Can you even avoid affirmative action employers anymore? 79

[WARose]

I had a buddy talk me into applying to the same place he's working....and I take a look at the place later (nothing like looking after you leap)....and in a company that's 90% male....they've got women in just about ALL the lead positions. I know at least 2 of them.....and they are nowhere near as qualified as some of the other people there.

Is there even a way to avoid this now? (Except at the smaller companies.) I am not anti-female in any way....but this sort of thing has resulted in chaos everywhere I've been that had it.

 

[DrZoidberWoop]

"Most people are not diehards, so given the apparent atmosphere of sexism and racism down the road, why bother to try at all?"

People who are not anti-fragile have no place in cut-throat, competitive, fields.

In my opinion, ideological arguments about the equity of a given domestic workforce pale in comparison to the problems currently arising from the increased outsourcing of STEM work to low-cost, global, locations.

 

[IRstuff]

Then you basically admit that merit has no bearing on promotions.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[phamENG]

IRstuff - that's a good and fair point and I agree with it. We need a way of elevating people now who were negatively served by the 'system' to begin with. That 1) helps them and their communities and 2) provides role models for younger generations who are now being enabled and encouraged in ways they may not have been previously. BUT...I don't like the idea of giving somebody a position just because we need to meet a quota. That gives you this thread. It's damaging to productive discussions about equality and diversity, and gives people a good negative talking point and place to put all of the blame.

AA was put in place to fix a problem. There have been several studies that show that it has provided demonstrable results on a large scale - the stats for women and racial minorities in education and the workplace have increased dramatically, and in the early years the rates in those sectors subject to punishment if they failed to take affirmative action were much higher in sectors not subject to the same penalties. Most of the arguments against it have focused on a few anecdotes and a moral, anti-reverse-discrimination core to their case.

I can appreciate both camps. There was (and, to an extent, still is) a problem with discrimination in hiring. So requiring affirmative action to correct makes sense. I think the need to force people to realize that people of color, women, the disabled, etc. are capable of doing these jobs is less of a problem today than it was in the 50s and 60s. There are still issues with equality, but the crux of this discussion has been diversity and AA, so I'll keep it there. So now we still have these rules that are fixing a problem, and on a national identity level that starts to create a problem. It says that in 60+ years our nation has failed to fix this problem. That hurts. A lot. So on some level, removing this rule and saying we don't need it anymore is a way of saying 'we've done it!' and moving on. That probably isn't a conscious consideration in most, but I suspect it helps to direct the undercurrents of the discussion. Throw on top of that the fact that companies have taken affirmative action and it has worked, it feels more and more like those hired because of it are taking undue advantage of a system that penalizes other qualified people. And taken in isolation, as I did for a long time, it's easy to agree with that and want to rip AA apart. BUT...the problem isn't completely solved. It's helped a small slice of the under-represented population from the mid to late 20th century, but there are still huge disparities in our society that AA was supposed to address. And that gets back to my interest in earlier interventions to ensure kids have an opportunity.

So we need to end AA as soon as we can...but 'can' is a difficult word to agree on. If we do it too early, we jeopardize the effects of the newer programs to improve things earlier in the K-12 range. End it too late, and we drive a wedge even further between the disparate parts of our electorate that seem so intent on destroying one another...

 

[IRstuff]

People continue to blame AA, but there are few companies that would sacrifice their bottom line for the sake of AA by hiring incompetent people. They have no need to do so, nor would their stockholders agree to that. The first quarter of dismal results would quickly change both incompetent management and the board that hired them. Roughly 20 years since there was even a female CEO of a Fortune500 company and 20 years later, we've made a "record" of having 8% female CEOs.

https://www.statista.com/chart/13995/female-ceos-in-fortune-500-companies/

And despite seemingly misogynistic rants, more women in management appear to be beneficial to the bottom line

https://www.thebalance.com/do-companies-with-female-executives-perform-better-4586443

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[WARose]

People continue to blame AA, but there are few companies that would sacrifice their bottom line for the sake of AA by hiring incompetent people. They have no need to do so, nor would their stockholders agree to that. The first quarter of dismal results would quickly change both incompetent management and the board that hired them. Roughly 20 years since there was even a female CEO of a Fortune500 company and 20 years later, we've made a "record" of having 8% female CEOs.

Logic isn't one of your strengths is it?

I'll let you figure out the problem with those statements.

 

[IRstuff]

If misogynists haven't limited the supply of talented women that could be CEOs, that might make your logic work

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[WARose]

If misogynists haven't limited the supply of talented women that could be CEOs, that might make your logic work

The problem isn't my logic: it's yours. Saying "few companies that would sacrifice their bottom line for the sake of AA by hiring incompetent people".....and then turning around and making the point only 8% of CEOs are female?

That's about as misogynistic as it gets.

 

[phamENG]

WARose - that's not how I interpret his statement. I see where you're going, but I think you're inadvertently making a false equivalency. The hiring of incompetent people and the ascendancy of women to top leadership roles aren't the same thing. He's arguing two separate points.

1) The kind of dedication to AA and perceived quotas that leads to widespread hiring of incompetent people is financial suicide for private firms.
2) The ability to climb the ladder once hired can be hampered by discriminatory practices regardless of your qualifications.

(I generally agree...though it's not always suicide. I think there are outliers as some have mentioned before that can fit into niche contract positions and attract a lot of work with limited competition due to well intended diversity goals for government contract allocations. Not as widespread as some believe, I'm sure, but something to be considered nonetheless.)

