepotism. You did not draw a parallel because it is inconvenient to compare the two. One that you seek to justify and one that you seek to claim is not a problem. I have never said that white men are "bad". You have literally made that up for drama. It is, actually, completely clear that they do overwhelmingly promote other white men from similar backgrounds unless made to do otherwise. There would be no discussion over quotas or diversity of that was not the case! I also have not said that anyone was racist. Again, just making things up to make your argument more emotive even though you claim to be logical. No excuses, lame or otherwise. South Asian men have found themselves in senior roles in a lot of tech companies because many of the founders of these companies were also South Asian men. The same thing is happening. When you start to look into the statistics you will find very high numbers of East Asians working in tech firms but very low levels of Board level representation. You think that only white men are capable of unc0nscious bias? A more diverse group of people do avoid "group think" and are better able to navigate adverse economic events with better outcomes for their companies. Look at the data. You seem to struggle with how Boards are filled. You don't need to have a coding background to be the Chief Financial Officer or Chief Marketing Officer or Chief Counsel or a large number of other executive roles in a tech company or any other. Yet, Boards made up of white, privileged men tend to find other white privileged men unless they are forced to do otherwise. The ability to report discrimination has been in place for decades and the requirement to publish it. How would you suggest that someone complains about another person being promoted over them or externally? "Encouragement" for women to take up STEM jobs has also been in place for years. Did you look at the stats for women leaving these professions over time? I have not argued against transparency, but unless there is some compulsion to do something about changing the percentages of employment, there is no reason to change. You just report it and, like you, shrug your shoulders and provide excuses and justifications for nothing changing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After sleeping on the idea too, I can see where some places a quota would be desirable For example, if 90% of MPs were male you could see a bias where a males view of what needs to be done is more likely to be taken on. That could effect the day to day lives of people. A quota might help there because we all live very different lives, having a more equal number of female to males in that situation is probably better to avoid biases that might come on to effect other peoples lives. If I was a female looking at a mostly male group of MPs I’d wonder how well they could understand the struggles and life of a woman. This EU law is about board members, so I dunno how much that comes into play. But I can definitely see areas where a quota might be best Totally agree with quotas in parliaments
Why? What if women are not "culturally" suited to doing such a job? What if there is a "better qualified" man to become an MP who has had more elected positions in local government? What if a woman's selection means that a man from a poorer background doesn't get selected?
I think when the position moves from a board in place to better the profits of a private business vs a board of people who work towards bettering the life of the general public, different rules apply
I wouldn’t want to own a business and be hold I have to hire a woman to fill the quota. Or anyone else to fill a quota for that matter
However, as a citizen I don’t mind aiming for a more diverse group of people when it comes to trying to make the general publics life better. Because the public is made up of a diverse group, all with different needs and wants. I don’t want to see an all man government as much as I hate to see an all Christian government.
That’s why I agree on quotas more there. I don’t believe business for profit is the same as government "Government exists to protect and improve societal outcomes. That improves business outcomes. Should Government not intervene to prevent pollution of that influences business profits? Should companies be free to have overtly sexist or racist employment policies if they believe this is better for their profits? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After sleeping on the idea too, I can see where some places a quota would be desirable For example, if 90% of MPs were male you could see a bias where a males view of what needs to be done is more likely to be taken on. That could effect the day to day lives of people. A quota might help there because we all live very different lives, having a more equal number of female to males in that situation is probably better to avoid biases that might come on to effect other peoples lives. If I was a female looking at a mostly male group of MPs I’d wonder how well they could understand the struggles and life of a woman. This EU law is about board members, so I dunno how much that comes into play. But I can definitely see areas where a quota might be best Totally agree with quotas in parliaments
Why? What if women are not "culturally" suited to doing such a job? What if there is a "better qualified" man to become an MP who has had more elected positions in local government? What if a woman's selection means that a man from a poorer background doesn't get selected?
I think when the position moves from a board in place to better the profits of a private business vs a board of people who work towards bettering the life of the general public, different rules apply
I wouldn’t want to own a business and be hold I have to hire a woman to fill the quota. Or anyone else to fill a quota for that matter
However, as a citizen I don’t mind aiming for a more diverse group of people when it comes to trying to make the general publics life better. Because the public is made up of a diverse group, all with different needs and wants. I don’t want to see an all man government as much as I hate to see an all Christian government.
That’s why I agree on quotas more there. I don’t believe business for profit is the same as government "You covered most of what I wanted to say. The way I reason about this is that being member of parliament doesn't need specialised skill you gain over time (except some cabinet ministry roles like finance ministry which needs knowledge about economics). So it makes sense to impose quota. It has its drawbacks. But the postives easily outweigh the drawbacks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You stand by what you said about it being "normal" behaviour and "human nature" to provide aid and support in a prejudiced and bias manner to "people like us". Yet, for some reason, you appear to believe that "human nature" is different when it comes to employment. " Yes. An act of charity is different from running economic activity. Just like Bill Gates donating 1/10th of his foundation money within US which is a developed country while there are so many other countries which need that money more. " You are the one who, irrelevantly, tries to compare how you treat family to how you street people you don't know. I merely provided the word that describes giving family members a job over others; nepotism. You did not draw a parallel because it is inconvenient to compare the two. One that you seek to justify and one that you seek to claim is not a problem. " Again. An act of charity is different from running a company. Who one donates to is none of other people's business. There are right wingers who would actually say that even nepotism while morally wrong shouldn't be illegal because in the end it's their own business and they have the rights to hire whoever they want. But I draw the line before that. But when it comes to charity, different people value different things. You have some view of what's important and what's not and you are absolutely right. You have an opinion of who should receive more money and think that's universally true. But it's not. Different people believe different issues are more important. " I have never said that white men are "bad". You have literally made that up for drama. It is, actually, completely clear that they do overwhelmingly promote other white men from similar backgrounds unless made to do otherwise. There would be no discussion over quotas or diversity of that was not the case! " You say that you never said that white men are bad. But then you continue saying that white men keep promoting fellow white men Aren't you alleging that they are racist and sexist? " No excuses, lame or otherwise. South Asian men have found themselves in senior roles in a lot of tech companies because many of the founders of these companies were also South Asian men. The same thing is happening. When you start to look into the statistics you will find very high numbers of East Asians working in tech firms but very low levels of Board level representation." Maybe do some research before making such statements unless you want to lie outright. Only one out of 10 South Asian CEOs in Fortune 500 was the founder. Rest were appointed. Oh yes. Gender/ethnicity surveys show that Asian men make a lot more money on average than white men even in the US which is an unhinged free market compared to US. Why do you think those racist white men running all the companies pay more money to Asians? " A more diverse group of people do avoid "group think" and are better able to navigate adverse economic events with better outcomes for their companies. Look at the data. " Diversity has its advantages. I never denied that. But enforcing quota is more damaging than it provides any good. " You seem to struggle with how Boards are filled. You don't need to have a coding background to be the Chief Financial Officer or Chief Marketing Officer or Chief Counsel or a large number of other executive roles in a tech company or any other. Yet, Boards made up of white, privileged men tend to find other white privileged men unless they are forced to do otherwise. " No. I totally understand how board members are chosen. You are the one who is clutching straws here.A board is filled by people who can contribute to the business in a meaningful way. A tech company is not filled with software engineers. But tech knowledge is important in making decisions. So you need lot more people with tech background. " The ability to report discrimination has been in place for decades and the requirement to publish it. How would you suggest that someone complains about another person being promoted over them or externally? "Encouragement" for women to take up STEM jobs has also been in place for years. Did you look at the stats for women leaving these professions over time? I have not argued against transparency, but unless there is some compulsion to do something about changing the percentages of employment, there is no reason to change. You just report it and, like you, shrug your shoulders and provide excuses and justifications for nothing changing." There are ways to report it. But it's bloody hard to prove it. That's why I am suggesting that interviews have to be recorded. Promoting evaluations and discussions have to be recorded. Once you put that and some punishment in place, corporates will be forced to do the right thing at least in fear being name shamed and losing money and managers will be scared of losing jobs. This is the compulsion that you ask for. Blindly going in and imposing a quota without thinking about the different problems each and every industry will place is lazy thinking. It's just a political move to keep certain groups of people happy that won't turn out well in the long run. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After sleeping on the idea too, I can see where some places a quota would be desirable For example, if 90% of MPs were male you could see a bias where a males view of what needs to be done is more likely to be taken on. That could effect the day to day lives of people. A quota might help there because we all live very different lives, having a more equal number of female to males in that situation is probably better to avoid biases that might come on to effect other peoples lives. If I was a female looking at a mostly male group of MPs I’d wonder how well they could understand the struggles and life of a woman. This EU law is about board members, so I dunno how much that comes into play. But I can definitely see areas where a quota might be best Totally agree with quotas in parliaments
Why? What if women are not "culturally" suited to doing such a job? What if there is a "better qualified" man to become an MP who has had more elected positions in local government? What if a woman's selection means that a man from a poorer background doesn't get selected?
I think when the position moves from a board in place to better the profits of a private business vs a board of people who work towards bettering the life of the general public, different rules apply
I wouldn’t want to own a business and be hold I have to hire a woman to fill the quota. Or anyone else to fill a quota for that matter
However, as a citizen I don’t mind aiming for a more diverse group of people when it comes to trying to make the general publics life better. Because the public is made up of a diverse group, all with different needs and wants. I don’t want to see an all man government as much as I hate to see an all Christian government.
That’s why I agree on quotas more there. I don’t believe business for profit is the same as government
Government exists to protect and improve societal outcomes. That improves business outcomes.
Should Government not intervene to prevent pollution of that influences business profits? Should companies be free to have overtly sexist or racist employment policies if they believe this is better for their profits?"You’ve taken a massive leap there My opinion is that I don’t think enforced quotas are the best idea in private business, but I can see them being a good idea in government You turned that into “so you support having overtly racist and sexist policies in business” Which I clearly haven’t suggested So I’ll leave it there. Appreciate the comments though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After sleeping on the idea too, I can see where some places a quota would be desirable For example, if 90% of MPs were male you could see a bias where a males view of what needs to be done is more likely to be taken on. That could effect the day to day lives of people. A quota might help there because we all live very different lives, having a more equal number of female to males in that situation is probably better to avoid biases that might come on to effect other peoples lives. If I was a female looking at a mostly male group of MPs I’d wonder how well they could understand the struggles and life of a woman. This EU law is about board members, so I dunno how much that comes into play. But I can definitely see areas where a quota might be best Totally agree with quotas in parliaments
Why? What if women are not "culturally" suited to doing such a job? What if there is a "better qualified" man to become an MP who has had more elected positions in local government? What if a woman's selection means that a man from a poorer background doesn't get selected?
I think when the position moves from a board in place to better the profits of a private business vs a board of people who work towards bettering the life of the general public, different rules apply
I wouldn’t want to own a business and be hold I have to hire a woman to fill the quota. Or anyone else to fill a quota for that matter
However, as a citizen I don’t mind aiming for a more diverse group of people when it comes to trying to make the general publics life better. Because the public is made up of a diverse group, all with different needs and wants. I don’t want to see an all man government as much as I hate to see an all Christian government.
That’s why I agree on quotas more there. I don’t believe business for profit is the same as government
Government exists to protect and improve societal outcomes. That improves business outcomes.
Should Government not intervene to prevent pollution of that influences business profits? Should companies be free to have overtly sexist or racist employment policies if they believe this is better for their profits?