 

[WARose]

WARose - that's not how I interpret his statement. I see where you're going, but I think you're inadvertently making a false equivalency. The hiring of incompetent people and the ascendancy of women to top leadership roles aren't the same thing. He's arguing two separate points.

I'm not the one (subconsciously) calling women incompetent.....he is.

But it is worthwhile to note how people like this really think.

 

[phamENG]

I'm not the one (subconsciously) calling women incompetent

I'm quite certain I didn't say, imply, or at any time (either before, during, or after the writing of that statement) think you were.

I was just trying to bring attention to the fact that the attacks you guys were throwing back and forth were almost certainly based on misconceptions of each other, and what could be a productive conversation between professionals with divergent opinions on a topic that impacts how our profession(s) operate was devolving into a name calling session that belongs in the seediest corners of twitter.

I guess I'm too naive to think that people can talk to each other anymore. C'est la vie.

 

[WARose]

I'm quite certain I didn't say, imply, or at any time (either before, during, or after the writing of that statement) think you were.

And I didn't say you did.

 

[phamENG]

WARose - then I apologize for my misunderstanding. To correct it, what was the purpose of quoting my statement explaining how I thought you misunderstood him and then what appears to be a defensive statement to oppose a statement that wasn't made? I think I may have missed something? (I realize that a certain reading of this could make me sound like a smart a$$...and in many cases that could probably be a fair description of me...but not this one.)

 

[hokie66]

I read phamENG's dissertation, and found the most incisive thing, and the thing with which I most agree, was this:

"I don't think inclusiveness and diversity is really a hot issue - with the exception of racists and sexists..." He carried on, and that is not his meaning, but I would have stopped there. Affirmative action is all about racism and sexism.

 

[phamENG]

hokie - fair enough. I guess all I can say is thank you for clarifying up front that you were taking my words out of context. Most wouldn't be so kind.

 

[WARose]

WARose - then I apologize for my misunderstanding. To correct it, what was the purpose of quoting my statement explaining how I thought you misunderstood him and then what appears to be a defensive statement to oppose a statement that wasn't made?

I'm not really interesting in playing semantics, games, or whatever. What I am saying is as plain as it gets. And by the way, just a update from the OP (to further demonstrate what I am talking about): I finally (today) got a interview with these people cancelled. I've been trying to do it since Tuesday of last week. (Unreal.)

Yeah, I know: July 4th right? Well, to me at least, that doesn't cut it. When I was a section/discipline lead (at some of the large EPC outfits I mentioned.....before they went haywire with this stuff) I was checking my e-mail/voicemail every day. We are talking July the 4th, Christmas, or in the friggin' Grand Canyon on Thanksgiving. (Well, more accurately on the rim as I have always had trouble sending/getting anything once you get in.) Same with my bosses (department heads and so on). For somebody to go a week (especially a department head) with not checking anything is just nuts to me. Not even a auto reply set up. Cuckoo.

And I can just imagine the excuses I am going to hear in reply (this ought to be good for at least 20 more posts here ): that couldn't happen in a company without AA?....[insert a anecdote about something similar supposedly happening at a all white male company here], and so on.

But you can talk all you want.....I see the differences.....and they ain't good.

 

[hokie66]

phamENG,
I was trying not to be kind to the racists and sexists among us, not you. They know who they are, but enjoying pointing the finger in any direction but inward.

 

[phamENG]

WARose - nor am I. I'm trying to understand what you're saying. I haven't been on this forum all that long in the grand scheme of things, but I certainly recognize lots of names and I've come respect yours on the technical forum for structural engineering (hokie66's, too, I might add). We clearly don't agree entirely on the issue at hand here, though there is some common ground. I'm interested in carrying on the conversation and, as I said, understanding what you mean. I'm genuinely confused by that exchange and was hoping to figure out what you meant.

Perhaps I was mistaken by the intent of the post. Was it intended to be a discussion or just venting about the subject? If the latter, no worries - sometimes it's good to get things off your chest and, if so, I apologize for following it in another direction.

hokie66 - if I read that correctly, we're on the same page. No hidden meaning behind my words. Lots of people would have taken it out of context and not said anything else. So thanks for being clear and up front.

 

[IRstuff]

Seriously? This is your writing

does it make any sense to have a set of all-female leads? If you think that happened by their capabilities: you are fooling yourself.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[WARose]

Seriously? This is your writing
Quote:
does it make any sense to have a set of all-female leads? If you think that happened by their capabilities: you are fooling yourself.

Thanks for cutting off my quote. Here is the full quote:

Speaking of ignorant statements: in a profession dominated by men (in the neighborhood of 80-90%, despite whatever your alma mater graduated recently).....does it make any sense to have a set of all-female leads? If you think that happened by their capabilities: you are fooling yourself.

And I stand by it. Read my last post....a department head who doesn't check her e-mail once over a full week (and doesn't even have auto reply set up)?

In the world I'm from....you gotta put that one in the WTF file.

 

[WARose]

Sounds like WARose doesn't have a fullfiling life and looking for any reason to blame their perceived failures in life on women and/or POC.

Yeah I am such a failure in life I have people approaching me to work for them. (I have two additional companies coming at me now. And by the way, I own a LLC.)

You and anyone in this thread who is pandering to you (i.e. trying to have an intelligent discussion / stroking your fragile white male ego) are a complete waste in the engineering profession. Not surprised you didn't get an interview.

Speaking of failure.....did you miss the fact I canceled this interview? (In addition to missing the fact a friend asked me to apply to this place in the first place?)

Hopefully your engineering skills are better than your reading skills.