You’ve taken a massive leap there
My opinion is that I don’t think enforced quotas are the best idea in private business, but I can see them being a good idea in government
You turned that into “so you support having overtly racist and sexist policies in business”
Which I clearly haven’t suggested
So I’ll leave it there. Appreciate the comments though "No, I absolutely did not say that YOU supported either of those things. You quoted something that I didn't even write. Why did you interpret what I wrote as accusing you of thinking that? The point that I am making is that you,and most other reasonable people, accept and support government "interference" in company activities for social good. You seem to support saying that companies should not do these negative things but not have them take any action to actively improve the situation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After sleeping on the idea too, I can see where some places a quota would be desirable For example, if 90% of MPs were male you could see a bias where a males view of what needs to be done is more likely to be taken on. That could effect the day to day lives of people. A quota might help there because we all live very different lives, having a more equal number of female to males in that situation is probably better to avoid biases that might come on to effect other peoples lives. If I was a female looking at a mostly male group of MPs I’d wonder how well they could understand the struggles and life of a woman. This EU law is about board members, so I dunno how much that comes into play. But I can definitely see areas where a quota might be best Totally agree with quotas in parliaments
Why? What if women are not "culturally" suited to doing such a job? What if there is a "better qualified" man to become an MP who has had more elected positions in local government? What if a woman's selection means that a man from a poorer background doesn't get selected?
I think when the position moves from a board in place to better the profits of a private business vs a board of people who work towards bettering the life of the general public, different rules apply
I wouldn’t want to own a business and be hold I have to hire a woman to fill the quota. Or anyone else to fill a quota for that matter
However, as a citizen I don’t mind aiming for a more diverse group of people when it comes to trying to make the general publics life better. Because the public is made up of a diverse group, all with different needs and wants. I don’t want to see an all man government as much as I hate to see an all Christian government.
That’s why I agree on quotas more there. I don’t believe business for profit is the same as government
Government exists to protect and improve societal outcomes. That improves business outcomes.
Should Government not intervene to prevent pollution of that influences business profits? Should companies be free to have overtly sexist or racist employment policies if they believe this is better for their profits?
You’ve taken a massive leap there
My opinion is that I don’t think enforced quotas are the best idea in private business, but I can see them being a good idea in government
You turned that into “so you support having overtly racist and sexist policies in business”
Which I clearly haven’t suggested
So I’ll leave it there. Appreciate the comments though
No, I absolutely did not say that YOU supported either of those things. You quoted something that I didn't even write. Why did you interpret what I wrote as accusing you of thinking that?
The point that I am making is that you,and most other reasonable people, accept and support government "interference" in company activities for social good. You seem to support saying that companies should not do these negative things but not have them take any action to actively improve the situation."Could you explain which one of my replies made you think that I think they shouldn’t take any action? My position has been that I don’t think forced quotas aren’t the answer. Not that there aren’t any answers or other options. Why do you think I support doing nothing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. " It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. " Could you link the stuff about more diverse boards where quotas were legislated our performed? I’m guessing in Scandinavian countries? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job?" This directive is aimed at board level representation in companies with over 250 staff. You don't need a cognate degree at board level. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job? This directive is aimed at board level representation in companies with over 250 staff. You don't need a cognate degree at board level." Board positions are not given out as freebies. It is given for people who have had experience in leadership roles related to the business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job? This directive is aimed at board level representation in companies with over 250 staff. You don't need a cognate degree at board level. Board positions are not given out as freebies. It is given for people who have had experience in leadership roles related to the business." Most executive leadership structures will be comprised of multi-disciplinary individuals from finance, operations, HR, procurement, sales and marketing etc etc and at executive board levelany will individuals aren't vertically aligned in industry. You don't need to have done a computing degree to be on the board of a computing business. The whole point of board level appointments is to import expertise the business doesn't currently have, for example scaling a business internationally, mergers and acquisition expertise, stock market floatation etc. You're inadvertently demonstrating why proposed directives like this are necessary; because without them many businesses will focus their attention on justifying why diversity won't work for them rather than changing the culture of their business so that it does. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job? This directive is aimed at board level representation in companies with over 250 staff. You don't need a cognate degree at board level. Board positions are not given out as freebies. It is given for people who have had experience in leadership roles related to the business. Most executive leadership structures will be comprised of multi-disciplinary individuals from finance, operations, HR, procurement, sales and marketing etc etc and at executive board levelany will individuals aren't vertically aligned in industry. You don't need to have done a computing degree to be on the board of a computing business. The whole point of board level appointments is to import expertise the business doesn't currently have, for example scaling a business internationally, mergers and acquisition expertise, stock market floatation etc. You're inadvertently demonstrating why proposed directives like this are necessary; because without them many businesses will focus their attention on justifying why diversity won't work for them rather than changing the culture of their business so that it does." A tech company will have a bigger number of board members who have background in tech leadership, many people with experience in financial leadership (another area where women are less than men but not as bad as tech background) and rarely some HR or marketing leaders. Look at Google's board. 6 of them have tech background and remaining 4 have finance background. Board members are there to make strategic decisions. A board without enough tech members on the team will have not have expertise to weigh a merger that happens between tech companies between the pros and cons. Your last paragraph is just a kafka trap. Someone providing a rational argument against an irrational move is somehow just wrong? Remember none of us are against increasing diversity. We just think a quota system will do more damage than good. Even without any kind of quota system in the US, board membership in most companies has organically risen as more and more women take up careers which will take them to these positions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“BRUSSELS (Reuters) - European Union negotiators are expected to give final approval to the bloc's first-ever quota for the proportion of women on corporate boards, a lawmaker said on Tuesday, in a bid to boost representation and improve gender equality. The draft law would oblige listed companies in all 27 EU member countries to have women take up at least 40% of non-executive board seats, or that women occupy 33% of executive and non-executive roles combined.“ Discuss. Step forward? " I'm all for it of they apply the same logic to bricklaying, roofing, sewerage worm, refuse collectors, nursing, paediatrics, etc... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job? This directive is aimed at board level representation in companies with over 250 staff. You don't need a cognate degree at board level. Board positions are not given out as freebies. It is given for people who have had experience in leadership roles related to the business. Most executive leadership structures will be comprised of multi-disciplinary individuals from finance, operations, HR, procurement, sales and marketing etc etc and at executive board levelany will individuals aren't vertically aligned in industry. You don't need to have done a computing degree to be on the board of a computing business. The whole point of board level appointments is to import expertise the business doesn't currently have, for example scaling a business internationally, mergers and acquisition expertise, stock market floatation etc. You're inadvertently demonstrating why proposed directives like this are necessary; because without them many businesses will focus their attention on justifying why diversity won't work for them rather than changing the culture of their business so that it does. A tech company will have a bigger number of board members who have background in tech leadership, many people with experience in financial leadership (another area where women are less than men but not as bad as tech background) and rarely some HR or marketing leaders. Look at Google's board. 6 of them have tech background and remaining 4 have finance background. Board members are there to make strategic decisions. A board without enough tech members on the team will have not have expertise to weigh a merger that happens between tech companies between the pros and cons. Your last paragraph is just a kafka trap. Someone providing a rational argument against an irrational move is somehow just wrong? Remember none of us are against increasing diversity. We just think a quota system will do more damage than good. Even without any kind of quota system in the US, board membership in most companies has organically risen as more and more women take up careers which will take them to these positions." have you answered their point? It wasn't about experience but degree... Tej CEO is an engineer by degree, then did consulting, before getting tech experience. I suspect alohabet still has many day 1 (or close) on its board. So has a bit of skew because of that (although that is a reason for not having quotas... Do you bin of the founders and those who took a gamble on a start up because it's 70pc male?) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job? This directive is aimed at board level representation in companies with over 250 staff. You don't need a cognate degree at board level. Board positions are not given out as freebies. It is given for people who have had experience in leadership roles related to the business. Most executive leadership structures will be comprised of multi-disciplinary individuals from finance, operations, HR, procurement, sales and marketing etc etc and at executive board levelany will individuals aren't vertically aligned in industry. You don't need to have done a computing degree to be on the board of a computing business. The whole point of board level appointments is to import expertise the business doesn't currently have, for example scaling a business internationally, mergers and acquisition expertise, stock market floatation etc. You're inadvertently demonstrating why proposed directives like this are necessary; because without them many businesses will focus their attention on justifying why diversity won't work for them rather than changing the culture of their business so that it does. A tech company will have a bigger number of board members who have background in tech leadership, many people with experience in financial leadership (another area where women are less than men but not as bad as tech background) and rarely some HR or marketing leaders. Look at Google's board. 6 of them have tech background and remaining 4 have finance background. Board members are there to make strategic decisions. A board without enough tech members on the team will have not have expertise to weigh a merger that happens between tech companies between the pros and cons. Your last paragraph is just a kafka trap. Someone providing a rational argument against an irrational move is somehow just wrong? Remember none of us are against increasing diversity. We just think a quota system will do more damage than good. Even without any kind of quota system in the US, board membership in most companies has organically risen as more and more women take up careers which will take them to these positions.have you answered their point? It wasn't about experience but degree... Tej CEO is an engineer by degree, then did consulting, before getting tech experience. I suspect alohabet still has many day 1 (or close) on its board. So has a bit of skew because of that (although that is a reason for not having quotas... Do you bin of the founders and those who took a gamble on a start up because it's 70pc male?)" Degrees help a bit. But experience matters a lot. Board members are elected based on track record in their other roles. As for founders being in the board, it's obvious that they have lot more experience in the business than anyone else and knows in and out of all problems the business has faced in the past and how they solved them. There are so many nuances like this. Just blindly enforcing quota at all companies without giving any heed to these nuances is nothing but a political move. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your last paragraph is just a kafka trap. Someone providing a rational argument against an irrational move is somehow just wrong? Remember none of us are against increasing diversity. We just think a quota system will do more damage than good. Even without any kind of quota system in the US, board membership in most companies has organically risen as more and more women take up careers which will take them to these positions." The 'organic' rise without quotas in the US is largely within businesses who have made a conscious effort to embed diversity and inclusive measures within their businesses. Similarly in the UK many large organisations in both the public and private sector have initiatives in place to incorporate key EDI principles and to address the challenges of the future. The processes they have gone through, the results, the pains and failures they've experienced and the lessons learned are starting to be revealed in research and studies that have been carried out over the last decade or so. Directives like the one mentioned in the original post refect the fact that many other businesses are still behind the curve. As for google, they're a good example of a business who have made diversity policy, appointing a head of diversity in 2005, and hired more women and black employees in 2021 than previous years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your last paragraph is just a kafka trap. Someone providing a rational argument against an irrational move is somehow just wrong? Remember none of us are against increasing diversity. We just think a quota system will do more damage than good. Even without any kind of quota system in the US, board membership in most companies has organically risen as more and more women take up careers which will take them to these positions. The 'organic' rise without quotas in the US is largely within businesses who have made a conscious effort to embed diversity and inclusive measures within their businesses. Similarly in the UK many large organisations in both the public and private sector have initiatives in place to incorporate key EDI principles and to address the challenges of the future. The processes they have gone through, the results, the pains and failures they've experienced and the lessons learned are starting to be revealed in research and studies that have been carried out over the last decade or so. Directives like the one mentioned in the original post refect the fact that many other businesses are still behind the curve. As for google, they're a good example of a business who have made diversity policy, appointing a head of diversity in 2005, and hired more women and black employees in 2021 than previous years. " The progress above has happened even without having to enforce quotas. Do you have any evidence or statistics on how many companies made "conscious effort", how many companies just hired whoever was best suited for the role and how many companies willfully ignored female candidates? You seem to have been happy with Google consciously trying to increase diversity. Yet their board only has one female member. That's actually a good example of why in spite of good intentions, it is hard to meet these quota requirements sometimes. Every company is different. They all have different requirements. Companies with good diversity always outperform companies without it. If you believe it, it doesn't make any sense for you to require governments to force diversity quotas. Because a more diverse company will outperform the less diverse companies and kick them out of market. The market will take care of itself without needing politicians who have no clue about individual businesses to poke their noses into them and creating unnecessary disruptions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your last paragraph is just a kafka trap. Someone providing a rational argument against an irrational move is somehow just wrong? Remember none of us are against increasing diversity. We just think a quota system will do more damage than good. Even without any kind of quota system in the US, board membership in most companies has organically risen as more and more women take up careers which will take them to these positions. The 'organic' rise without quotas in the US is largely within businesses who have made a conscious effort to embed diversity and inclusive measures within their businesses. Similarly in the UK many large organisations in both the public and private sector have initiatives in place to incorporate key EDI principles and to address the challenges of the future. The processes they have gone through, the results, the pains and failures they've experienced and the lessons learned are starting to be revealed in research and studies that have been carried out over the last decade or so. Directives like the one mentioned in the original post refect the fact that many other businesses are still behind the curve. As for google, they're a good example of a business who have made diversity policy, appointing a head of diversity in 2005, and hired more women and black employees in 2021 than previous years. " In sectors where the imbalance isnt so much a cultural factor and where companies such as google and apple have the pick of the crop and so leave the smaller pool of high performing female graduates in computer programming depleted. Let's see what has happened in the drive to get more women into sewerage work (99% male) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You stand by what you said about it being "normal" behaviour and "human nature" to provide aid and support in a prejudiced and bias manner to "people like us". Yet, for some reason, you appear to believe that "human nature" is different when it comes to employment. Yes. An act of charity is different from running economic activity. Just like Bill Gates donating 1/10th of his foundation money within US which is a developed country while there are so many other countries which need that money more. You are the one who, irrelevantly, tries to compare how you treat family to how you street people you don't know. I merely provided the word that describes giving family members a job over others; nepotism. You did not draw a parallel because it is inconvenient to compare the two. One that you seek to justify and one that you seek to claim is not a problem. Again. An act of charity is different from running a company. Who one donates to is none of other people's business. There are right wingers who would actually say that even nepotism while morally wrong shouldn't be illegal because in the end it's their own business and they have the rights to hire whoever they want. But I draw the line before that. But when it comes to charity, different people value different things. You have some view of what's important and what's not and you are absolutely right. You have an opinion of who should receive more money and think that's universally true. But it's not. Different people believe different issues are more important. I have never said that white men are "bad". You have literally made that up for drama. It is, actually, completely clear that they do overwhelmingly promote other white men from similar backgrounds unless made to do otherwise. There would be no discussion over quotas or diversity of that was not the case! You say that you never said that white men are bad. But then you continue saying that white men keep promoting fellow white men Aren't you alleging that they are racist and sexist? No excuses, lame or otherwise. South Asian men have found themselves in senior roles in a lot of tech companies because many of the founders of these companies were also South Asian men. The same thing is happening. When you start to look into the statistics you will find very high numbers of East Asians working in tech firms but very low levels of Board level representation. Maybe do some research before making such statements unless you want to lie outright. Only one out of 10 South Asian CEOs in Fortune 500 was the founder. Rest were appointed. Oh yes. Gender/ethnicity surveys show that Asian men make a lot more money on average than white men even in the US which is an unhinged free market compared to US. Why do you think those racist white men running all the companies pay more money to Asians? A more diverse group of people do avoid "group think" and are better able to navigate adverse economic events with better outcomes for their companies. Look at the data. Diversity has its advantages. I never denied that. But enforcing quota is more damaging than it provides any good. You seem to struggle with how Boards are filled. You don't need to have a coding background to be the Chief Financial Officer or Chief Marketing Officer or Chief Counsel or a large number of other executive roles in a tech company or any other. Yet, Boards made up of white, privileged men tend to find other white privileged men unless they are forced to do otherwise. No. I totally understand how board members are chosen. You are the one who is clutching straws here.A board is filled by people who can contribute to the business in a meaningful way. A tech company is not filled with software engineers. But tech knowledge is important in making decisions. So you need lot more people with tech background. The ability to report discrimination has been in place for decades and the requirement to publish it. How would you suggest that someone complains about another person being promoted over them or externally? "Encouragement" for women to take up STEM jobs has also been in place for years. Did you look at the stats for women leaving these professions over time? I have not argued against transparency, but unless there is some compulsion to do something about changing the percentages of employment, there is no reason to change. You just report it and, like you, shrug your shoulders and provide excuses and justifications for nothing changing. There are ways to report it. But it's bloody hard to prove it. That's why I am suggesting that interviews have to be recorded. Promoting evaluations and discussions have to be recorded. Once you put that and some punishment in place, corporates will be forced to do the right thing at least in fear being name shamed and losing money and managers will be scared of losing jobs. This is the compulsion that you ask for. Blindly going in and imposing a quota without thinking about the different problems each and every industry will place is lazy thinking. It's just a political move to keep certain groups of people happy that won't turn out well in the long run." You are claiming that "human nature" somehow changes between helping someone in need and someone you employ. This is completely inconsistent. It doesn't. You still favour those most like you. However, you seem to think that one circumstance should be accepted and one rejected. Again, completely inconsistent. Do you have any concept about unconsci0us bias? Have a read. It's not about being actively racist or biased, yet you keep throwing out your accusations to keep the discussion emotional. It is absolutely clear that white men have employed white men in senior positions. Are you denying it? Are you saying that it's just not happening and not a problem that need resolving? Nothing is being done without quotas being enforced either voluntarily or through legislation, although you are welcome to demonstrate where it has happened "naturally" or with "transparency"? Your "belief" about how companies "should" be run is your own, but the reality doesn't reflect what actually happens. All companies recruit much of their senior management externally and fail to look outside a narrow band. Again you keep saying "racist". Why keep telling me what I think when I am explicitly telling you otherwise? Why change the subject? We are talking about senior Board positions. That is the topic. You have complained about quotas, but still have not suggested an alternative other than measuring things. No compulsion to change. What does success look like from this transparency? So far nothing more than finding excuses for no change and it seems that as long as white or South Asian men are doing fine there's no problem to solve for you. Recording interviews? What does that tell you? Who judges who was better or not? "Forced to do" what "right thing" and by whom? You keep saying that the ratios are fine. There will not need to be more women on boards for decades because they do not have the correct training. In your opinion an CFO in a tech firm has to only have worked in tech firms. You also don't seem to want companies to be compelled to actually make any changes other than recording and reporting and then hope for the best due to "market forces" that have not led to any change. Why is a quota necessarily damaging if it forces companies to hire equally well qualified senior managers when they have not otherwise. I've already told you several times that voluntary and involuntary quotas have already driven the change to date, not "market forces". I didn't say that anything should be done "blindly". Again, stop making things up to sound more persuasive. Anyway, I'm bored now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job? This directive is aimed at board level representation in companies with over 250 staff. You don't need a cognate degree at board level. Board positions are not given out as freebies. It is given for people who have had experience in leadership roles related to the business. Most executive leadership structures will be comprised of multi-disciplinary individuals from finance, operations, HR, procurement, sales and marketing etc etc and at executive board levelany will individuals aren't vertically aligned in industry. You don't need to have done a computing degree to be on the board of a computing business. The whole point of board level appointments is to import expertise the business doesn't currently have, for example scaling a business internationally, mergers and acquisition expertise, stock market floatation etc. You're inadvertently demonstrating why proposed directives like this are necessary; because without them many businesses will focus their attention on justifying why diversity won't work for them rather than changing the culture of their business so that it does." Let's see if you have more patience than me | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your last paragraph is just a kafka trap. Someone providing a rational argument against an irrational move is somehow just wrong? Remember none of us are against increasing diversity. We just think a quota system will do more damage than good. Even without any kind of quota system in the US, board membership in most companies has organically risen as more and more women take up careers which will take them to these positions. The 'organic' rise without quotas in the US is largely within businesses who have made a conscious effort to embed diversity and inclusive measures within their businesses. Similarly in the UK many large organisations in both the public and private sector have initiatives in place to incorporate key EDI principles and to address the challenges of the future. The processes they have gone through, the results, the pains and failures they've experienced and the lessons learned are starting to be revealed in research and studies that have been carried out over the last decade or so. Directives like the one mentioned in the original post refect the fact that many other businesses are still behind the curve. As for google, they're a good example of a business who have made diversity policy, appointing a head of diversity in 2005, and hired more women and black employees in 2021 than previous years. In sectors where the imbalance isnt so much a cultural factor and where companies such as google and apple have the pick of the crop and so leave the smaller pool of high performing female graduates in computer programming depleted. Let's see what has happened in the drive to get more women into sewerage work (99% male)" Why not? That's part of the "encouragement" that keeps being discussed. On average female coders are more accurate and better disciplined in their coding than men. They are better tat their jobs bit there are fewer of them in senior positions. There are female fire"men" and dustbin "men" now when there were none before. That took legislation to change. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Severn Trent Water has in the last couple of years arrived at a position where more than half the board are women. Guess what? They also have a really proactive apprenticeship program to bring more women into the wastewater sector. Strives for equality are strives for equality for everyone, not just women, or other under represented groups. Most of the leading companies working in traditionally male dominated labour sectors that have been characterised by tough working conditions are seeking to change their cultures and bring more women into the sector. The 'why do women only want the top jobs not the tough jobs' argument is straight out of the Jordan Peterson notebook and doesn't reflect the reality." Does it not reflect reality? My experience has been that there’s far more attempts at equality at the higher end of things where the pay is good and the work is comfortable. I know there’s a push for more women in construction, but is that push serious? Is the push coming with the same attempts to make equality in those sectors legislated? And don’t take that as me disagreeing either. I’m just saying what I’ve seen. You might show me something I’ve not. But with nearly 8 years working across countless sites, I’ve yet to see a single women on the tools. In the offices yes, and very rarely I’ll see one in management/supervisor that’s not in the office, a more site based role. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I spent 15 years working in the construction supply chain and saw an increasing number of women doing site based roles, from labouring to plant operator etc. Of course, it was still a very small number but increasing, and mainly with larger main contractors who had woken up to the idea that skill shortages weren't being alleviated by continuing to only accommodate (mainly white) men. And yes, of course there is more current emphasis on addressing equality in technical and senior leadership positions, but you don't change industry/company culture quickly from the bottom. " Do you think in the future we might see a legislative attempt at bringing more equality to these sectors? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You are claiming that "human nature" somehow changes between helping someone in need and someone you employ. " Human nature remains the same. An employer employing a less qualified person because of bias affects the employer in a bad way. There is no incentive for them to do that. Then there is a question of when and how a government must intefere to eliminate bias. If a woman says she will only marry someone from her own religion, is it bias? Yes. Should a government interfere? Absolutely not. Same with charity. Who one helps with one's own money is none of others business. Employment is something that government can interfere in my opinion because it is a pillar of economic activity. I just disagree on the "how" part of it. " Do you have any concept about unconsci0us bias? Have a read. It's not about being actively racist or biased, yet you keep throwing out your accusations to keep the discussion emotional. It is absolutely clear that white men have employed white men in senior positions. Are you denying it? Are you saying that it's just not happening and not a problem that need resolving? " I have read a lot about unconsci0us bias. It's also one of the driving factors behind racism. I have thrown the statistics to show you the reality of the situation. Bias could have played a role. But there are much much bigger factors than bias. Unlike you, I don't immediately jump onto the bandwagon and shout racism/sexism without trying to understand the situation. " Nothing is being done without quotas being enforced either voluntarily or through legislation, although you are welcome to demonstrate where it has happened "naturally" or with "transparency"? " Most fortune 500 companies are in the US where there aren't such laws to enforce quotas. Yet they have diversity departments working hard to increase diversity and they also publish the diversity numbers. Do some research. " Your "belief" about how companies "should" be run is your own, but the reality doesn't reflect what actually happens. All companies recruit much of their senior management externally and fail to look outside a narrow band. " It's not my belief about how it should be run. I am explaining how companies are run right now with evidence to show that achieving quotas is logically impossible. " Why change the subject? We are talking about senior Board positions. That is the topic. " This is you going around in circles again. I am tired of giving a recap of every conversation thread. Feel free to scroll up and read why are talking about this subject. " You have complained about quotas, but still have not suggested an alternative other than measuring things. No compulsion to change. What does success look like from this transparency? So far nothing more than finding excuses for no change and it seems that as long as white or South Asian men are doing fine there's no problem to solve for you. Recording interviews? What does that tell you? Who judges who was better or not? "Forced to do" what "right thing" and by whom? You keep saying that the ratios are fine. " I have provided an alternative. Do you even read before replying? I have answered every question you asked in spite of you going all around in circles and I am the one who is making excuses?
I told you how companies can be fined and forced to sack the one indulging in discrimination. Most companies have put in a lot of effort to make the interview and promotion process as objective as possible. It's not hard to set up a watch dog just like the EU has privacy watch dogs for how companies and employees handle user data.
Market forces have led to a change. Go look at a graph of diversity numbers in each sector. It keeps rising like how it should. Acting childish and asking for 40% increase is senseless.
" There will not need to be more women on boards for decades because they do not have the correct training. " So the solution for that is to force them to take women in spite of not having the training? " In your opinion an CFO in a tech firm has to only have worked in tech firms. " Never said that. You are imagining stuff. I am talking about expertise in board. Google has about 6 tech and 5 finance people on board. Board members are usually highly experienced. So they must have completed their degrees at least 15 years back. If you look at both the fields at that time, women didn't really account for much of that. Even now, it's only 16% women in tech. " You also don't seem to want companies to be compelled to actually make any changes other than recording and reporting and then hope for the best due to "market forces" that have not led to any change. " See above. Most companies are already doing it. " Why is a quota necessarily damaging if it forces companies to hire equally well qualified senior managers when they have not otherwise. " Tired of going around in circles now. Read that 16% women in tech statistics again. You cannot find as many well qualified senior managers. " I didn't say that anything should be done "blindly". Again, stop making things up to sound more persuasive. Anyway, I'm bored now." Bored of going around in circles and asking same questions repeatedly even after getting answers for them because they go against the ideology that has blinded you to facts? I can understand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job? This directive is aimed at board level representation in companies with over 250 staff. You don't need a cognate degree at board level. Board positions are not given out as freebies. It is given for people who have had experience in leadership roles related to the business. Most executive leadership structures will be comprised of multi-disciplinary individuals from finance, operations, HR, procurement, sales and marketing etc etc and at executive board levelany will individuals aren't vertically aligned in industry. You don't need to have done a computing degree to be on the board of a computing business. The whole point of board level appointments is to import expertise the business doesn't currently have, for example scaling a business internationally, mergers and acquisition expertise, stock market floatation etc. You're inadvertently demonstrating why proposed directives like this are necessary; because without them many businesses will focus their attention on justifying why diversity won't work for them rather than changing the culture of their business so that it does. Let's see if you have more patience than me "At least she doesn't go around in circles like you do | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job? This directive is aimed at board level representation in companies with over 250 staff. You don't need a cognate degree at board level. Board positions are not given out as freebies. It is given for people who have had experience in leadership roles related to the business. Most executive leadership structures will be comprised of multi-disciplinary individuals from finance, operations, HR, procurement, sales and marketing etc etc and at executive board levelany will individuals aren't vertically aligned in industry. You don't need to have done a computing degree to be on the board of a computing business. The whole point of board level appointments is to import expertise the business doesn't currently have, for example scaling a business internationally, mergers and acquisition expertise, stock market floatation etc. You're inadvertently demonstrating why proposed directives like this are necessary; because without them many businesses will focus their attention on justifying why diversity won't work for them rather than changing the culture of their business so that it does. Let's see if you have more patience than me
At least she doesn't go around in circles like you do "She wasn't telling me that I was wrong either 
She's smarter than me though, because she isn't addressing you directly and losing the will to live as a consequence  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I spent 15 years working in the construction supply chain and saw an increasing number of women doing site based roles, from labouring to plant operator etc. Of course, it was still a very small number but increasing, and mainly with larger main contractors who had woken up to the idea that skill shortages weren't being alleviated by continuing to only accommodate (mainly white) men. And yes, of course there is more current emphasis on addressing equality in technical and senior leadership positions, but you don't change industry/company culture quickly from the bottom. Do you think in the future we might see a legislative attempt at bringing more equality to these sectors?" I doubt it. A lot of companies are already starting to turn in that direction, not necessarily because it's the right thing to do, but because they've had to change their criterion for hiring and development to address critical skill shortages and stagnant business practices. Soft targets like the EU directive would help accelerate that development , but I can't see a point at which a company who demonstrated good EDI policy was penalised for not achieving x target, and the ones who can't show good policies and initiatives have got way bigger problems ahead of them. One of the key drivers for diversity policy is changing population demographics. Companies who are discriminatory are increasingly going to find themselves unable to attract a workforce they need to be sustainable in business, let alone grow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I spent 15 years working in the construction supply chain and saw an increasing number of women doing site based roles, from labouring to plant operator etc. Of course, it was still a very small number but increasing, and mainly with larger main contractors who had woken up to the idea that skill shortages weren't being alleviated by continuing to only accommodate (mainly white) men. And yes, of course there is more current emphasis on addressing equality in technical and senior leadership positions, but you don't change industry/company culture quickly from the bottom. Do you think in the future we might see a legislative attempt at bringing more equality to these sectors? I doubt it. A lot of companies are already starting to turn in that direction, not necessarily because it's the right thing to do, but because they've had to change their criterion for hiring and development to address critical skill shortages and stagnant business practices. Soft targets like the EU directive would help accelerate that development , but I can't see a point at which a company who demonstrated good EDI policy was penalised for not achieving x target, and the ones who can't show good policies and initiatives have got way bigger problems ahead of them. One of the key drivers for diversity policy is changing population demographics. Companies who are discriminatory are increasingly going to find themselves unable to attract a workforce they need to be sustainable in business, let alone grow." Still waiting to hear how we address the lack of women working in sewerage. Where do we pull them from? Which sector exactly? Do we take midwives and say more men there and more women down the sewers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Reading through some of the comments here, I'm slightly puzzled as to what some think quotas actually mean or why they're concerned about the implications. In practical terms quotas will just focus a business on being more inclusive and diverse in their hiring practices,and inthe way they develop and assess employees when it comes to promotiom internally, which will also make them more attractive to underrepresented groups. This isn't about forcing business to hire under qualified women to meet a quota; it's about ensuring parity and equality so that perfectly qualified women aren't being overlooked in favour of male colleagues, or external male hires. Incidentally this isn't new, and a number of countries who are more progressive when it comes to gender equality found that businesses were easily able to meet the targets within the first year. Companies with diverse boards outperform those without them, and initiatives like this are going to become more common. It is hard to follow quota restrictions when supply pipeline is different for different gender/ethnicities. Last year only 16% of students taking computer science degrees were women whereas it's the opposite for nursing. How can you enforce quota in hiring when people when the percentage of different groups of people with a degree qualification needed for the job is massively skewed for each type of job? This directive is aimed at board level representation in companies with over 250 staff. You don't need a cognate degree at board level. Board positions are not given out as freebies. It is given for people who have had experience in leadership roles related to the business. Most executive leadership structures will be comprised of multi-disciplinary individuals from finance, operations, HR, procurement, sales and marketing etc etc and at executive board levelany will individuals aren't vertically aligned in industry. You don't need to have done a computing degree to be on the board of a computing business. The whole point of board level appointments is to import expertise the business doesn't currently have, for example scaling a business internationally, mergers and acquisition expertise, stock market floatation etc. You're inadvertently demonstrating why proposed directives like this are necessary; because without them many businesses will focus their attention on justifying why diversity won't work for them rather than changing the culture of their business so that it does. Let's see if you have more patience than me
At least she doesn't go around in circles like you do
She wasn't telling me that I was wrong either
She's smarter than me though, because she isn't addressing you directly and losing the will to live as a consequence "Nice way to pat yourself on your back | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I spent 15 years working in the construction supply chain and saw an increasing number of women doing site based roles, from labouring to plant operator etc. Of course, it was still a very small number but increasing, and mainly with larger main contractors who had woken up to the idea that skill shortages weren't being alleviated by continuing to only accommodate (mainly white) men. And yes, of course there is more current emphasis on addressing equality in technical and senior leadership positions, but you don't change industry/company culture quickly from the bottom. Do you think in the future we might see a legislative attempt at bringing more equality to these sectors? I doubt it. A lot of companies are already starting to turn in that direction, not necessarily because it's the right thing to do, but because they've had to change their criterion for hiring and development to address critical skill shortages and stagnant business practices. Soft targets like the EU directive would help accelerate that development , but I can't see a point at which a company who demonstrated good EDI policy was penalised for not achieving x target, and the ones who can't show good policies and initiatives have got way bigger problems ahead of them. One of the key drivers for diversity policy is changing population demographics. Companies who are discriminatory are increasingly going to find themselves unable to attract a workforce they need to be sustainable in business, let alone grow. Still waiting to hear how we address the lack of women working in sewerage. Where do we pull them from? Which sector exactly? Do we take midwives and say more men there and more women down the sewers?" the question here is more cultural. The men in sewers could choose to work elsewhere I assume but don't. Why is that ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I spent 15 years working in the construction supply chain and saw an increasing number of women doing site based roles, from labouring to plant operator etc. Of course, it was still a very small number but increasing, and mainly with larger main contractors who had woken up to the idea that skill shortages weren't being alleviated by continuing to only accommodate (mainly white) men. And yes, of course there is more current emphasis on addressing equality in technical and senior leadership positions, but you don't change industry/company culture quickly from the bottom. Do you think in the future we might see a legislative attempt at bringing more equality to these sectors? I doubt it. A lot of companies are already starting to turn in that direction, not necessarily because it's the right thing to do, but because they've had to change their criterion for hiring and development to address critical skill shortages and stagnant business practices. Soft targets like the EU directive would help accelerate that development , but I can't see a point at which a company who demonstrated good EDI policy was penalised for not achieving x target, and the ones who can't show good policies and initiatives have got way bigger problems ahead of them. One of the key drivers for diversity policy is changing population demographics. Companies who are discriminatory are increasingly going to find themselves unable to attract a workforce they need to be sustainable in business, let alone grow. Still waiting to hear how we address the lack of women working in sewerage. Where do we pull them from? Which sector exactly? Do we take midwives and say more men there and more women down the sewers?" I've already addressed this. If you work in that sector then you should have paid more attention to industry news in the last 10 years. If you don't, you've picked a bad example. The fact you've picked midwives is interesting though. Perhaps have a think about early childhood imposition of stereotypical gender roles through play, and why men don't tend to work as midwives and women don't tend to work in construction? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I spent 15 years working in the construction supply chain and saw an increasing number of women doing site based roles, from labouring to plant operator etc. Of course, it was still a very small number but increasing, and mainly with larger main contractors who had woken up to the idea that skill shortages weren't being alleviated by continuing to only accommodate (mainly white) men. And yes, of course there is more current emphasis on addressing equality in technical and senior leadership positions, but you don't change industry/company culture quickly from the bottom. Do you think in the future we might see a legislative attempt at bringing more equality to these sectors? I doubt it. A lot of companies are already starting to turn in that direction, not necessarily because it's the right thing to do, but because they've had to change their criterion for hiring and development to address critical skill shortages and stagnant business practices. Soft targets like the EU directive would help accelerate that development , but I can't see a point at which a company who demonstrated good EDI policy was penalised for not achieving x target, and the ones who can't show good policies and initiatives have got way bigger problems ahead of them. One of the key drivers for diversity policy is changing population demographics. Companies who are discriminatory are increasingly going to find themselves unable to attract a workforce they need to be sustainable in business, let alone grow. Still waiting to hear how we address the lack of women working in sewerage. Where do we pull them from? Which sector exactly? Do we take midwives and say more men there and more women down the sewers?" Nice diversion | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
)
Why Quotas Are Unlikely To Be The Most Effective Way Of Diversifying The Boardroom
Deloitte
Gender quotas: differentiation through diversity
McKinsie
Corporate diversity: If you don’t measure it, it won’t get done
The Conversation (if you deliberately do a crap job of diver
Diversity quotas will only lead to token appointments, doing more harm than good | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
